A 5' wave will break in 6.5'

more like 30 feet

of water,
making much of the Chesapeake incapable of supporting it,

https://www.cnmoc.navy.mil/nmosw/tr8...text/sect4.htm

*if* you read that, dood -- and obviously you either did not or otherwise you
purposely misunderstood it -- you would have noticed that it is anecdotal data
not measured data that *projects* what might happen in a cat or cat 5 hurricane
that makes a direct hit.

geesh, dood. read for crying out loud.

hoary, have you ANY idea what fetch is? obviously you have no idea how fetch
affects things, but do you even know what fetch is?

From: Harry Krause
Date: 8/16/2004 6:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

thunder wrote:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 15:02:46 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


I don't know what JaxAss is trying to prove, other than being
argumentative.

He's trying to get someone to buy into a long, inane argument on the
mathematical properties of waves. A 5' wave will break in 6.5' of water,
making much of the Chesapeake incapable of supporting it, of course this
disregards many other factors.

It's along the edges in the mid-Bay where it shallows up. There's plenty
of water once you are away from shore a ways. At the Calvert Cliffs, for
example, once you are out a half mile or so, there's 20' of water, and
you can watch your depth gauge drop down to 80-90' or so as you get to
the channel.



" Wave heights in the Harbor (Baltimore) are minimal. The maximum wave
height that can be expected is 5 ft."

"Dependent on the wind speed and duration, winds from the north or south
have the greatest fetch in Chesapeake Bay. Pilots indicate that wave
heights in the upper Bay do not normally exceed 6 ft during severe
weather. However, the width of the lower Bay provides considerable fetch
for strong westerly or easterly winds that could be associated with
tropical cyclones. Easterly winds can produce the highest waves at the Bay
mouth that can result in wave heights of 10 ft or more."

From:

https://www.cnmoc.navy.mil/nmosw/tr8...text/sect4.htm



--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

He's trying to get someone to buy into a long, inane argument on the
mathematical properties of waves.

damn those laws of physics!! who the hell were those corrupt politicians who
voted for them??

JAXAshby wrote:

hoary, have you ANY idea what fetch is? obviously you have no idea how fetch
affects things, but do you even know what fetch is?

From: Harry Krause
Date: 8/16/2004 6:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

thunder wrote:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 15:02:46 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


I don't know what JaxAss is trying to prove, other than being
argumentative.

He's trying to get someone to buy into a long, inane argument on the
mathematical properties of waves. A 5' wave will break in 6.5' of water,
making much of the Chesapeake incapable of supporting it, of course this
disregards many other factors.

It's along the edges in the mid-Bay where it shallows up. There's plenty
of water once you are away from shore a ways. At the Calvert Cliffs, for
example, once you are out a half mile or so, there's 20' of water, and
you can watch your depth gauge drop down to 80-90' or so as you get to
the channel.

The comment I offered here was on the depths of water I've measured in a
particular area. If you want to dispute the numbers, go right ahead. But
Thunder is right: you simply are trying to suck posters into another of
your long, inane arguments. In that regard, you're like that ugly old
witch from Australia--Lucretia Smith.


--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

yeah, hoary, those damn laws of physics were voted in by corrupt politicians
and their ain't no way *you* will EVER get sucked by them.

From: Harry Krause
Date: 8/16/2004 8:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

JAXAshby wrote:

hoary, have you ANY idea what fetch is? obviously you have no idea how
fetch
affects things, but do you even know what fetch is?

From: Harry Krause
Date: 8/16/2004 6:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

thunder wrote:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 15:02:46 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


I don't know what JaxAss is trying to prove, other than being
argumentative.

He's trying to get someone to buy into a long, inane argument on the
mathematical properties of waves. A 5' wave will break in 6.5' of water,
making much of the Chesapeake incapable of supporting it, of course this
disregards many other factors.

It's along the edges in the mid-Bay where it shallows up. There's plenty
of water once you are away from shore a ways. At the Calvert Cliffs, for
example, once you are out a half mile or so, there's 20' of water, and
you can watch your depth gauge drop down to 80-90' or so as you get to
the channel.

The comment I offered here was on the depths of water I've measured in a
particular area. If you want to dispute the numbers, go right ahead. But
Thunder is right: you simply are trying to suck posters into another of
your long, inane arguments. In that regard, you're like that ugly old
witch from Australia--Lucretia Smith.


--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

JAXAshby wrote:

yeah, hoary, those damn laws of physics were voted in by corrupt politicians
and their ain't no way *you* will EVER get sucked by them.

From: Harry Krause
Date: 8/16/2004 8:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

JAXAshby wrote:

hoary, have you ANY idea what fetch is? obviously you have no idea how
fetch
affects things, but do you even know what fetch is?

