jeffies, knock it off. if you don't understand the meaning of the term "wave
height" get your wife to explain it to you. stop argueing with two guys who
clearly do know what the term means.

From: Jeff Morris
Date: 12/19/2004 2:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

WaIIy wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:56:54 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:


I've been kind of interested in some of the posts about Lake Erie
conditions
to see references to 12 foot waves. I know the waves are shorter and
steeper
there due to the lighter water and shallow depths. Twelve footers would
considered pretty big however, even on the ocean.

I've been pretty involved in past years with marine safety and accident
investigation projects and this gave me a chance to look into wave height
reports. There is a pretty consistent tendency for even experienced seaman
to over estimate wave heights by about 100 percent.


I lived on Lake Erie (near Cleveland) for 6 years and near the lake for
50 years and have never see or reliably heard of 12 footers.

The highest I have been in are 7- 8 footers and wouldn't like to do that
again.

...

But, if there are a lot of 7-8 waves in a confused pattern, wouldn't
that mean that on occasion there would be a 10 footer from constructive
interference? IIRC, Van Dorn has a chapter in predicting the frequency
of wave heights. If the "significant wave height" is 8 feet, then there
will be some 10-12 footers.

Thanks for admitting up front you have no understanding what we're
talking about. This saves a lot of time. Now shut up before you
embarrass yourself again.


JAXAshby wrote:
jeffies, knock it off. if you don't understand the meaning of the term "wave
height" get your wife to explain it to you. stop argueing with two guys who
clearly do know what the term means.


From: Jeff Morris
Date: 12/19/2004 2:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

WaIIy wrote:

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:56:54 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:



I've been kind of interested in some of the posts about Lake Erie

conditions

to see references to 12 foot waves. I know the waves are shorter and

steeper

there due to the lighter water and shallow depths. Twelve footers would
considered pretty big however, even on the ocean.

I've been pretty involved in past years with marine safety and accident
investigation projects and this gave me a chance to look into wave height
reports. There is a pretty consistent tendency for even experienced seaman
to over estimate wave heights by about 100 percent.


I lived on Lake Erie (near Cleveland) for 6 years and near the lake for
50 years and have never see or reliably heard of 12 footers.

The highest I have been in are 7- 8 footers and wouldn't like to do that
again.


...

But, if there are a lot of 7-8 waves in a confused pattern, wouldn't
that mean that on occasion there would be a 10 footer from constructive
interference? IIRC, Van Dorn has a chapter in predicting the frequency
of wave heights. If the "significant wave height" is 8 feet, then there
will be some 10-12 footers.

jeffies, do check with your wife. tell you what you believe the term means,
and let her help you out. if she is patient, maybe you can come back here
better informed. if she is sick and tired of your antics she may tell you to
sit in the corner for a while.

btw, jeffies, you have already told the two newcomers you don't have a clew
what you are talking about re wave height but that you are more than insistent
that you do. way to go, dog pile. way to go.


From: Jeff Morris
Date: 12/19/2004 3:48 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

Thanks for admitting up front you have no understanding what we're
talking about. This saves a lot of time. Now shut up before you
embarrass yourself again.


JAXAshby wrote:
jeffies, knock it off. if you don't understand the meaning of the term
"wave
height" get your wife to explain it to you. stop argueing with two guys
who
clearly do know what the term means.


From: Jeff Morris
Date: 12/19/2004 2:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

WaIIy wrote:

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:56:54 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:



I've been kind of interested in some of the posts about Lake Erie

conditions

to see references to 12 foot waves. I know the waves are shorter and

steeper

there due to the lighter water and shallow depths. Twelve footers would
considered pretty big however, even on the ocean.

I've been pretty involved in past years with marine safety and accident
investigation projects and this gave me a chance to look into wave height

reports. There is a pretty consistent tendency for even experienced
seaman
to over estimate wave heights by about 100 percent.


I lived on Lake Erie (near Cleveland) for 6 years and near the lake for
50 years and have never see or reliably heard of 12 footers.

The highest I have been in are 7- 8 footers and wouldn't like to do that
again.


...

But, if there are a lot of 7-8 waves in a confused pattern, wouldn't
that mean that on occasion there would be a 10 footer from constructive
interference? IIRC, Van Dorn has a chapter in predicting the frequency
of wave heights. If the "significant wave height" is 8 feet, then there
will be some 10-12 footers.

What's this fetish you have with my wife you have, jaxie? More of your
jealousy showing? Do we need a restraining order?


