Jeff Morris wrote:

Some clarification is needed. Do we have an original link?

December 2nd Lloyd's List.

Maybe Google the German study for online info.

Rick

Simple Simon wrote:

Do you agree with me that such a monster wave is more
likely to damage a large ship than a cockle shell that
will likely ride up and over with little or no damage?

On what do you base your silly assumption, Nil? If you had ever seen a
30 meter wave you probably die of fear but assuming the worst and you
lived you wouldn't need to ask.

Your little insult to cockle shells would be reduced to a debris field
of plastic waste rather than the offensive agglomeration it is now.

Rick

You are about as stupid as the other motor boat captains
who continue to plague this group even though I have pointed
out time and time again how unwelcome they all are.

Big rogue waves are not necessarily breaking waves. You
should realize this. Don't you even recall the fact that in
the open ocean, off soundings tsunamis are not even noticeable
from the deck of a ship or a sailboat. This is because even
thought they may be 100 feet tall they have such a long
wave length that are more like the rise and fall of the tide
than a wave.

Not all rogue waves are like you poor motorboat schmucks
envision. You idiots watch movies like the "Perfect Storm"
and see some stupid fishing boat attempting to motor up
the face of a huge breaking wave and think that is how
it is done. Any fool knows that is NOT how it is done in
a sailboat.

Any ballasted sailboat has a much greater ability to remain
upright on the face of such a rogue wave than a motorboat
without such an advantageous stability curve.

Now, back to the question of big ships being more damaged
by these freak waves. Yes, they are. They can be stove in
because they present far more area to water crashing down
on the structure and they are not designed to survive such
forces. Small vessels have smaller surface area and only
need to withstand much smaller forces. If this were not
the case one would not see so many unbroken light bulbs
littering the beaches where such fragile items have landed
after voyages of thousands of sea miles.

Try using your head for something else than growing lice
and dandruff.

S.Simon





"Rick" wrote in message hlink.net...
Simple Simon wrote:

Do you agree with me that such a monster wave is more
likely to damage a large ship than a cockle shell that
will likely ride up and over with little or no damage?

On what do you base your silly assumption, Nil? If you had ever seen a
30 meter wave you probably die of fear but assuming the worst and you
lived you wouldn't need to ask.

Your little insult to cockle shells would be reduced to a debris field
of plastic waste rather than the offensive agglomeration it is now.

Rick

Funny, we don't hear Neal talk of his ''next boat'', or call his Coronado a
''stepping stone''. He seems quite satisfied with the boat he OWNS.


Scotty
S/V Lisa Marie
Balt. MD USA


"****Head" wrote


When Neal types such things it only makes it even more clear that he's no
sailor.
Add to that the following: That he chose one of the cheapest boats around
and
you get the whole picture. A real sailor would have chosen a Cape Dory 30,
any
alberg or Bristol or even an old Pearson Wanderer. All better in every way
and
proven designs. Instead he lives on a tiny cramped vessel known to be poor
in
nearly every regard anc quite comely as well.

RB

Of more interest is the wave period (length) as a measure of steepness.
Doesn't matter if it's a huge wave as long as it isn't steep and/or
breaking. Just a bulge in the ocean, who cares????

PDW

In article ,
The_navigator© wrote:

That's interesting beacuse most of the static wave height measurements
suggested a rather low frequency of monster waves. Over what time scale
and area was this measurement?

Cheers MC

Rick wrote:

Monster waves boost for sea perils defence

Research says freak waves more frequent than previously thought, writes
James Brewer December 02 2003 Lloyds List

"SHIPS are far more at peril from monster ocean waves than many experts
have previously realised, according to new research. Growing evidence
that waves of more than 30 m in height can occur randomly ..."

"During a three-week radar satellite study, the German Aerospace Centre
found a total of 10 monster waves around the world, ranging from 26 m to
30 m in height."

"It concluded: 'If the satellite data is right, it looks as if freak
waves occur in the deep ocean far more frequently than the traditional
linear model would predict.'"

Your are perfectly safe, Nil. Since they tend to occur far more
frequently in the deep ocean, odds are overwhelming that you will never
see one.

Rick

It's true. He's one of many here that love their boat. While many of us
would like something different, it's a bit like comparing a pretty girl
on the street to your partner, she may may not be quite a 'luxurious' or
'fast' but she's all you really need and you love her -even for her
imperfections.

Cheers MC

Scott Vernon wrote:

Funny, we don't hear Neal talk of his ''next boat'', or call his Coronado a
''stepping stone''. He seems quite satisfied with the boat he OWNS.


Scotty
S/V Lisa Marie
Balt. MD USA


"****Head" wrote


When Neal types such things it only makes it even more clear that he's no
sailor.
Add to that the following: That he chose one of the cheapest boats around

and

you get the whole picture. A real sailor would have chosen a Cape Dory 30,

any

alberg or Bristol or even an old Pearson Wanderer. All better in every way

and

proven designs. Instead he lives on a tiny cramped vessel known to be poor

in

nearly every regard anc quite comely as well.

RB

Simple Simon wrote:
Do you agree with me that such a monster wave is more
likely to damage a large ship than a cockle shell that
will likely ride up and over with little or no damage?

S.Simon

No .... it depends entirely on the circumstances, when it hits .....
height; breaking or not; angle it hits you; speed you're making at the
time; basic stability .... so on and so forth.

otn

Funny, we don't hear Neal talk of his ''next boat'', or call his Coronado a
''stepping stone''. He seems quite satisfied with the boat he OWNS.


When it comes to loyalty to a boat, a true sailor is only as faithful as their
options.
Scotty and Neal have none.

RB

If it were a trochoidal wave in deep ocean its velocity would be huge
and possibly approaching supersonic speeds (I think). No, I think it
must be due to superposition of shorter waves.

Cheers MC

Peter Wiley wrote:

Of more interest is the wave period (length) as a measure of steepness.
Doesn't matter if it's a huge wave as long as it isn't steep and/or
breaking. Just a bulge in the ocean, who cares????

PDW

In article ,
The_navigator© wrote:


That's interesting beacuse most of the static wave height measurements
suggested a rather low frequency of monster waves. Over what time scale
and area was this measurement?

Cheers MC

Rick wrote:


Monster waves boost for sea perils defence

Research says freak waves more frequent than previously thought, writes
James Brewer December 02 2003 Lloyds List

"SHIPS are far more at peril from monster ocean waves than many experts
have previously realised, according to new research. Growing evidence
that waves of more than 30 m in height can occur randomly ..."

"During a three-week radar satellite study, the German Aerospace Centre
found a total of 10 monster waves around the world, ranging from 26 m to
30 m in height."

"It concluded: 'If the satellite data is right, it looks as if freak
waves occur in the deep ocean far more frequently than the traditional
linear model would predict.'"

Your are perfectly safe, Nil. Since they tend to occur far more
frequently in the deep ocean, odds are overwhelming that you will never
see one.

Rick

Funny, we don't hear Neal talk of his ''next boat'', or call his Coronado a
''stepping stone''. He seems quite satisfied with the boat he OWNS.

Hey, look! A Siedleman owner comes to the defense of a Coronado owner!

RB