Dumb question

leomagill

leomagill

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 Jul 2008
Messages
400
Location
Cambs. UK
www.leomagill.co.uk
Watching bbc's coast a while ago they mentioned Murdoch Mackenzie's survey of the orkney islands, the title appeared to mention soundings, as an educated guess I recon they didn't have depth sounders back in 1740's (even though my nasa stingray looks that old) so why did they use 'soundings' to describe the depth back then? I could understand a term relating to lead lines but 'soundings'?
Am I just being thick here(it won't be the first or last time!).
 
There are no dumb questions!
The term 'sounding' means, in this context, the measurement of depth and has nothing to do with hearing or echoes. The earliest navigational tool was the 'sounding rod' and can be seen in use in ancient Egyptian pictures. The sounding rod was replaced by the lead line and eventually electronic echo sounders.
 
I think "sound" does not derive from sound ie noise.

OED 1930's

Sound (3) Test the depth of (sea, channel, pond etc) & the quality of the bottom with sounding line or sounding apparatus or sounding machines (often furnished with cup etc for bringing up sample) , find depth of water in ships hold with sounding rod: get records of temperature, humidity, pressure etc from (upper atmosphere) with sounding balloon

Sound (4) Narrow passage of water connecting two seas or sea with lake etc., strait

Sounder - in verbal sense of Sound (3) echo sounder, apparatus for sounding by measuring time-interval between transmission or a note and receipt of its echo from the sea bed

So 'sound' was being used before echo sounders and has nothing to do with noise.

480. [f.92v. 25 March 1635 ] Trinity House [to the lords commissioners of the admiralty. Cf SP 16/285/41; CSPD 1634–5, 599.]
It is their duty to give a relation of, and their exceptions against, the proceedings of Sir John Meldrome for lights at the Forelands. In his petition to the king, Meldrome states that Dover, Sandwich, Norgate [? Margate] and other ports, with the 'chiefest' pilots of the navy royal were suitors for the lights.

The reasons why these lights would not be a safeguard against the dangers of the Goodwin Sands are: (a) The distance between the lights at South Foreland and the danger of the Channel of the Gulls is at least 10 miles, at which distance the lights could not be seen and therefore could not be of use. (b) The lights at North Foreland cannot be useful for the Channel of the Gulls because the leading mark for channels must be on the same point of the compass from the ship 'as will carry you through'. The lights at North Foreland 'when we shall come to the entrance of the Gulls will be 4 points differing from the point or lying of the channel' and, therefore, are of no use for avoiding the dangers of the Goodwin Sands. (c) The lights at the South Foreland are of no use for ships out at sea, because landmarks and soundings are more certain than lights.

From: 'Transactions - vol. 2: 1635', Trinity House of Deptford Transactions, 1609-35: London Record Society 19 (1983), pp. 143-153.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top