"Joe" wrote in message
om...
Were measured at 55 foot last night off the coast of Pensacola.

That's the biggest waves I've ever heard of in the Gulf of Mexico.
30 footers are not to uncommon.

A 55 footer would be one hell of a ride.


yeah! up and over the local 7-11 store.

Scotty

In the Gulf, that means you'd probably be looking at the bottom....
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
Were measured at 55 foot last night off the coast of Pensacola.

That's the biggest waves I've ever heard of in the Gulf of Mexico.
30 footers are not to uncommon.

A 55 footer would be one hell of a ride.


yeah! up and over the local 7-11 store.

Scotty

no, 55 foot waves (27.5 feet above the waterline, 27.5 below the waterline)
break when the water depth gets to about 90 some feet.

In the Gulf, that means you'd probably be looking at the bottom....
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
Were measured at 55 foot last night off the coast of Pensacola.

That's the biggest waves I've ever heard of in the Gulf of Mexico.
30 footers are not to uncommon.

A 55 footer would be one hell of a ride.


yeah! up and over the local 7-11 store.

Scotty

Subject: Pensacola Waves
From: (JAXAshby)

no, 55 foot waves (27.5 feet above the waterline, 27.5 below the waterline)
break when the water depth gets to about 90 some feet.


Waves are not normally formed so that the crest is the same height above the
"still water level" as the trough is below it.
Normally the crest is higher.

therefore, waves break in deeper water.

From: (Shen44)
Date: 9/16/2004 10:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

Subject: Pensacola Waves
From: (JAXAshby)

no, 55 foot waves (27.5 feet above the waterline, 27.5 below the waterline)
break when the water depth gets to about 90 some feet.


Waves are not normally formed so that the crest is the same height above the
"still water level" as the trough is below it.
Normally the crest is higher.

ubject: Pensacola Waves
From: (JAXAshby)
Date: 09/16/2004 19:33 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

therefore, waves break in deeper water.


Waves are not normally formed so that the crest is the same height above
the
"still water level" as the trough is below it.
Normally the crest is higher.

Part of the problem with your simplistic arguement, is that you are basing it
on normal soundings at the shoreline area.
However, not having a chart of that coastline, it would be impossible to say
how far inshore a large 36' wave could get before breaking and falling apart.
What was the depth of water at time of tide? What was the increased depth due
to storm surge? Was it a gentle sloping beach or a deep channel? Was there a
swell underlying the wind wave?
Add to this that "Mother Nature" doesn't always adhere to strict laws of
physics and you have the possibility of it happening.
Hey, scientist thought for years that rogue waves were a very infrequent
occurence .... they now know better.

Shen

damn those politicians!!! which one(s) of those turd voted those laws of
physics, anyway???

(Shen44)
Date: 9/16/2004 11:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

ubject: Pensacola Waves
From: (JAXAshby)
Date: 09/16/2004 19:33 Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

therefore, waves break in deeper water.


Waves are not normally formed so that the crest is the same height above
the
"still water level" as the trough is below it.
Normally the crest is higher.

Part of the problem with your simplistic arguement, is that you are basing it
on normal soundings at the shoreline area.
However, not having a chart of that coastline, it would be impossible to say
how far inshore a large 36' wave could get before breaking and falling apart.
What was the depth of water at time of tide? What was the increased depth due
to storm surge? Was it a gentle sloping beach or a deep channel? Was there a
swell underlying the wind wave?
Add to this that "Mother Nature" doesn't always adhere to strict laws of
physics and you have the possibility of it happening.
Hey, scientist thought for years that rogue waves were a very infrequent
occurence .... they now know better.

Shen

"katysails" wrote in message ...
In the Gulf, that means you'd probably be looking at the bottom....
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
Were measured at 55 foot last night off the coast of Pensacola.

That's the biggest waves I've ever heard of in the Gulf of Mexico.
30 footers are not to uncommon.

A 55 footer would be one hell of a ride.


yeah! up and over the local 7-11 store.

Scotty



Gulf gets very deep 100 miles south of Pensacola.

how deep within 10 miles?

(Parallax)
Date: 9/16/2004 10:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

"katysails" wrote in message
...
In the Gulf, that means you'd probably be looking at the bottom....
"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
Were measured at 55 foot last night off the coast of Pensacola.

That's the biggest waves I've ever heard of in the Gulf of Mexico.
30 footers are not to uncommon.

A 55 footer would be one hell of a ride.


yeah! up and over the local 7-11 store.

Scotty



Gulf gets very deep 100 miles south of Pensacola.

"katysails" wrote in message ...
In the Gulf, that means you'd probably be looking at the bottom....

You dont know much about the Gulf do you Katy?

Joe


"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
Were measured at 55 foot last night off the coast of Pensacola.

That's the biggest waves I've ever heard of in the Gulf of Mexico.
30 footers are not to uncommon.

A 55 footer would be one hell of a ride.


yeah! up and over the local 7-11 store.

Scotty