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.