Received: from zonker-fddi.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with SMTP (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA06891; Thu, 11 May 1995 14:49:07 -0700 Return-Path: <poulton@zonker.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis> Received: by zonker.hpl.hp.com (1.37.109.8/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA27918; Thu, 11 May 1995 14:49:03 -0700 Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 14:49:03 -0700 From: Ken Poulton <poulton@zonker.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis> Message-Id: <9505112149.AA27918@zonker.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis> To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis Subject: Re: speaking of tides, what about 3d?
> I disagree. I was on the water at 3rd ave. sailing through the inside
> part exactly at low tide (with .9 feet) and did not hit one sand bar. You
> can sail on a lower tide especially when it is so westerly, as the worst
> sand bars are below the channel marker.
Probably true for a westerly, but not for normal winds. Just 4 weeks
ago I got reminded of this when I stayed later than I knew I should.
At 6:00 the calculated tide was 1.3 feet. I was going slow (but still
planing), watching for the bar which is 1/4 mile straight out from the
new launch, but I still hit it. After checking for missing body parts,
I sat up in 8" of water. You need 2 feet to sail over that one.
> I believe the 2.0 rule was more
> for the old launch site where the mud is a lot softer and harder to get
> through. The new launch is more of a shell bottom (not soft at all).
Yes, the new launch is better mud, but I used 3.0 at the old launch.
Note that I am quoting SM-adjusted heights. 2 feet at the GG becomes
nearly 3 feet at 3rd (about an hour later).
At the 3rd cleanup day June 17 I hope to map the sandbars again. If I
don't make it, someone else could take notes of times that the various
bars get submerged and their locations. From this we can later back out
their heights.
Ken Poulton
poulton@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
"Well, how about it, punk? Do you feel lucky?"
-- Dirty Harry (Clint Eastwood)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:29:13 PST