| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Can a 45' sailboat survive a 50' wave ?
I saw the news earlier this week about the 591' ship Explorer with 681 college students on board getting hit by a 50' wave. What will happen if a 45' sailboat gets hit by the same wave ? Does it make a difference which way the boat is facing when it gets hit by a wave this big ? If it does then which way is the best way ? I was told that a good boat can correct itself even if a big wave turns it upside down. So can you just strap yourself to your bed and go to sleep ? Are the windows likely to break and let the water in so that the boat can sink after getting hit many times ? What else do you think can happen ? Thanks for your help. |
Questions like these have always given me a good chuckle ;-) Anyone that
has spent any amount of time at sea or on the waterfront will have plenty of stories that relate to this. I'll spare you from hearing all of my "sea stories"... Having driven one ship in an Atlantic hurricane, another in a Pacific hurricane, a research ship off the coasts of Washington and Oregon during the entire months of November and December (first time I "lost my cookies" in over 30 years at sea), and numerous yachts and ships in gales, I have two bits of wisdom to pass on: 1. Nearly every ship (and most yachts for that matter) can withstand a heck of alot more lousey weather than the crew aboard her can. I know personally of numerous stories of people abandoning their yacht because the weather was just "too bad", only to have their yacht later found completely intact without a bit of damage. 2. If you're on a 45 foot yacht and the weather is severe enough for 50 foot seas... you ain't gonna be sleeping much... ;-) -- Paul =-----------------------------------= renewontime dot com FREE email reminder service for licensed mariners http://www.renewontime.com =-----------------------------------= |
What will happen to a 45ft. boat being hit by a 50 ft. wave ...... Not
much if the wave isnt steep as the boat will simply lift over the wave. The *steepness* of the wave is important; and, It all depends o n the posiition of the boat vs. the oncoming wave, with being broadside to the wave and steepness of the wave (and whether its breaking or not.) that is thw worst case. Breaking waves (the tops of the waves sliding down the front of the wave in a big 'show' of air filled foam are the 'nasties' that break boats. If the boat is moving, the expertise of the helmsman (able to dodge breaking waves by steering around them, etc. is vitally important as is the 'stability' or sea-worthniness of the boat. A 50 foot wave is no big deal if it isnt a 'steep wave'. An approximate 25-30 ft. wave if steep enough can easily roll a 45ft boat - depends on if its broadside, etc. The inbuilt stabilty is the factor of how a boat survives adverse waves; a lightweight broad beam boat will tend to be vastly more unstable than a heavy, deep, narrow boat ... the lightweight boat having sometimes the advantage of being able to sail away from bad weather faster than a heavy boat. When the sea state is dangerous there are techniques that can be used to survive --- such as using a parachute anchor and holding the bow about 45 degrees to the oncoming waves. The boat will 'slip' slightly backwards and the turbulance of the slip on the surface will cause the waves to 'break' before they hit the boat, etc. Its not the height of the waves but the steepness of the waves and especially if the wave is so steep that the top of wave is 'breaking' that is so dangerous. hope this helps. . net, wrote: I saw the news earlier this week about the 591' ship Explorer with 681 college students on board getting hit by a 50' wave. What will happen if a 45' sailboat gets hit by the same wave ? Does it make a difference which way the boat is facing when it gets hit by a wave this big ? If it does then which way is the best way ? I was told that a good boat can correct itself even if a big wave turns it upside down. So can you just strap yourself to your bed and go to sleep ? Are the windows likely to break and let the water in so that the boat can sink after getting hit many times ? What else do you think can happen ? Thanks for your help. |
|
, a research ship off the coasts of Washington and Oregon during the
entire months of November and December (first time I "lost my cookies" in over 30 years at sea), and numerous yachts and ships in gales, I have two bits of wisdom to pass on: Was that the "Cayuse"? I've heard more people say that was the only ship they ever got sick on than any other. She was here in Maine for a while but I don't know where she is now. -- Roger Long |
So, the _ship in question_ had windows in its bow?
