|
In article , Sacha
writes Do I get a grade for this? ;-) Poult (according to the same dictionary) is the young of domestic fowl and game birds XV. Middle English, pult, contr. of poulet PULLET So (arch.) poulter Old French pouletier extended to poulterer XVII prob. After poultry, earlier pulletrie etc. Interesting! I hardly dare ask you this ... but what is the derivation of 'venison'? And 'veal'? Are there any other meats which aren't simply called by the name of the animal? I won't start on the bits of animal - why 'lights' for example? -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
|
[quote=Kay]
I'll look into it, thanks. ....... What s?? Sorry, just being slow (as always) and I'm not really a computer person. |
Quote:
And what is more, where possible, instead of inventing new words, they simply get their existing words and stick them all together, so you get trully monsterous things and have so many letters in them it is almost obscene!* Taking exsisting words and adapting/modernising them..... I like that. * - the 47 letter word we were shown at school, I can't remember what it is now, that basically means: The Referee of the last big international football match. Talk about sticking everything together! |
|
Kay writes:
In article , Sacha writes Do I get a grade for this? ;-) Poult (according to the same dictionary) is the young of domestic fowl and game birds XV. Middle English, pult, contr. of poulet PULLET So (arch.) poulter Old French pouletier extended to poulterer XVII prob. After poultry, earlier pulletrie etc. Interesting! I hardly dare ask you this ... but what is the derivation of 'venison'? And 'veal'? Are there any other meats which aren't simply called by the name of the animal? I won't start on the bits of animal - why 'lights' for example? The OED says that: Venison is from the old French "veneson" from the Latin "venationem" which means "the act of hunting". It was originally anything edible killed in a hunt. Veal is from the old French "veel" (modern French "veau") from the Latin "vitulus" meaning a calf. OTOH "calf" is Anglo-Saxon and is related to the modern German "kalbe". So veal/calf follows the Norman/Anglo-Saxon meat/animal rule. -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" Alan -- Alan Williams, Room IT301, School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, U.K. Tel: +44 161 275 6270 Fax: +44 161 275 6280 |
"Dave" wrote in message ... A recent article I read somewhere said that if the predicted bit of La Palma falls off in one slab the resulting tsunami will lead to the disappearance of the Isles of Scilly (among other damage!) Charlie Pridham writes Lots of people have said that, but it seems unlikely. To create a tsunami requires a high energy shock wave, a bit of land falling in would, however large not be moving fast enough for the damage to be transmitted any distance, although there would certainly be a large wave locally much as when large icebergs break off. I think you confuse speed with energy. If you drop a very very large mass (say 5000 million tons) a few hundred feet (and I think in the case of the canaries it drops a long way down to the ocean floor) then the *energy* released is converted into a (relatively) smaller mass of water travelling *very* fast. I don't know what the conversion factor is but say 1% of the mass travelling at say 20 times the speed would still be quite significant. -- David I may be wrong but I am not confused! :~) once the rock mass was in the water the effect would be slight however far it falls, it can after all only fall and accelerate at 9.81m/s2 . and I still think you would be hard pressed to even detect it in New York were it to happen, (a similar sized lump arriving from space would be travelling at a much higher speed and would indeed cause allsorts of problems were it to hit ocean). The movement of a tectonic plate can in some instances be at very high speed coupled with the total mass on the move gives a huge amount more energy and even then not all underwater quakes produces these waves. -- Charlie, gardening in Cornwall. http://www.roselandhouse.co.uk Holders of National Plant Collection of Clematis viticella (cvs) |
In article , Kay
wrote: I think I said this when I first mentioned the word. 'un porc' - a pig. You didn't - you just mentioned 'un porc' but didn't say whether it was the pig or the meat ... 'cos I asked you that question in the next post ;-) The french have a word for it: "Touche" (sorry - keyboard bust so I can't do the accent). L -- Remover the rock from the email address |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:16:01 GMT, Stuart wrote:
And what's more, if an asteroid the size of Africa hits us we'll all be killed........and what's more if we all wait long enough we're all going to die anyway. Don't panic Mr Mainwaring, don't panic! There are no asteroids that size. The largest is Ceres, which is about 1000km in diameter. Bit of sweeping statement. None that we known about would be better. B-) Anyway if somthing that size hit it would goodbye earth as it would be broken a part by the impact. Some thing only a few km across would have very serious implications on a global scale, a few hundred metres across would knock the total distruction of the recent tsunami into a cocked hat. Me? I'm an ostrich, where is my bucket of sand? -- Cheers Dave. pam is missing e-mail |
