Not so! Those huge waves have little effect upon a small
yacht under a reasonable press of sail to keep her stable.

Of course, in those conditions, the yacht will be sailing
off the wind so the period of the waves becomes longer.

The properly sailed small yacht will only be bothered
but the breakers atop those huge waves. Those breakers
tend to slosh green water into the cockpit, I have found.
One must always keep the washboard in and battened
down.

Those idiot motorvessels seem to be pounding straight
into the waves which seems stupid to me. Why don't they
fall off a bit and take the waves diagonally. They would
have a smoother ride and might even be able to make
some headway.

CN

"Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net...

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message

Cool series of pics.

Cut the Mustard has sailed in conditions like that
many a time and has had less difficult a time than
those ships.

Small yachts under sail ride like a duck up and down
those waves and don't get pounded like those ships.

. . . and the occupants of those small yachts get tossed about their cabins
like socks in a clothes dryer.

Max

Great Lakes:

They are Lakes! They are huge bodies of water! Bigger than a lot of
seas! Can be very tough in a bad weather! That doesn't make them
anything but a Lake.

They are not at sea level. They have no tides. The flow of water is
always in the same direction, The outlet is always the same. That is
because they are Lakes.

Why must they be classified as a Sea? They are Lakes. Lakes to be damn
proud of! They are superior Bodies of Water, with their own weather
systems. They have their own ship traveling commerce that is busier than
most seas in the world.
They are a wonder of nature as they are.
What have they to gain by being labelled a sea?

Ole Thom

Thom,
They are inland seas...they are categorized by many as inland seas...and
they do have tides...negligible perhaps, but they are there...so go have a
drink and calm down before you have a stroke...

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Great Lakes:

They are Lakes! They are huge bodies of water! Bigger than a lot of
seas! Can be very tough in a bad weather! That doesn't make them
anything but a Lake.

They are not at sea level. They have no tides. The flow of water is
always in the same direction, The outlet is always the same. That is
because they are Lakes.

Why must they be classified as a Sea? They are Lakes. Lakes to be damn
proud of! They are superior Bodies of Water, with their own weather
systems. They have their own ship traveling commerce that is busier than
most seas in the world.
They are a wonder of nature as they are.
What have they to gain by being labelled a sea?

Ole Thom

"katysails" wrote in message ...
Thom,
They are inland seas...they are categorized by many as inland seas...and
they do have tides...negligible perhaps, but they are there...so go have a
drink and calm down before you have a stroke...


Sounds to me like the old coot has already had a stroke, several perhaps.

CN

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message

Great Lakes:

They are Lakes! They are huge bodies of water! Bigger than a lot of
seas! Can be very tough in a bad weather! That doesn't make them
anything but a Lake.

And why is that, Thom? Upon whose definition of bodies of water do you base
that tidbit of insight?

They are not at sea level. They have no tides.

Actually they do have tides, albiet almost imperceptible. Near the equator
the oceans have very little tide. So what?

The flow of water is
always in the same direction, The outlet is always the same. That is
because they are Lakes.

I'll grant you that. But I was unaware that flow had much, if anything, to
do with the definition of the term lake. Many lakes have no flow whatever.
White Lake, where we sail, is really just a wide spot in the White River.
And Lake Monroe, in southern Indiana, is really just a reservoir created by
damming a river. Lake is a highly relative term.

Why must they be classified as a Sea?

Dunno. No one said they must. In fact, IIRC they are called lakes.

They are Lakes. Lakes to be damn
proud of! They are superior Bodies of Water, with their own weather
systems. They have their own ship traveling commerce that is busier than
most seas in the world.
They are a wonder of nature as they are.
What have they to gain by being labelled a sea?

Nothing. But when attempting to explain their characteristics, the term
*lake* typically conjurs placid waters with waterfowl floating about the
lilly pads and bluegill jumping to catch mayflies. The GLs are nothing like
that. Folks who see them for the first time are impressed that one cannot
see across to the other shore, or that they can be so malevolent. By
equating them to seas gives those who haven't seen 'em a better perspective.
But to my knowledge there is no movement underway to force a name change.
Although there was a movement some years ago to label Lake Champlain in NY
and VT the Sixth Great Lake. Most people said, "hogwash."