From: Me Date: 2/4/2005 2:52 P.M. Eastern Standard Time Message-id: In article , (JAXAshby) wrote: of course it can. That ship was damaged because it turned broadside to the wave. You know it did, because it had windows knocked out. Having windows "Knocked Out", doesn't have anything to do with being broadside to the sea. In the Bering Sea, the Crab Fleet, routinely gets their windows broken by "Green Water", and those guys are out there every year, dealing with "High Seas". They just don't let themselves get broadside to the sea, but still lose windows. Me One who knows what "High Seas" really means....... |
Was that the "Cayuse"? I've heard more people say that was the only ship
they ever got sick on than any other. She was here in Maine for a while but I don't know where she is now. Hi Roger, I'm guessing your asking why one ship might be more prone to causing seasickness than another? There are alot of determining factors, to name a few (I'm sure there are others, these are the ones that come to mind): Seas - The most obvious reason. The seas off the Washington / Oregon coast during the winter is about as bad as it gets. Gales hit every three days (like clockwork) and the seas are big and steep. I've been in bigger seas, but these seemed more uncomfortable. Vessel Motion - A vessel's size, obviously, has a big effect on it's motion at sea. Additionally, a more stable vessel will roll faster, thus making the motion more uncomfortable. The further you go from the vessel's center of gravity, the more motion you'll be subjected to. Yes, some ships are just more uncomfortable in a seaway than others, and the research ship I was on had a reputation for being a "puking machine". Since most of my waking hours were spent on the bridge, some 30-40 feet above sea level, it was a pretty "fun" ride. Below decks (in my bunk), it didn't seem quite as bad. The Irony was that our mission was to count whales, but because the weather was so bad, most of the scientists never left their bunks. Incidently, most cruise ships have "roll stabilizers" and "bilge keels". These usually do alot to reduce the vessel's roll. Health - If you're otherwise ill (or tired), sea sickness will definitely hit you faster. In my case, I had recently recovered from an inner ear infection, which I'm sure had alot to do with why I became sick. Smells - I know certain noxious smells trigger sea sickness in some people. Psychology - I am one of those that believe that if you think about it too much (or watch other folks that are sick) eventually you will get sick. Consequently, I do everything I can -not- to think about it. I know nothing about the circumstances with the cruise ship and students that everyone is talking about. I only caught a few seconds of the video that appeared on TV, so I'm in no position to judge or criticize, so I won't even try. The last I heard, she was docked here in Honolulu. Two other points on seasickness that are worth mentioning: One is that the seasickness pills I took while working off Oregon (Dramamine I think) worked like wonders for me. The other is that extended seasickness can be a -very- dangerous medical condition. If you (or one of your crew) should become sick, proper rest, meals and lots of fluids are -crucial-. Here's wishing everyone fair winds and following seas! -- Paul =-----------------------------------= renewontime dot com FREE email reminder service for licensed mariners http://www.renewontime.com =-----------------------------------= |
No, I was asking which particular ship you were referring to. I'm
primarily involved with oceanographic vessel design so I get to deal with motion and comfort questions a lot. I also hear lots of scuttlebutt and that particular vessel was legendary. Even after she came to Maine, people said the same thing about her. -- Roger Long "renewontime dot com" wrote in message ... Was that the "Cayuse"? I've heard more people say that was the only ship they ever got sick on than any other. She was here in Maine for a while but I don't know where she is now. Hi Roger, I'm guessing your asking why one ship might be more prone to causing seasickness than another? There are alot of determining factors, to name a few (I'm sure there are others, these are the ones that come to mind): Seas - The most obvious reason. The seas off the Washington / Oregon coast during the winter is about as bad as it gets. Gales hit every three days (like clockwork) and the seas are big and steep. I've been in bigger seas, but these seemed more uncomfortable. Vessel Motion - A vessel's size, obviously, has a big effect on it's motion at sea. Additionally, a more stable vessel will roll faster, thus making the motion more uncomfortable. The further you go from the vessel's center of gravity, the more motion you'll be subjected to. Yes, some ships are just more uncomfortable in a seaway than others, and the research ship I was on had a reputation for being a "puking machine". Since most of my waking hours were spent on the bridge, some 30-40 feet above sea level, it was a pretty "fun" ride. Below decks (in my bunk), it didn't seem quite as bad. The Irony was that our mission was to count whales, but because the weather was so bad, most of the scientists never left their bunks. Incidently, most cruise ships have "roll stabilizers" and "bilge keels". These usually do alot to reduce the vessel's roll. Health - If you're otherwise ill (or tired), sea sickness will definitely hit you faster. In my case, I had recently recovered from an inner ear infection, which I'm sure had alot to do with why I became sick. Smells - I know certain noxious smells trigger sea sickness in some people. Psychology - I am one of those that believe that if you think about it too much (or watch other folks that are sick) eventually you will get sick. Consequently, I do everything I can -not- to think about it. I know nothing about the circumstances with the cruise ship and students that everyone is talking about. I only caught a few seconds of the video that appeared on TV, so I'm in no position to judge or criticize, so I won't even try. The last I heard, she was docked here in Honolulu. Two other points on seasickness that are worth mentioning: One is that the seasickness pills I took while working off Oregon (Dramamine I think) worked like wonders for me. The other is that extended seasickness can be a -very- dangerous medical condition. If you (or one of your crew) should become sick, proper rest, meals and lots of fluids are -crucial-. Here's wishing everyone fair winds and following seas! -- Paul =-----------------------------------= renewontime dot com FREE email reminder service for licensed mariners http://www.renewontime.com =-----------------------------------= |
No, I was asking which particular ship you were referring to.