Big snip In message , JeffC writes I accept that "tidal wave" is in common use to describe big waves of any nature. But it still does not alter the fact that it is incorrect in the case of this appalling disaster. In the absence of an alternative word, then I would accept "tidal wave" as a description, but in view of the fact there is a local word for the phenomena a "tsunami" then I prefer to use that instead. Modern dictionaries now make a distinction between the two; Even bigger snip What do you consider modern? Our Concise Oxford Dictionary printed in 1968 distinguishes between the two. Having defined tidal wave it goes on to state:- tidal wave (Improper) any extraordinary ocean wave e.g. one attributed to earthquake tsunami:- sea wave caused by disturbance of ocean floor or seismic movement. My better half (B.Sc. Geography 1965) concurs with the above as the correct technical analysis. It's just that the media has only discovered the word tsunami in the last couple of years or so, but better late than never. -- hugh Reply to address is valid at the time of posting |
In article , Sacha
writes On 7/1/05 8:55, in article , "Kay" wrote: Interesting! I hardly dare ask you this ... but what is the derivation of 'venison'? And 'veal'? Are there any other meats which aren't simply called by the name of the animal? I won't start on the bits of animal - why 'lights' for example? Veal comes from old French, velaus (obl) veel And the Latin is vitellus, Yes, I know that one - I think there is a cowrie with that as the specific name. diminutive of vitulus (calf). Of course modern French for veal *and* a calf is 'veau'. "Venison flesh of an animal killed in the chase XIII: (arch.) beast of the chase XIV. ME veneso(u)n. OF veneso(u)n, -ison (mod. Venaison): L. venatio, -on- hunting, game, f. venari hunt" (The 'f' there means 'formed on') Incidentally, I asked my French niece about what a pig is known as in French - the animal, rather than the meat and she is firm that it is 'cochon'. That's what I remembered from O level french buit I wouldn't back my o level french knowledge against anyone else's knowledge of french, let alone a french woman's. -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
On 8/1/05 16:37, in article , "Kay"
wrote: snip Incidentally, I asked my French niece about what a pig is known as in French - the animal, rather than the meat and she is firm that it is 'cochon'. That's what I remembered from O level french buit I wouldn't back my o level french knowledge against anyone else's knowledge of french, let alone a french woman's. Of course, it's still possible that a local dialect would talk of "un porc" but 'proper' French is "un cochon". In Jersey French, for example, a snail is called 'un colînmachon' *and* 'un escargot' but in good French it's 'un escargot'. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
"JeffC" wrote in message ... -- (remove the troll to reply) Always look on the bright side of life (De do, de do, de doody doody do) "Tim Challenger" wrote in message news:1104838745.68a636cbd747e5fb5e2516c27b1790a8@t eranews... On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:25:36 +0000, Lazarus Cooke wrote: We have a term for it too Tidal Wave. That's the trouble. It was misleading. A tsunami has nothing at all to do with tides, and that's why they changed it. L At least it indicates that it's a wave, whereas the word "tsunami" tells the uninitiated naff-all. Do you object to the name "slow worm"? Or toadstool? (to add the gardening topic). -- Tim C. If the uninitiated don't know what a tsunami is by now, then all I can say is they'd best stay uninitiated and perhaps not travel to the south seas. Tidal waves are caused by the sun and moon's effect on the earths gravity Not really. The earth's gravitational field is constant for all practical purposes. The tides are caused by the gravirational effects of the moon and the sun on the distribution of the water in the oceans. and therefore predictable to a certain degree. Waves caused by earthquakes, volcanoes and hurricanes are not predictable and therefore cannot be called tidal. |
"Dave" wrote in message ... Tim Challenger writes On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:47:10 -0000, BAC wrote: Perhaps the fact most English speakers are not Japanese speakers and are hence unlikely to be confused by possible quibbles regarding the literal meaning of the term is one reason many of us consider 'tsunami' a more apt term than 'tidal wave'. I'd have thought that as most English speakers speak English, they might be more likely to know what the work tidalwave means that tsunami. Well maybe the 100 or so Thai and other nationalities saved by an 11 year old girl shouting 'Tsunami' might disagree with you there. Had she not have just studied it at school and recognised the sudden drop in the shoreline water, they might all be dead. IMHO some of these catastrophes deserve an unusual and unique title recognised around the world. Words do change their meaning - tidal to me implies something predictable, and a tidal wave means maybe a severn bore or a predicted high water being pushed down the North Sea at a slow rate of knots, not an unexpected two or three metre wall of several cubic kilometres travelling at several hundred miles an hour. A given high tide goes right round the earth in 24 hours. That makes its speed at the equator in the unobstructed ocean slightly over 1000 mph. Franz |