From: Harry Krause
Date: 8/16/2004 6:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

thunder wrote:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 15:02:46 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


I don't know what JaxAss is trying to prove, other than being
argumentative.

He's trying to get someone to buy into a long, inane argument on the
mathematical properties of waves. A 5' wave will break in 6.5' of water,
making much of the Chesapeake incapable of supporting it, of course this
disregards many other factors.

It's along the edges in the mid-Bay where it shallows up. There's plenty
of water once you are away from shore a ways. At the Calvert Cliffs, for
example, once you are out a half mile or so, there's 20' of water, and
you can watch your depth gauge drop down to 80-90' or so as you get to
the channel.

The comment I offered here was on the depths of water I've measured in a
particular area. If you want to dispute the numbers, go right ahead. But
Thunder is right: you simply are trying to suck posters into another of
your long, inane arguments. In that regard, you're like that ugly old
witch from Australia--Lucretia Smith.


As I stated, I offered observations on water depths. Feel free to
comment upon those observations at any time.
I'm NOT interested in getting involved in another of your long, inane
arguments.


--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JAXAshby wrote:

yeah, hoary, those damn laws of physics were voted in by corrupt
politicians
and their ain't no way *you* will EVER get sucked by them.

From: Harry Krause
Date: 8/16/2004 8:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

JAXAshby wrote:

hoary, have you ANY idea what fetch is? obviously you have no idea how
fetch
affects things, but do you even know what fetch is?

From: Harry Krause
Date: 8/16/2004 6:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

thunder wrote:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 15:02:46 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


I don't know what JaxAss is trying to prove, other than being
argumentative.

He's trying to get someone to buy into a long, inane argument on the
mathematical properties of waves. A 5' wave will break in 6.5' of
water,
making much of the Chesapeake incapable of supporting it, of course
this
disregards many other factors.

It's along the edges in the mid-Bay where it shallows up. There's
plenty
of water once you are away from shore a ways. At the Calvert Cliffs,
for
example, once you are out a half mile or so, there's 20' of water, and
you can watch your depth gauge drop down to 80-90' or so as you get to
the channel.

The comment I offered here was on the depths of water I've measured in a
particular area. If you want to dispute the numbers, go right ahead. But
Thunder is right: you simply are trying to suck posters into another of
your long, inane arguments. In that regard, you're like that ugly old
witch from Australia--Lucretia Smith.


As I stated, I offered observations on water depths. Feel free to
comment upon those observations at any time.
I'm NOT interested in getting involved in another of your long, inane
arguments.

So how was that storm surge during the rain storm this weekend on the Bay?
Must have been frightful, especially since it was accompanied by 3-5
footers. Scary stuff....eh Krause?

hoary, you seem to have a major gap in your recall of what and how much you
said. And after only a few hours. geesh.

From: Harry Krause
Date: 8/16/2004 8:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

JAXAshby wrote:

yeah, hoary, those damn laws of physics were voted in by corrupt
politicians
and their ain't no way *you* will EVER get sucked by them.

From: Harry Krause
Date: 8/16/2004 8:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

JAXAshby wrote:

hoary, have you ANY idea what fetch is? obviously you have no idea how
fetch
affects things, but do you even know what fetch is?

From: Harry Krause
Date: 8/16/2004 6:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

thunder wrote:

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 15:02:46 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


I don't know what JaxAss is trying to prove, other than being
argumentative.

He's trying to get someone to buy into a long, inane argument on the
mathematical properties of waves. A 5' wave will break in 6.5' of
water,
making much of the Chesapeake incapable of supporting it, of course
this
disregards many other factors.

It's along the edges in the mid-Bay where it shallows up. There's plenty
of water once you are away from shore a ways. At the Calvert Cliffs, for
example, once you are out a half mile or so, there's 20' of water, and
you can watch your depth gauge drop down to 80-90' or so as you get to
the channel.

The comment I offered here was on the depths of water I've measured in a
particular area. If you want to dispute the numbers, go right ahead. But
Thunder is right: you simply are trying to suck posters into another of
your long, inane arguments. In that regard, you're like that ugly old
witch from Australia--Lucretia Smith.


As I stated, I offered observations on water depths. Feel free to
comment upon those observations at any time.
I'm NOT interested in getting involved in another of your long, inane
arguments.


--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

JAXAshby wrote:

hoary, you seem to have a major gap in your recall of what and how much you
said. And after only a few hours. geesh.



I'm NOT interested in getting involved in another of your long, inane
arguments.
How's that crappy little sailbote of yours? Ready to take on Long Island
Sound?


--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002