Sorry Roger, I missunderstood. The ship I was on was the NOAA ship McArthur. -- Paul =-----------------------------------= renewontime dot com FREE email reminder service for licensed mariners http://www.renewontime.com =-----------------------------------= |
renewontime dot com wrote:
Hi Roger, I'm guessing your asking why one ship might be more prone to causing seasickness than another? There are alot of determining factors, to name a few (I'm sure there are others, these are the ones that come to mind): Seas - The most obvious reason. The seas off the Washington / Oregon coast during the winter is about as bad as it gets. Gales hit every three days (like clockwork) and the seas are big and steep. I've been in bigger seas, but these seemed more uncomfortable. Seas and how a particular ship/boat handles them, vary as to what feels good or bad, depending on size, load condition, swell period, etc. Vessel Motion - A vessel's size, obviously, has a big effect on it's motion at sea. Additionally, a more stable vessel will roll faster, thus making the motion more uncomfortable. snip Couple all this with where are you working/quartered on the vessel. Surprisingly, I've noted that "accommodation" forward, tends to affect more people, than "accom" aft. BTW, Bilge Keels are great additions .... funny part is, that their best reduction in rolling ( note I said "rolling" ) is a mere 10%. As for blowing out windows/portholes.... heading is immaterial, vessel size is immaterial.... the right sea at the right moment, now, THAT'S important. otn |
over the knee, did you REALLY intend to say that waves on the bow of a ship can
blow out the windows on the stern? If that is not what you intended, just why did you say it? geesh. From: otnmbrd Date: 2/4/2005 8:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time Message-id: t renewontime dot com wrote: Hi Roger, I'm guessing your asking why one ship might be more prone to causing seasickness than another? There are alot of determining factors, to name a few (I'm sure there are others, these are the ones that come to mind): Seas - The most obvious reason. The seas off the Washington / Oregon coast during the winter is about as bad as it gets. Gales hit every three days (like clockwork) and the seas are big and steep. I've been in bigger seas, but these seemed more uncomfortable. Seas and how a particular ship/boat handles them, vary as to what feels good or bad, depending on size, load condition, swell period, etc. Vessel Motion - A vessel's size, obviously, has a big effect on it's motion at sea. Additionally, a more stable vessel will roll faster, thus making the motion more uncomfortable. snip Couple all this with where are you working/quartered on the vessel. Surprisingly, I've noted that "accommodation" forward, tends to affect more people, than "accom" aft. BTW, Bilge Keels are great additions .... funny part is, that their best reduction in rolling ( note I said "rolling" ) is a mere 10%. As for blowing out windows/portholes.... heading is immaterial, vessel size is immaterial.... the right sea at the right moment, now, THAT'S important. otn |
BTW, Bilge Keels are great additions .... funny part is, that their best
reduction in rolling ( note I said "rolling" ) is a mere 10%. The way I understand it, bilge keels -increase- the rolling period (the time from heeling on one side to the other), and I'd guess that 10% is about right. I've never worked (or sailed for that matter) on a cruise ship (well... not entirely true... I was a cadet aboard a retired US Lines ship), but I understand their "active stabilizers" do a better job at keeping the vessel flat. Incidently (and we're way off topic), the most comfortable riding ship I ever worked on was the RV Kilo Moana, a SWATH (Submerged Waterplane Attached Twin Hull). You could literally leave your cup of coffee on a table in 20 foot seas and it wouldn't budge. SWATH's are actually -more- comfortable with seas on the beam, we frequently lied abeam to do scientific work. As for blowing out windows/portholes.... heading is immaterial, vessel size is immaterial.... the right sea at the right moment, now, THAT'S important. Good point. Mother Nature is rarely nice enough to give us seas from only -one- direction. Depending on your vessel's heading, your wake can reflect or refract off the side of your hull, interact with a sea and send it in nearly any direction at all. On the ships I've served on, all portholes up to the main deck had "deadlights", heavy, solid metal covers for when the weather gets nasty. When it got nasty, we just dogged them down. Never had one fail (not to say it isn't possible though). But things are probably different on the modern cruise ships. I've berthed near a number of cruise ships, and one I remember in particular had "sliding glass doors" to cabins above the main deck! You wonder what the designer was thinking... All the best, -- Paul =-----------------------------------= renewontime dot com FREE email reminder service for licensed mariners http://www.renewontime.com =-----------------------------------= |
renewontime dot com wrote:
a SWATH (Submerged Waterplane Attached Twin Hull). SWATH: SMALL Waterplane AREA Twin Hull Rick |
renewontime dot com wrote:
BTW, Bilge Keels are great additions .... funny part is, that their best reduction in rolling ( note I said "rolling" ) is a mere 10%. The way I understand it, bilge keels -increase- the rolling period (the time from heeling on one side to the other), and I'd guess that 10% is about right. I've never worked (or sailed for that matter) on a cruise ship (well... not entirely true... I was a cadet aboard a retired US Lines ship), but I understand their "active stabilizers" do a better job at keeping the vessel flat. Bilge keels have no effect on roll period, only rolling. Roll period is determined by GM. The higher the GM, the shorter the roll period. Active (fin) and passive (Flume) have a far greater ability to reduce rolling. G probably the best system includes all three. Incidently (and we're way off topic), the most comfortable riding ship I ever worked on was the RV Kilo Moana, a SWATH (Submerged Waterplane Attached Twin Hull). You could literally leave your cup of coffee on a table in 20 foot seas and it wouldn't budge. SWATH's are actually -more- comfortable with seas on the beam, we frequently lied abeam to do scientific work. For most conditions, these ARE considered about the most comfortable surface types, though reports I've heard say the can be pretty wet in beam seas and quite noisy in head seas. As for blowing out windows/portholes.... heading is immaterial, vessel size is immaterial.... the right sea at the right moment, now, THAT'S important. Good point. Mother Nature is rarely nice enough to give us seas from only -one- direction. Depending on your vessel's heading, your wake can reflect or refract off the side of your hull, interact with a sea and send it in nearly any direction at all. On the ships I've served on, all portholes up to the main deck had "deadlights", heavy, solid metal covers for when the weather gets nasty. When it got nasty, we just dogged them down. Never had one fail (not to say it isn't possible though). On the widely viewed picture of that Sea River (x-ATTRANSCO) tanker in rough seas, the porthole which was taken out, was on the Boat Deck. Having taken that ship through similar conditions, it was either bad luck or age, G which caused that blow out. I always tell people to look at the foremast on the foc'sle and the deck lights at the top of that mast. On at least one of those ships (class) you'll find the brackets which hold those lights, bent up, from seas coming aboard the bow. But things are probably different on the modern cruise ships. I've berthed near a number of cruise ships, and one I remember in particular had "sliding glass doors" to cabins above the main deck! You wonder what the designer was thinking... G Aside from the fact of the type of glass used and construction/location above the water, they probably considered that a cruise ship will normally do everything it can to stay clear of most serious weather. otn |
You fella's are both quite right in your corrections. My appologies.