"Chris Hogg" wrote in message ... On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 18:49:11 +0000, Sacha wrote: Alors, revenons a nos moutons......... (old French proverb) ;-) Seeing the length of this thread, shouldn't that be 'Alors, revenons a nos jardins.......(old URG proverb). :-) Not when we're all on full steam along these side waters {:-)) Franz |
"Kay" wrote in message ... [snip] The meat has the name of the animal in the language of the conquering classes who ate it, while the animal retains the language of the conquered who grew it. At least it works for boeuf and mouton, but I'm not sure where pork comes from - the latin? - is it the modern french that has moved away? And when did you last see a piece of mutton for sale, or offered on a menu? Franz |
"Kay" wrote in message ... In article , Sacha writes Do I get a grade for this? ;-) Poult (according to the same dictionary) is the young of domestic fowl and game birds XV. Middle English, pult, contr. of poulet PULLET So (arch.) poulter Old French pouletier extended to poulterer XVII prob. After poultry, earlier pulletrie etc. Interesting! I hardly dare ask you this ... but what is the derivation of 'venison'? {:-)) And 'veal'? Are there any other meats which aren't simply called by the name of the animal? I won't start on the bits of animal - why 'lights' for example? Or "amourettes"? Franz |
wrote in message ... On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 08:51:03 -0000, "BAC" wrote: "Douglas" wrote in message ... June Hughes Wrote: In message When did everybody start calling a tidal wave a tsunami and why? I had never heard of one until there was a programme on TV around a year or so ago. -- June Hughes Weather bosses decided that it needed a more up to date image and rebranding ............?? Could be they were looking for a short, snappy and memorable name for an unusually large ocean wave caused by an undersea earthquake. The japanese have a name for such waves, perhaps because they live on islands in an area of frequent earthquake activity, so it probably made sense to adopt the term. We have a term for it too Tidal Wave. Ahh, but just think how cool it is to be able to say "tsunami" Franz |
wrote in message ... [snip] The main risk is the big piece of rock which is expected to fall off an island in the Canaries, generate a tidal wave that will wipe out the East Coats of the USA and not do a lot of good to the low countries. And their weskits? Franz |
In article ,
Sacha wrote: On 8/1/05 16:37, in article , "Kay" wrote: snip Incidentally, I asked my French niece about what a pig is known as in French - the animal, rather than the meat and she is firm that it is 'cochon'. That's what I remembered from O level french buit I wouldn't back my o level french knowledge against anyone else's knowledge of french, let alone a french woman's. Of course, it's still possible that a local dialect would talk of "un porc" but 'proper' French is "un cochon". In Jersey French, for example, a snail is called 'un colînmachon' *and* 'un escargot' but in good French it's 'un escargot'. I don't think that's it, nor do I think that the teacher is right. If a teacher was asked the same question for English, the normal answer would be 'pig', but there would be absolutely nothing WRONG with 'swine'. It is just not the normal word nowadays. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
In article ,
Franz Heymann wrote: "Kay" wrote in message ... [snip] The meat has the name of the animal in the language of the conquering classes who ate it, while the animal retains the language of the conquered who grew it. At least it works for boeuf and mouton, but I'm not sure where pork comes from - the latin? - is it the modern french that has moved away? And when did you last see a piece of mutton for sale, or offered on a menu? We had some 12 days ago. It has been relegalised. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
In article , Franz Heymann
writes "Kay" wrote in message ... [snip] The meat has the name of the animal in the language of the conquering classes who ate it, while the animal retains the language of the conquered who grew it. At least it works for boeuf and mouton, but I'm not sure where pork comes from - the latin? - is it the modern french that has moved away? And when did you last see a piece of mutton for sale, or offered on a menu? We buy mutton at least twice a month :-) -- Kay "Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river" |
On 8/1/05 19:18, in article , "Franz
Heymann" wrote: "Kay" wrote in message ... [snip] The meat has the name of the animal in the language of the conquering classes who ate it, while the animal retains the language of the conquered who grew it. At least it works for boeuf and mouton, but I'm not sure where pork comes from - the latin? - is it the modern french that has moved away? And when did you last see a piece of mutton for sale, or offered on a menu? Franz Frequently at our butcher but not on a menu, no. -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
