orizaba
Well-Known Member
blimey captain slarty your full of them today,have you just come back from the ship n anchor yourself perchance,or that well known hostelry next to the chandlers
Beaufort, Bullsh&t and Boating
- Thread starter captainslarty
- Start date
Slow_boat
Well-Known Member
There are only three types of wind;
1. to much
2. to little
3.wrong direction
BTW, why is it that a force 6 in the med where it's all warm and the sea's blue is much less than a force 6 on the east coast where it's all cold and the sea's brown?
1. to much
2. to little
3.wrong direction
BTW, why is it that a force 6 in the med where it's all warm and the sea's blue is much less than a force 6 on the east coast where it's all cold and the sea's brown?
Danny Jo
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
BTW, why is it that a force 6 in the med where it's all warm and the sea's blue is much less than a force 6 on the east coast where it's all cold and the sea's brown?
[/ QUOTE ] And you can bowl along in a force 6 at the equator, but be flattened by it in the Denmark Strait.
Because the density of any gas, including air, depends on its temperature. Dense air travelling at 25 knots has more energy than less dense air travelling at 25 knots.
BTW, why is it that a force 6 in the med where it's all warm and the sea's blue is much less than a force 6 on the east coast where it's all cold and the sea's brown?
[/ QUOTE ] And you can bowl along in a force 6 at the equator, but be flattened by it in the Denmark Strait.
Because the density of any gas, including air, depends on its temperature. Dense air travelling at 25 knots has more energy than less dense air travelling at 25 knots.
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
There are only three types of wind;
1. to much
2. to little
3.wrong direction
[/ QUOTE ]You Cynic!
There is also...
4. Just perfect
There are only three types of wind;
1. to much
2. to little
3.wrong direction
[/ QUOTE ]You Cynic!
There is also...
4. Just perfect
ShipsWoofy
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
4. Just perfect
[/ QUOTE ]
If this was multimedia your statement should have arrived with a Gregorian chant playing!
4. Just perfect
[/ QUOTE ]
If this was multimedia your statement should have arrived with a Gregorian chant playing!
boomerangben
Well-Known Member
Freestyle,
Don't forget the effect of barometric pressure as well.......
On the other hand, if you are measuring the windspeed using a device that relies on dynamic pressure which measures the work done by the wind, would it read the same in the tropics as it would in the Denmark Strait given the same wind speed, with different temperatures and pressures?
Don't forget the effect of barometric pressure as well.......
On the other hand, if you are measuring the windspeed using a device that relies on dynamic pressure which measures the work done by the wind, would it read the same in the tropics as it would in the Denmark Strait given the same wind speed, with different temperatures and pressures?
mattw
Active Member
The original Beaufort scale took all of this into account of course.
The forces were defined in terms of a 'well-conditioned man-of-war'. Force 1 was just enough to give steerage way. In a force 4 she would do 5-6 knots in smooth water with all sail set. Above that and it was defined by sail she could carry 'full and by'. In a force 7 this was 'double reefed topsails, jib &c'. In a force 11 this became storm staysails, and a force 12 meant bare poles.
If the sailor was not in a man-of-war then it was assumed that they could look at how much sail they were carrying and imagine what a man-of-war would have in the same conditions. The quotes are from 'Gale Force 10' by Nicholas Courtney.
I've never really heard anyone refer to wind strength by looking at the force, only by looking at the speed, indeed the RYA seem to teach that there is a direct correlation between wind speed and wind force, which is somewhat misleading.
Anybody want to have a go at creating an equivalent scale for a modern AWB? I guess the storm sails would make an appearance somewhat earlier than Force 11...
The forces were defined in terms of a 'well-conditioned man-of-war'. Force 1 was just enough to give steerage way. In a force 4 she would do 5-6 knots in smooth water with all sail set. Above that and it was defined by sail she could carry 'full and by'. In a force 7 this was 'double reefed topsails, jib &c'. In a force 11 this became storm staysails, and a force 12 meant bare poles.
If the sailor was not in a man-of-war then it was assumed that they could look at how much sail they were carrying and imagine what a man-of-war would have in the same conditions. The quotes are from 'Gale Force 10' by Nicholas Courtney.
I've never really heard anyone refer to wind strength by looking at the force, only by looking at the speed, indeed the RYA seem to teach that there is a direct correlation between wind speed and wind force, which is somewhat misleading.
Anybody want to have a go at creating an equivalent scale for a modern AWB? I guess the storm sails would make an appearance somewhat earlier than Force 11...
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
Yer well: Back to sailing for pleasure.
Up to force 4 is good for lolling in the cockpit, then as the breeze strengthens things start falling over in the cabin.
Man-of-war. What the fu......?
Up to force 4 is good for lolling in the cockpit, then as the breeze strengthens things start falling over in the cabin.
Man-of-war. What the fu......?
Twister_Ken
Well-Known Member
Would that be a man of war like George W Bush?
Kawasaki
Well-Known Member
Re: Beaufort, Bullsh&t and Boating
Captainslarty.
Flaming.
Will yer pack it in the both of You!
Me ribs is hurting. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Captainslarty.
Flaming.
Will yer pack it in the both of You!
Me ribs is hurting. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
snowleopard
Well-Known Member
Re: Beaufort, Bullsh&t and Boating
Forgot your medication again cap'n?
Forgot your medication again cap'n?
snowleopard
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
n the same way wave heights should be measured as mean height as opposed to the distance between the peak and the trough.
[/ QUOTE ]
Let's get it right. The wave height is measured as the height from trough to peak - of the average wave. That's the 'mean height'.
n the same way wave heights should be measured as mean height as opposed to the distance between the peak and the trough.