Sometimes the connection between what my brain is thinking and what my hands are typing is something less than 100% at 0230 in the morning. Nice to know we have such a knowledgeable group here to keep things straight... ;-) As for how a SWATH handles seas on the beam, bow and quarter: the only SWATH I've sailed on was the KM, so my opinions are based on her. I'm guessing she was designed for seas up to about 20 - 25 feet, as that's about how high the bottom of the main superstructure is above the WL. One might expect beam seas to be a problem, but in reality in that range they weren't a problem, and when they were on the bow there was some pitching, but no much. The only time I could feel any real motion (still nothing compared to a conventional mono hulled ship) was underway with the seas on a quarter, which gave the motion a wierd "cork screw" kind of feeling too it. Still nothing compared to any other ship I've been on... When the seas got bigger than that, it was a bit spooky, as the seas would pound the unprotected superstructure (in our case, the mess area), and continue pounding under the superstructure until they passed underneath. Overall though, SWATH's make an ideal research platform as they are very stable and maneuverable while lying a hull or station keeping. They do have their weaknesses (most troublesome was her extreme sensitivity to any shift or change in our carried load) but otherwise a very nice ride. -- Paul =-----------------------------------= renewontime dot com FREE email reminder service for licensed mariners http://www.renewontime.com =-----------------------------------= |
Dave wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 01:59:36 GMT, otnmbrd said: Couple all this with where are you working/quartered on the vessel. Surprisingly, I've noted that "accommodation" forward, tends to affect more people, than "accom" aft. Hmm. Interesting. On the ship I was on, the wardroom and officers' quarters were forward. The goat locker and crew's quarters were amid ship. Ship must have been designed by a CPO. G If you're talking Navy (Destroyer or cruiser) I wouldn't call those accoms fwd. Fwd of midships, but not fwd. No, I'm talking about accoms that leave just enough room for the anchor windlass, fwd of them..... damned uncomfortable. |
I presume he was asking precisely what he said, not inviting your
dissertation. My appologies, again. I read the post too quickly and assumed (wrongly) that "Cayuse" was the word "cause" but misspelled, not a vessels name. It wasn't until he replied that I realized my error. -- Paul =-----------------------------------= renewontime dot com FREE email reminder service for licensed mariners http://www.renewontime.com =-----------------------------------= |
Hmm. Interesting. On the ship I was on, the wardroom and officers'
quarters were forward. The goat locker and crew's quarters were amid ship. Ship must have been designed by a CPO. G If you're talking Navy (Destroyer or cruiser) I wouldn't call those accoms fwd. Fwd of midships, but not fwd. No, I'm talking about accoms that leave just enough room for the anchor windlass, fwd of them..... damned uncomfortable. While on the NOAA ship McArthur I berthed in the forward crew's quarters, which was just aft of the Bos'n's and chain lockers and while in the Navy and aboard USS Morton (a Forest Sherman class destroyer), I berthed in forward officer's country, which was just forward of the Wardroom and aft of the forward gun mount (or just forward of the CG). I can vouch that there was a -huge- difference between the two "forward" berthing areas. -- Paul =-----------------------------------= renewontime dot com FREE email reminder service for licensed mariners http://www.renewontime.com =-----------------------------------= |
Subject: Can a 45' sailboat survive a 50' wave ? From: (JAXAshby) Date: 2/5/2005 5:06 A.M. Pacific Standard Time Message-id: over the knee, did you REALLY intend to say that waves on the bow of a ship can blow out the windows on the stern? If that is not what you intended, just why did you say it? I see you're still making stupid interpretations of what you think people said. Just for fun, because you won't understand it and never will experience it, and although otn didn't say it, .... yes.,..... seas coming over the bow can break windows on the stern. Shen |
"Dave" let slip.... The goat locker and crew's quarters were amid ship. How convenient. Ship must have been designed by a CPO. Sounds like a Kiwi designed it. SV |
