"otnmbrd" wrote in message
hlink.net...


Lawrence James wrote:
http://www.naval.com/heavy-seas/3/

If you examine the first picture and the next to the last picture
showing
the huge wave on this page very closely you will figure out that the
next to
the last picture is a hoax. Look closely at the details of the boat in
the
first picture and closely at those identical details on the next to the
last
one. Look at the water detail around the rear of the boat, identical.
The
hoax picture appears on one of the other pages too.

This one has been argued in numerous NG's. The general feeling is that
you are correct.

So what is the consensus on measuring a wave. Do you measure from the
average water height to the top of the wave? Or from the bottom of the
preceeding trough to the top of the wave?

Bottom of trough to top.

A 60 ft high ship can easily have a 30 foot wave break over it if the
back
of the ship is still on top of the prior wave and the nose is in the
trough.

A good number of ships, exceed the wave length, and don't forget, they
are "driving" through, so, it's not all that uncommon between the
pitching and driving force, to take a wave over, but basically, you are
correct.

otn


A major problem with large ships is the wave length related to the length
of the ship. In the Bering sea, the wave heights can exceed 200' and the
ship will try to be supported only by the bow and stern. Makes for a broke
in two ship. There are some experiments with satellite radar to measure the
seas, to avoid the ship getting in this predicament.
Bill