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net...

Actually they do have tides, albiet almost imperceptible. Near the equator
the oceans have very little tide. So what?


Bwahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahah! Lord but you are ignorant. What makes
you think there is very little tide near the Equator?

Simple physics proves how stupid your statement really is. The pull of
gravity from the Moon and Sun raises the tides. The pull is the even
greater at the Equator than at higher latitudes because the Earth
surface at the Equator is closer to the Moon and Sun than the higher
latitudes. Hence gravity is slightly stronger there, hence the tides
are actually higher.

Some sailor you are! Go stand in the corner.

CN

Capt. Neal® wrote:
"Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net...

Actually they do have tides, albiet almost imperceptible. Near the equator
the oceans have very little tide. So what?



Bwahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahah! Lord but you are ignorant. What makes
you think there is very little tide near the Equator?

Simple physics proves how stupid your statement really is. The pull of
gravity from the Moon and Sun raises the tides. The pull is the even
greater at the Equator than at higher latitudes because the Earth
surface at the Equator is closer to the Moon and Sun than the higher
latitudes. Hence gravity is slightly stronger there, hence the tides
are actually higher.

Some sailor you are! Go stand in the corner.

So, the moon stays over the equator in your universe? Interesting. For
the rest of us, the Moon's orbit is inclined to the equator by 28
degrees so the moon travels "up and down" from the equator every month.
When the Moon is a its highest declination, we have our largest tides
in the mid-latitudes. Since the Moon is roughly over one of the
tropics, this is called a "tropic tide." When the Moon is over the
equator, we have smaller tides at mid-latitudes; these are called
equatorial tides. (These affects have to be added into the Spring and
Neap tides caused by the relative angle of the sun and moon to get an
almost full picture.)

The tides at the equator are also reduced by the fact that they actually
lag the moon by 6 hours. This is caused by the fact that the "tidal
wave" cannot move fast enough through the ocean to keep up. This s
called "tidal lag" and the tides at low latitudes are called "indirect
tides," while at high latitudes they are "direct tides."

Actually, the tides at any location are likely dominated by local affects.

Jeff Morris wrote:



The tides at the equator are also reduced by the fact that they actually
lag the moon by 6 hours. This is caused by the fact that the "tidal
wave" cannot move fast enough through the ocean to keep up.

Care to explain that?

Cheers

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ----------------------
For a quality mail server, try SurgeMail, easy to install,
fast, efficient and reliable. Run a million users on a standard
PC running NT or Unix without running out of power, use the best!
---- See http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgemail.htm ----

Nav wrote:
Jeff Morris wrote:

The tides at the equator are also reduced by the fact that they
actually lag the moon by 6 hours. This is caused by the fact that the
"tidal wave" cannot move fast enough through the ocean to keep up.


Care to explain that?


One explanation I've seen is that the average depth of the ocean does
not allow the wave to propagate fast enough at the Equator.
http://www.marktovey.co.uk/tidesfull.html#Q16

I've also seen it described in term of the "natural resonance" of the
ocean at the equator, which is 30 hours, while the Moon's rotation is a
bit over 12 hours, but I'm sure this comes down to the same thing.

What I haven't seen described in detail is exactly how much this affect
reduces the tides.

From an elementary school science site:

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2792.html

"Capt. Neal®" wrote in message
...

"Maxprop" wrote in message
nk.net...

Actually they do have tides, albiet almost imperceptible. Near the
equator
the oceans have very little tide. So what?


Bwahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahah! Lord but you are ignorant. What makes
you think there is very little tide near the Equator?

Simple physics proves how stupid your statement really is. The pull of
gravity from the Moon and Sun raises the tides. The pull is the even
greater at the Equator than at higher latitudes because the Earth
surface at the Equator is closer to the Moon and Sun than the higher
latitudes. Hence gravity is slightly stronger there, hence the tides
are actually higher.

Some sailor you are! Go stand in the corner.

CN