Absolutely, After doing the Atlantic three times East to West (when I
delivered boats), catching the head of one Hurricane, and the tail of another plus losing a boat off Tennerife I can say that a 45 boat (again it depends which type make and model) would survive rough seas, Eg I would not take a Beneteau or a Hunter through some of my experiences however would do so with a Westerly, or a Cheoy Lee. "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... "Dave" let slip.... The goat locker and crew's quarters were amid ship. How convenient. Ship must have been designed by a CPO. Sounds like a Kiwi designed it. SV |
Patricia Cierniak wrote:
Absolutely, After doing the Atlantic three times East to West (when I delivered boats), catching the head of one Hurricane, and the tail of another plus losing a boat off Tennerife I can say that a 45 boat (again it depends which type make and model) would survive rough seas, Eg I would not take a Beneteau or a Hunter through some of my experiences however would do so with a Westerly, or a Cheoy Lee. Do you say Cheoy Lee because you think they are well-built seaworthy boats, or because you want to get them out of your country? Wether or a not a boat of a given size can survive a wave of given size is dependent on a *lot* of variables, of which the brand name stamped on it is one of the least significant. How steep is the wave? How much of the crest is breaking? Is it one of a series or train of normal waves for prevailing conditions, or is it a "freak" wave? Research suggests that boats can be capsized by waves of height equal to their beam, so a wave higher than the boat is long could be dangerous. A capsize or roll-over can sink a boat, or it could tear the rig off, or it could come back up with relatively nothing worse than a big mess in the cabin (unlikely but possible). Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
"DSK" wrote in message Research suggests that boats can be capsized by waves of height equal to their beam, so a wave higher than the boat is long could be dangerous. Research suggests that does it? Good Grief! CM |
Capt. Mooron wrote:
... Good Grief! Well, that's certainly an intelligent comment. Can we expect more to follow? DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message .. . Capt. Mooron wrote: ... Good Grief! Well, that's certainly an intelligent comment. Can we expect more to follow? I don't know Doug... how can one argue with "Research suggests"... I mean what more can I add? CM |
Capt. Mooron wrote:
I don't know Doug... how can one argue with "Research suggests"... I mean what more can I add? What more, indeed. One wonders why you added anything in the first place. Have you ever sailed in waves as high as your boat's beam? I have. It seemed unlikely that they would capsize the boat. OTOH given a lightweight beamy boat and waves that are steep & violent, it's plausible. DSK |
"DSK" wrote in message What more, indeed. One wonders why you added anything in the first place. That's the Thanks I get for being agreeable.....??? Have you ever sailed in waves as high as your boat's beam? Oh yes Doug... I'm certain you've done it all... and nobody here has ever sailed in seas the height of their beam! Gosh knows that would never happen to me... way up here on the North Friggin' Atlantic!! Sheesh! I have. It seemed unlikely that they would capsize the boat. OTOH given a lightweight beamy boat and waves that are steep & violent, it's plausible. I'm certain if you look around ... you'll find research to suggest that. I do believe that your original statement regarding this premise was as follows: Wether or a not a boat of a given size can survive a wave of given size is dependent on a *lot* of variables, of which the brand name stamped on it is one of the least significant. I think a Hunter might meet the research criteria you stated.... OOPS...there goes a brand name. Nonetheless..... I doubt a 10 ft ocean wave is going to capsize my vessel... even if it's breaking and beam to. In 60 ft of water at the mouth of the bay here that opens onto the Atlantic... I get waves to 30+ feet and breaking. I've not only managed to turn my sailboat 360 degrees in those waves... but in a 30 ft Cape Islander fishing boat... on many occasions. I guess you just learn to deal with the ocean conditions if you want to go out in that kind of weather. CM .. |
Have you ever sailed in waves as high as your boat's beam?