JAXAshby wrote:
jeffies, do check with your wife. tell you what you believe the term means,
and let her help you out. if she is patient, maybe you can come back here
better informed. if she is sick and tired of your antics she may tell you to
sit in the corner for a while.

btw, jeffies, you have already told the two newcomers you don't have a clew
what you are talking about re wave height but that you are more than insistent
that you do. way to go, dog pile. way to go.



From: Jeff Morris
Date: 12/19/2004 3:48 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

Thanks for admitting up front you have no understanding what we're
talking about. This saves a lot of time. Now shut up before you
embarrass yourself again.


JAXAshby wrote:

jeffies, knock it off. if you don't understand the meaning of the term

"wave

height" get your wife to explain it to you. stop argueing with two guys

who

clearly do know what the term means.



From: Jeff Morris
Date: 12/19/2004 2:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

WaIIy wrote:


On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:56:54 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:




I've been kind of interested in some of the posts about Lake Erie

conditions


to see references to 12 foot waves. I know the waves are shorter and

steeper


there due to the lighter water and shallow depths. Twelve footers would
considered pretty big however, even on the ocean.

I've been pretty involved in past years with marine safety and accident
investigation projects and this gave me a chance to look into wave height

reports. There is a pretty consistent tendency for even experienced

seaman

to over estimate wave heights by about 100 percent.


I lived on Lake Erie (near Cleveland) for 6 years and near the lake for
50 years and have never see or reliably heard of 12 footers.

The highest I have been in are 7- 8 footers and wouldn't like to do that
again.


...

But, if there are a lot of 7-8 waves in a confused pattern, wouldn't
that mean that on occasion there would be a 10 footer from constructive
interference? IIRC, Van Dorn has a chapter in predicting the frequency
of wave heights. If the "significant wave height" is 8 feet, then there
will be some 10-12 footers.

jeffies, you sure are a slow thinker. your wife, yo-yo, balances your
checkbook for you. she must, for you are not capable of doing so.

From: Jeff Morris
Date: 12/19/2004 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

What's this fetish you have with my wife you have, jaxie? More of your
jealousy showing? Do we need a restraining order?


JAXAshby wrote:
jeffies, do check with your wife. tell you what you believe the term
means,
and let her help you out. if she is patient, maybe you can come back here
better informed. if she is sick and tired of your antics she may tell you
to
sit in the corner for a while.

btw, jeffies, you have already told the two newcomers you don't have a clew
what you are talking about re wave height but that you are more than
insistent
that you do. way to go, dog pile. way to go.



From: Jeff Morris
Date: 12/19/2004 3:48 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

Thanks for admitting up front you have no understanding what we're
talking about. This saves a lot of time. Now shut up before you
embarrass yourself again.


JAXAshby wrote:

jeffies, knock it off. if you don't understand the meaning of the term

"wave

height" get your wife to explain it to you. stop argueing with two guys

who

clearly do know what the term means.



From: Jeff Morris
Date: 12/19/2004 2:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:

WaIIy wrote:


On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 17:56:54 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:




I've been kind of interested in some of the posts about Lake Erie

conditions


to see references to 12 foot waves. I know the waves are shorter and

steeper


there due to the lighter water and shallow depths. Twelve footers would

considered pretty big however, even on the ocean.

I've been pretty involved in past years with marine safety and accident

investigation projects and this gave me a chance to look into wave
height

reports. There is a pretty consistent tendency for even experienced

seaman

to over estimate wave heights by about 100 percent.


I lived on Lake Erie (near Cleveland) for 6 years and near the lake for
50 years and have never see or reliably heard of 12 footers.

The highest I have been in are 7- 8 footers and wouldn't like to do that
again.


...

But, if there are a lot of 7-8 waves in a confused pattern, wouldn't
that mean that on occasion there would be a 10 footer from constructive
interference? IIRC, Van Dorn has a chapter in predicting the frequency
of wave heights. If the "significant wave height" is 8 feet, then there
will be some 10-12 footers.

JAXAshby wrote:
jeffies, you sure are a slow thinker. your wife, yo-yo, balances your
checkbook for you. she must, for you are not capable of doing so.


Balance a checkbook? What's that?

ask your wife, dood. she'll tell you once again, unless she is growing weary
from repeating always repeating what she told you last week.

jeffies, you sure are a slow thinker. your wife, yo-yo, balances your
checkbook for you. she must, for you are not capable of doing so.


Balance a checkbook? What's that?