My last recollection of a reported "monster wave" was the one which hit
the liner Michaelangelo (or it's sister), and stove in a good portion of
the forward side of the house.
From reports, it's not necessarily the size of the wave (30m is not
common but not unheard of in open ocean storms) but the fact that it may
appear during an otherwise calm condition, unexpectedly when the ship is
least apt to be at a speed and/or heading to deal with it.

otn

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


"otnmbrd" wrote in message hlink.net...
My last recollection of a reported "monster wave" was the one which hit
the liner Michaelangelo (or it's sister), and stove in a good portion of
the forward side of the house.
From reports, it's not necessarily the size of the wave (30m is not
common but not unheard of in open ocean storms) but the fact that it may
appear during an otherwise calm condition, unexpectedly when the ship is
least apt to be at a speed and/or heading to deal with it.

otn

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

comments interspersed:

Simple Simon wrote:
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.

I think you'll find that a Tsunami, doesn't gain height until it
approaches shoaling water, but agree, that a "rogue" is not necessarily
a breaking 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.

BG I don't need Hollywood to show me 30cm waves .... been dere done
dat, and normally, if we are in a storm like that we will endeavor to be
taking those seas on the bow, rather than head on, but a rogue doesn't
always give you the time to set this up (sometimes, head on is all you
can do BG and you're happy to be able to do that).

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.

G now your an expert on stability? I doubt it.

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.

Your general lack of experience is showing again .... stick to small
sailboats in Tampa Bay.

otn

I'm not the one bragging about being aboard boats that
get structure stove in by large waves am I? I've sailed
up and down many a fifty footer with no problem. Any and
all structure aboard my boat is still intact and shows
no wave damage.

I'll admit I've never even seen a hundred-footer in person
but that's because I'm smart enough to avoid them. Can
you claim the same?

S.Simon


"otnmbrd" wrote in message hlink.net...
comments interspersed:

Simple Simon wrote:
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.

I think you'll find that a Tsunami, doesn't gain height until it
approaches shoaling water, but agree, that a "rogue" is not necessarily
a breaking 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.

BG I don't need Hollywood to show me 30cm waves .... been dere done
dat, and normally, if we are in a storm like that we will endeavor to be
taking those seas on the bow, rather than head on, but a rogue doesn't
always give you the time to set this up (sometimes, head on is all you
can do BG and you're happy to be able to do that).

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.

G now your an expert on stability? I doubt it.

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.

Your general lack of experience is showing again .... stick to small
sailboats in Tampa Bay.

otn

BG Comments interspersed .... I see you didn't want to touch the
subjects of tsunami's and stability. Your lack of knowledge and
inexperience showing again?

Simple Simon wrote:
I'm not the one bragging about being aboard boats that
get structure stove in by large waves am I?

Didn't see any bragging on my part, and considering the potential for
damage to that ship, what she sustained and survived would be considered
acceptable.

I've sailed
up and down many a fifty footer with no problem. Any and
all structure aboard my boat is still intact and shows
no wave damage.

Doubt you've ever seen a 50 footer. You haven't done enough deep sea
sailing. If by chance you had seen even a 30 footer ..... we all get lucky.

I'll admit I've never even seen a hundred-footer in person
but that's because I'm smart enough to avoid them. Can
you claim the same?

Once again, your lack of experience showing. If you go to sea long
enough, where you are trying to get from point A to point B, you are
bound to run into conditions that mean you will have to deal with some
serious weather. You can avoid some things, but others you just have to
deal with.
I remember a picture which was making the rounds of the web, showing a
tanker in heavy weather, going to Alaska. I have been Master of that
tanker, on that run, and seen the same .... sometimes you are stuck
dealing with what you are dealt, and in the case of a rogue, you
generally have no fore warning, which means, in your case, odds on, we
wouldn't be having this discussion if you had ever run across one.
BG Try as you might, Neal, you will never see the conditions, I've
seen.... and to be honest, I hope you don't.

otn

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