Capt. Mooron wrote: Oh yes Doug... I'm certain you've done it all... and nobody here has ever sailed in seas the height of their beam! Gosh knows that would never happen to me... way up here on the North Friggin' Atlantic!! Sheesh! You seema touch defensive. Did I imply that nobody had ever had any suc experience? Nonetheless..... I doubt a 10 ft ocean wave is going to capsize my vessel... even if it's breaking and beam to. That was the point of my earlier post. Perhaps it wasn't made clearly enough. Conditions that may result in a wave-induced rollover don't seem as dangerous as the physics suggest they are. In 60 ft of water at the mouth of the bay here that opens onto the Atlantic... I get waves to 30+ feet and breaking. While current-driven overfalls can get pretty bad, I'd be surprised if 60' deep water ever gets 30' waves. I've not only managed to turn my sailboat 360 degrees in those waves... but in a 30 ft Cape Islander fishing boat... on many occasions. I guess you just learn to deal with the ocean conditions if you want to go out in that kind of weather. And if "learning to deal with the conditions" results in a few capsizes or broken-up boats, then what? Very limited margin for error and a very steep learning curve. DSK |
dougie, you used to be a hunter 19 sailor, but even that was too much for your
old body so you bought an easier to handle trawler. please refrain from commenting on things ocean. A **breaking** wave, not just any wave. And even then the boat has to be broadside to the wave. *breaking* wave does not mean "white caps". breaking waves occur in shallow water, one of the reasons experienced ocean sailor travel outside the hundred fathom line. "DSK" wrote in message Research suggests that boats can be capsized by waves of height equal to their beam, so a wave higher than the boat is long could be dangerous. |
give it a break, dougie. everyone who has sailer offshore has been in waves
half or more the boat's beam. no great shakes, and no danger at at, nun, unless the waves are breaking, and that don't happen in deep water. From: DSK Date: 2/7/2005 8:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time Message-id: Have you ever sailed in waves as high as your boat's beam? Capt. Mooron wrote: Oh yes Doug... I'm certain you've done it all... and nobody here has ever sailed in seas the height of their beam! Gosh knows that would never happen to me... way up here on the North Friggin' Atlantic!! Sheesh! You seema touch defensive. Did I imply that nobody had ever had any suc experience? Nonetheless..... I doubt a 10 ft ocean wave is going to capsize my vessel... even if it's breaking and beam to. That was the point of my earlier post. Perhaps it wasn't made clearly enough. Conditions that may result in a wave-induced rollover don't seem as dangerous as the physics suggest they are. In 60 ft of water at the mouth of the bay here that opens onto the Atlantic... I get waves to 30+ feet and breaking. While current-driven overfalls can get pretty bad, I'd be surprised if 60' deep water ever gets 30' waves. I've not only managed to turn my sailboat 360 degrees in those waves... but in a 30 ft Cape Islander fishing boat... on many occasions. I guess you just learn to deal with the ocean conditions if you want to go out in that kind of weather. And if "learning to deal with the conditions" results in a few capsizes or broken-up boats, then what? Very limited margin for error and a very steep learning curve. DSK |
JAXAshby wrote:
give it a break, dougie. everyone who has sailer offshore has been in waves half or more the boat's beam. no great shakes, and no danger at at, nun, unless the waves are breaking, and that don't happen in deep water. Except when they do. There is nothing that prevents waves from breaking in open water in storm conditions. In winds over 60 knots, virtually all of the high waves (10% of all waves) will break. Some breakers will be found in lesser winds. Breakers form when the wave steepness exceeds a certain limit. This can happen as a function of wind alone - no bottom interaction is needed. They will occur in any significant waves simply by the constructive interference of two or more sub-critical waves. These are true breakers, with plunging jets of solid water that is moving roughly 30% faster than the waves - enough to create pressures of several tons per square foot. Jaxie's claim that waves can't break in open water is simply an old wives tale. |
On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, JAXAshby wrote:
*breaking* wave does not mean "white caps". breaking waves occur in shallow water, one of the reasons experienced ocean sailor travel outside the hundred fathom line. LMAO! Waves break in "shallow" water when the height is about 3/4 of the depth. So those "experienced ocean sailors" are staying in 600 feet to avoid having those 450ft waves break? You're a kick, JAX. KeS |
yup. that they are. you see, sometimes (just sometimes, you understand you
freaking idgit) the water is not ALWAYS deep, most particularly near shore. kevin, you blithering idiot, you really need to go sailing some day. From: Date: 2/7/2005 6:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time Message-id: rq-jvgu.arg On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, JAXAshby wrote: *breaking* wave does not mean "white caps". breaking waves occur in shallow water, one of the reasons experienced ocean sailor travel outside the hundred fathom line. LMAO! Waves break in "shallow" water when the height is about 3/4 of the depth. So those "experienced ocean sailors" are staying in 600 feet to avoid having those 450ft waves break? You're a kick, JAX. KeS |
kriste almighty, juggies. please be quiet. there ain't not a soul on the ng
who believes you have the degree in physics you claim to have. you have made waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many stew ped posts such as the one below. From: Jeff Morris Date: 2/7/2005 12:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time Message-id: JAXAshby wrote: give it a break, dougie. everyone who has sailer offshore has been in waves half or more the boat's beam. no great shakes, and no danger at at, nun, unless the waves are breaking, and that don't happen in deep water. Except when they do. There is nothing that prevents waves from breaking in open water in storm conditions. In winds over 60 knots, virtually all of the high waves (10% of all waves) will break. Some breakers will be found in lesser winds. Breakers form when the wave steepness exceeds a certain limit. This can happen as a function of wind alone - no bottom interaction is needed. They will occur in any significant waves simply by the constructive interference of two or more sub-critical waves. These are true breakers, with plunging jets of solid water that is moving roughly 30% faster than the waves - enough to create pressures of several tons per square foot. Jaxie's claim that waves can't break in open water is simply an old wives tale. |
