Michael Thomas wrote:
Gavin Pearce wrote:
*yawn*. A foot and a half isn't going to be all *that* bad
Sorry to continue off topic:
Try to imagine ... a temporary very high tide, rather than a cresting
wave. In addition to the "height", it's the wave-length you have to take
into account. Tsuna
On 03/28/2011 01:22 PM, Gavin Pearce wrote:
>> JCG ship in the the open ocean.
> Impressive video. The wave height and speed would suggest shallower
> waters, and that likely the ship was close to land mass when the video
> was filmed rather than open ocean (in the sense of being far out to
> sea).
On Mar 28, 2011, at 1:03 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 28, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Gavin Pearce wrote:
>>
You guys forget a lot of folks on the list are working on cabling ships
and off shore platforms, its not all a
> JCG ship in the the open ocean.
Impressive video. The wave height and speed would suggest shallower
waters, and that likely the ship was close to land mass when the video
was filmed rather than open ocean (in the sense of being far out to
sea). Not being there of course I could easily be incorre
On Mar 28, 2011, at 11:28 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Gavin Pearce wrote:
>
>>> You guys forget a lot of folks on the list are working on cabling ships and
>>> off shore platforms, its not all about what happens on shore in this
>>> industry.
>>
>>
>>
>> V
On Mar 28, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Gavin Pearce wrote:
>> You guys forget a lot of folks on the list are working on cabling ships and
>> off shore platforms, its not all about what happens on shore in this
>> industry.
>
>
>
> Valid point ... however in deep ocean, these things are pretty imperce
> You guys forget a lot of folks on the list are working on cabling ships and
> off shore platforms, its not all about what happens on shore in this industry.
Valid point ... however in deep ocean, these things are pretty imperceptible.
The effect on ships on the surface are nominal, and off
Gavin Pearce wrote:
*yawn*. A foot and a half isn't going to be all *that* bad
Sorry to continue off topic:
Try to imagine ... a temporary very high tide, rather than a cresting
wave. In addition to the "height", it's the wave-length you have to take
into account. Tsunami's rarely become towe
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Gavin Pearce wrote:
>> travels in general at approx 970 kph (600 mph)
>
> True in the deepest parts of open ocean - upon reaching the shore-line
> it'll be travelling a lot slower.
You guys forget a lot of folks on the list are working on cabling ships and off
s
> *yawn*. A foot and a half isn't going to be all *that* bad
Sorry to continue off topic:
Try to imagine ... a temporary very high tide, rather than a cresting
wave. In addition to the "height", it's the wave-length you have to take
into account. Tsunami's rarely become towering breaking waves.
And then you can have lens effects, where the waves reflections on the
coast, focus unto a point on the coastline.
On 3/28/11 14:34 , "Scott Howard" wrote:
>On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 6:28 PM, andrew.wallace <
>andrew.wall...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 1:59 AM, wrote:
>>
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 6:28 PM, andrew.wallace <
andrew.wall...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 1:59 AM, wrote:
> > *yawn*. A foot and a half isn't going to be all *that* bad
>
> Remember a wall of tsunami water travels in general at approx 970 kph (600
> mph), think about it.
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 1:59 AM, wrote:
> *yawn*. A foot and a half isn't going to be all *that* bad
Remember a wall of tsunami water travels in general at approx 970 kph (600
mph), think about it.
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:46:24 PDT, "andrew.wallace" said:
> More information from http://www.jma.go.jp/en/tsunami/
Has expired already, but only predicted a 0.5 meter crest.
http://www.jma.go.jp/en/tsunami/info_04_20110328072748.html
*yawn*. A foot and a half isn't going to be all *that* bad unl
14 matches
Mail list logo