[/ QUOTE ]
Let's get it right. The wave height is measured as the height from trough to peak - of the average wave. That's the 'mean height'.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
Not according to Adlard Coles. You take the mean distance between the trough and the crest ie where a calm sea level would be, and you measure wave height from there. That's why he said people were always exaggerating wave heights.
John
John
peterb
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
n the same way wave heights should be measured as mean height as opposed to the distance between the peak and the trough.
[/ QUOTE ]
Let's get it right. The wave height is measured as the height from trough to peak - of the average wave. That's the 'mean height'.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting difference of opinion.
I looked it up in my bible on such matters: "Meteorology for Mariners", by the Met Office. Although they talk glibly of several different wave heights (mean, limiting, significant, etc) I couldn't find a definitive statement of height from where to where. But then I found the description of the generation of a trochoidal waveform by a point moving as if on a spoke of a wheel; it says that the diameter of the wheel represents the height of the wave. So it seems that the Met Office accept height as trough to crest, and Adlard Coles is wrong.
[ QUOTE ]
n the same way wave heights should be measured as mean height as opposed to the distance between the peak and the trough.
[/ QUOTE ]
Let's get it right. The wave height is measured as the height from trough to peak - of the average wave. That's the 'mean height'.
[/ QUOTE ]
Interesting difference of opinion.
I looked it up in my bible on such matters: "Meteorology for Mariners", by the Met Office. Although they talk glibly of several different wave heights (mean, limiting, significant, etc) I couldn't find a definitive statement of height from where to where. But then I found the description of the generation of a trochoidal waveform by a point moving as if on a spoke of a wheel; it says that the diameter of the wheel represents the height of the wave. So it seems that the Met Office accept height as trough to crest, and Adlard Coles is wrong.
boomerangben
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure of who Allard Coles is but you will find that oceanographers and offshore engineers measure trough to peak and call that height.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
He was the person who wrote *Heavy Weather Sailing*, was a renowned offshore racer and a marine publisher.
John
John
snowleopard
Well-Known Member
Re: Beaufort, Bullsh&t and Boating
Looking at the chapter on waves in Heavy Weather Sailing (5th edition) I found this statement:
" The height of the resulting wave...varies between 13 ft (4m) crest-to-trough and zero"
Looking at the chapter on waves in Heavy Weather Sailing (5th edition) I found this statement:
" The height of the resulting wave...varies between 13 ft (4m) crest-to-trough and zero"
webcraft
Well-Known Member
Re: Beaufort, Bullsh&t and Boating
Interesting to read the opinion that only those with wind instruments over-report the wind strength . . .
My experience is the exact opposite. Every boat I have met that had allegedly been out in a F10 had no wind instrument fitted.
We have a wind instrument and have just sailed nearly 6000 miles in the East Atlantic over the last year. We had one sustained period (6 hours) of F8 with winds over 36 knots, and maybe five or six occasions during which we experienced sustained winds over 30 knots for more than two hours continuously.
We did however meet quite a few boats that claimed to have been out in F10, winds over 50 knots etc . . . and most of these had no wind instruments.
I can understand this . . . several times with two reefs in an the wind howling I found it hard to believe that it was still just a F6 (albeit maybe near the top of it). Remember that a F6 is also known as a yachtsman's gale and take the reporting of windspeeds with a pinch or two of salt - and especially from those that have no way of actually measuring the wind speed.
Interesting to read the opinion that only those with wind instruments over-report the wind strength . . .
My experience is the exact opposite. Every boat I have met that had allegedly been out in a F10 had no wind instrument fitted.
We have a wind instrument and have just sailed nearly 6000 miles in the East Atlantic over the last year. We had one sustained period (6 hours) of F8 with winds over 36 knots, and maybe five or six occasions during which we experienced sustained winds over 30 knots for more than two hours continuously.
We did however meet quite a few boats that claimed to have been out in F10, winds over 50 knots etc . . . and most of these had no wind instruments.
I can understand this . . . several times with two reefs in an the wind howling I found it hard to believe that it was still just a F6 (albeit maybe near the top of it). Remember that a F6 is also known as a yachtsman's gale and take the reporting of windspeeds with a pinch or two of salt - and especially from those that have no way of actually measuring the wind speed.
douglas_family
Well-Known Member
Re: Beaufort, Bullsh&t and Boating
it can be difficult to judge recently while in a marina it was howling and i went out to check lines and make sure nothing had been left out that could blow away thoght it must have been 35knots easy but when i looked at the instrument it was only 24 gusting to 28. It has been still for days before hand, so I think maybe it was the sudden change that made my judgement so far off.
Of course had we been out sailing it would have been barely a 4 and no cause for concern kids and at least a nine in the pub when i got back /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
it can be difficult to judge recently while in a marina it was howling and i went out to check lines and make sure nothing had been left out that could blow away thoght it must have been 35knots easy but when i looked at the instrument it was only 24 gusting to 28. It has been still for days before hand, so I think maybe it was the sudden change that made my judgement so far off.
Of course had we been out sailing it would have been barely a 4 and no cause for concern kids and at least a nine in the pub when i got back /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
snowleopard
Well-Known Member
Re: Beaufort, Bullsh&t and Boating
A lot of things can influence one's estimate of wind speed, chief of which is the point of sailing. On a tradewind passage I logged the wind as F6 but was told afterward by a nearby boat with a wind instrument that the speed he recorded was 35 knots over a 2-day period.
A lot of things can influence one's estimate of wind speed, chief of which is the point of sailing. On a tradewind passage I logged the wind as F6 but was told afterward by a nearby boat with a wind instrument that the speed he recorded was 35 knots over a 2-day period.