Quiet Jaxie, I wasn't talking to you. This topic is clearly way over
your head. Anyone interested in this subject should check out "Oceanography and Seamanship" by William Van Dorn. A superb reference on a number of topics, especially the science of ocean waves. JAXAshby wrote: kriste almighty, juggies. please be quiet. there ain't not a soul on the ng who believes you have the degree in physics you claim to have. you have made waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many stew ped posts such as the one below. From: Jeff Morris Date: 2/7/2005 12:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time Message-id: JAXAshby wrote: give it a break, dougie. everyone who has sailer offshore has been in waves half or more the boat's beam. no great shakes, and no danger at at, nun, unless the waves are breaking, and that don't happen in deep water. Except when they do. There is nothing that prevents waves from breaking in open water in storm conditions. In winds over 60 knots, virtually all of the high waves (10% of all waves) will break. Some breakers will be found in lesser winds. Breakers form when the wave steepness exceeds a certain limit. This can happen as a function of wind alone - no bottom interaction is needed. They will occur in any significant waves simply by the constructive interference of two or more sub-critical waves. These are true breakers, with plunging jets of solid water that is moving roughly 30% faster than the waves - enough to create pressures of several tons per square foot. Jaxie's claim that waves can't break in open water is simply an old wives tale. |
you are not talking to anyone but yourself, juggies (and,
maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe two or three stucking few ped idgits). From: Jeff Morris Date: 2/7/2005 8:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time Message-id: Quiet Jaxie, I wasn't talking to you. This topic is clearly way over your head. Anyone interested in this subject should check out "Oceanography and Seamanship" by William Van Dorn. A superb reference on a number of topics, especially the science of ocean waves. JAXAshby wrote: kriste almighty, juggies. please be quiet. there ain't not a soul on the ng who believes you have the degree in physics you claim to have. you have made waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many stew ped posts such as the one below. From: Jeff Morris Date: 2/7/2005 12:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time Message-id: JAXAshby wrote: give it a break, dougie. everyone who has sailer offshore has been in waves half or more the boat's beam. no great shakes, and no danger at at, nun, unless the waves are breaking, and that don't happen in deep water. Except when they do. There is nothing that prevents waves from breaking in open water in storm conditions. In winds over 60 knots, virtually all of the high waves (10% of all waves) will break. Some breakers will be found in lesser winds. Breakers form when the wave steepness exceeds a certain limit. This can happen as a function of wind alone - no bottom interaction is needed. They will occur in any significant waves simply by the constructive interference of two or more sub-critical waves. These are true breakers, with plunging jets of solid water that is moving roughly 30% faster than the waves - enough to create pressures of several tons per square foot. Jaxie's claim that waves can't break in open water is simply an old wives tale. |
Following is from www.seriesdrogue.com
and I scoff and mock all you scared weard little guys,like Jax, who will no doubt cry foul, because someone with a commercial interest in this subject dares make a post. Worst Case Breaking Wave Strike I have chosen the case of the Winston Churchill in the 1998 Sydney Hobart race as an example of a worst case breaking wave. The Churchill was a classic wooden sloop of 25 tons displacement and 55 ft. LOA. Of the experienced crew of 9, two perished in the accident. From "Fatal Storm' by Mundle. "A sea came out of nowhere", said Stanley, " I could feel it from where I was in the aft coach house. It picked the boat up and rolled it down its face - 25 tons of boat- into the trough at a 45 degree angle. It was like hitting a brick wall when we hit the bottom". A crewman below reports that a sudden motion of the ship picked him up and threw him 7 ft. He observed that 8 ft of the heavy timber bulwark and planking had been torn off near the leeward shrouds, and the ribs were exposed. . The boat filled rapidly and sank in a matter of minutes. This is an unusual type of accident. Although there are records of many storm casualties, I am aware of no documented instance of a well found yacht of the size and reputation of the Churchill and crewed by an ample group of expert sailors, suffering such catastrophic structural damage that it sank in a matter of minutes. How could this possibly happen? The severity or the storm was extreme but by no means unprecedented. There are numerous reports of large sailing yachts surviving hurricanes of the same general magnitude. Although yachts have been lost in such storms I have been able to find no record of comparable structural damage. History shows that the probability of a yacht being capsized and damaged by a large breaking wave is strongly influenced by the displacement of the vessel. Yachts under 35 ft. have a poor history while yachts over 50 ft are rarely capsized and damaged. The nature and extent of the damage incurred by the Churchill is also most unusual. The vessel was designed by Sparkman and Stevens and was maintained to the highest standard. Yet the heavy timber bulwark was shattered, the planking gone and the ribs exposed. There is no question of the fact that the leeward bow of the boat was driven into solid green water at an extremely high velocity, far higher than would be expected in a simple contact with a breaking wave. We now have a technical understanding of how such a destructive force can be generated. Observations from many experienced sailors on a number of the SH yachts provide data which permit a sound engineering analysis of the performance of the waves and the boats in the race. Water forces are applied to the hull of a yacht by two means, buoyancy forces and dynamic forces. Buoyancy forces are the familiar pressure forces which keep the boat afloat. They never reach sufficient magnitude to damage a well found