*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.
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
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
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 imperceptible.
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.
Valid point ...
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
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 about what
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). Not
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.
More information from http://www.jma.go.jp/en/tsunami/
Andrew
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
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 1:59 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu 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, Mar 27, 2011 at 6:28 PM, andrew.wallace
andrew.wall...@rocketmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 1:59 AM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu 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),
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 sc...@doc.net.au 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,
14 matches
Mail list logo