yacht. Dynamic forces result from the motion of the boat relative to the water, either as a result of the boat velocity or the water velocity due to wave motion. A speeding power boat can be destroyed by striking solid water. Similarly, a sailing yacht can be destroyed if it is accelerated up to a high speed by a breaking wave strike and then impacts solid green water in the preceding trough. This is the fate that befell the Churchill. To understand this phenomenon we must consider the concept of energy. A moving car or boat has energy. This form of energy is called kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is measured in foot-pounds. Kinetic energy can be calculated by the formula KE=1/2 (w/g) times (v squared). Where w is the weight of the car or boat, g is the acceleration of gravity (32.2 ft/sec) and v is the velocity in ft./sec. Thus a 3,000 lb. weight traveling at 30 mph (44 ft./sec.) would have a kinetic energy of 90,000 foot pounds. Now...and this is very important to our understanding of the Churchill disaster...if the moving vehicle strikes an object, the kinetic energy determines the severity of the collision and the extent of the damage. In addition to energy due to motion, a vehicle can possess energy due to height. This type of energy, also measured in foot pounds, is calculated simply as the height times the weight. A 3000 lb car hoisted to a height of 50 ft. would have 150,000 foot pounds of energy. If dropped from 50 ft to a solid surface, the car would dissipate this energy in damage. If the car was compressed by 2 ft. the average force during the impact would be 75,000 pounds. If it landed on its top and compressed four feet (because it was softer) the average force would be 37,500 lbs. .These numbers (compression and force) are not precise but the product must be the same to satisfy the energy balance. more of the same at my site regards Bryan Rich Hampel wrote in message ... What will happen to a 45ft. boat being hit by a 50 ft. wave ...... Not much if the wave isnt steep as the boat will simply lift over the wave. The *steepness* of the wave is important; and, It all depends o n the posiition of the boat vs. the oncoming wave, with being broadside to the wave and steepness of the wave (and whether its breaking or not.) that is thw worst case. Breaking waves (the tops of the waves sliding down the front of the wave in a big 'show' of air filled foam are the 'nasties' that break boats. If the boat is moving, the expertise of the helmsman (able to dodge breaking waves by steering around them, etc. is vitally important as is the 'stability' or sea-worthniness of the boat. A 50 foot wave is no big deal if it isnt a 'steep wave'. An approximate 25-30 ft. wave if steep enough can easily roll a 45ft boat - depends on if its broadside, etc. The inbuilt stabilty is the factor of how a boat survives adverse waves; a lightweight broad beam boat will tend to be vastly more unstable than a heavy, deep, narrow boat ... the lightweight boat having sometimes the advantage of being able to sail away from bad weather faster than a heavy boat. When the sea state is dangerous there are techniques that can be used to survive --- such as using a parachute anchor and holding the bow about 45 degrees to the oncoming waves. The boat will 'slip' slightly backwards and the turbulance of the slip on the surface will cause the waves to 'break' before they hit the boat, etc. Its not the height of the waves but the steepness of the waves and especially if the wave is so steep that the top of wave is 'breaking' that is so dangerous. hope this helps. . net, wrote: I saw the news earlier this week about the 591' ship Explorer with 681 college students on board getting hit by a 50' wave. What will happen if a 45' sailboat gets hit by the same wave ? Does it make a difference which way the boat is facing when it gets hit by a wave this big ? If it does then which way is the best way ? I was told that a good boat can correct itself even if a big wave turns it upside down. So can you just strap yourself to your bed and go to sleep ? Are the windows likely to break and let the water in so that the boat can sink after getting hit many times ? What else do you think can happen ? Thanks for your help. |
Standard Time
Message-id: you are not talking to anyone but yourself, juggies (and, maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe two or three stucking few ped idgits). Didja notice Jax? Ain't but a rare few who will waste time responding to your nonsense. Mayhaps Jeff will finally "killfile" your dumb, rank amateur Jaxass like all the rest. Me? Hell, when AOL stops NG's, my days of laughing at you will be over, so why bother........ Shen |
juggies, STOP IT!!! you phreeking idgit. don't ever under any circumstances
post again on any subject, including but not limited to sailing. even with google helping you, you could phooque up a wet dream. From: Jeff Morris Date: 2/7/2005 8:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time Message-id: Quiet Jaxie, I wasn't talking to you. This topic is clearly way over your head. Anyone interested in this subject should check out "Oceanography and Seamanship" by William Van Dorn. A superb reference on a number of topics, especially the science of ocean waves. JAXAshby wrote: kriste almighty, juggies. please be quiet. there ain't not a soul on the ng who believes you have the degree in physics you claim to have. you have made waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many stew ped posts such as the one below. From: Jeff Morris Date: 2/7/2005 12:13 P.M. Eastern Standard Time Message-id: JAXAshby wrote: give it a break, dougie. everyone who has sailer offshore has been in waves half or more the boat's beam. no great shakes, and no danger at at, nun, unless the waves are breaking, and that don't happen in deep water. Except when they do. There is nothing that prevents waves from breaking in open water in storm conditions. In winds over 60 knots, virtually all of the high waves (10% of all waves) will break. Some breakers will be found in lesser winds. Breakers form when the wave steepness exceeds a certain limit. This can happen as a function of wind alone - no bottom interaction is needed. They will occur in any significant waves simply by the constructive interference of two or more sub-critical waves. These are true breakers, with plunging jets of solid water that is moving roughly 30% faster than the waves - enough to create pressures of several tons per square foot. Jaxie's claim that waves can't break in open water is simply an old wives tale. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:28 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com