"Stuart" wrote in message ... A tidal wave is something completely different to a tsunami, but a lot of people don't seem to realise this. For the last time, it is not. Get hold of a dictionary and look up the meaning. Maybe its a common use of it, but its not correct, as those of us with degrees in geology know. It may have become an alternative name for those who don't know better, but the original meaning is quite different. The geology students in my College did not do enough applied mathematics to solve the deep water equations Franz |
"Stuart" wrote in message k... When did everybody start calling a tidal wave a tsunami and why? When they learnt the difference. A tidal wave is something completely different to a tsunami, but a lot of people don't seem to realise this. If you were to crack a book on hydrodynamics you will find that there are essentially four different types of wave in an ideal non-viscous liquid Capillary waves Surface waves Deep water waves Solitons (actually, there are also linear combinations of the first two) Capillary waves are what you get if you induce a wave by vibrating a tuning fork witih one tine just touching the liquid Surface waves are what you normally see on the surface of the ocean before they break near the shore. That includes the so-called "Giant waves". These are simply distinguished by having a very large amplitude of oscillation. In both those types of wave any "piece" of water moves vertically up and down. In the case of a deep water wave, any *piece" of water executes a circular motion, with the diameter of the circle equal to the depth of the water. Both tidal waves and tsunamis are synonyms for deep water waves. In the open ocean with a constant depth, a deep water wave is essentially harmless and may pass practically unnoticed. It only becomes dangerous when it meets a sloping ocean floor, so that the nornal circular motion can no longer be accomodated. It is at that stage that it begins to "suck" in water ahead of it and begins to pile up in height. Solitons are peculiar beasts in which certain specifically-shaped transient surface disturbances can move unchanged in shape. Franz |
"Charlie Pridham" wrote in message ... "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "Sacha" wrote in message k... On 3/1/05 11:30, in article , "Cerumen" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 16:09:33 -0000, "Bob Hobden" wrote: The main risk is the big piece of rock which is expected to fall off an island in the Canaries, generate a tidal wave that will wipe out the East Coats of the USA and not do a lot of good to the low countries. Apparently a tsunami hit the west coast of Ireland in 1775 ? after a seismic event near the Azores and Canaries causing some considerable damage.. A recent article I read somewhere said that if the predicted bit of La Palma falls off in one slab the resulting tsunami will lead to the disappearance of the Isles of Scilly (among other damage!) As well as New York Franz Lots of people have said that, but it seems unlikely. I am afraid that if the whole chunk og rock comes adrift in one go, it is a dead cert. It is only a matter of when. To create a tsunami requires a high energy shock wave, No. That is not so. Any large, localised disturbance will do the trick. a bit of land falling in would, however large not be moving fast enough for the damage to be transmitted any distance, although there would certainly be a large wave locally much as when large icebergs break off. I would rather listen to the physicists who have done the calculations. They actually do know the magnitude of the wave which would occur if the whole cracked chunk of rock fell into the ocean in one go. In a deep ocean with a flat bottom, a tsunami is actually a relatively slow, stately occurrence. All hell begins to break loose when it reaches a sloping shoreline. Franz |
|
"Charlie Pridham" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... A recent article I read somewhere said that if the predicted bit of La Palma falls off in one slab the resulting tsunami will lead to the disappearance of the Isles of Scilly (among other damage!) Charlie Pridham writes Lots of people have said that, but it seems unlikely. To create a tsunami requires a high energy shock wave, a bit of land falling in would, however large not be moving fast enough for the damage to be transmitted any distance, although there would certainly be a large wave locally much as when large icebergs break off. I think you confuse speed with energy. If you drop a very very large mass (say 5000 million tons) a few hundred feet (and I think in the case of the canaries it drops a long way down to the ocean floor) then the *energy* released is converted into a (relatively) smaller mass of water travelling *very* fast. I don't know what the conversion factor is but say 1% of the mass travelling at say 20 times the speed would still be quite significant. -- David I may be wrong but I am not confused! :~) once the rock mass was in the water the effect would be slight however far it falls, it can after all only fall and accelerate at 9.81m/s2 . That is quite wrong. The rock hits the water quite fast, with a large amount of energy. As it sinks in the water, it gives its enrergy to the water, spreadover a large range in depths. These are just what is neded to excite a deep water wave. and I still think you would be hard pressed to even detect it in New York You could not be more wrong on this issue if you tried. Please desist from making qualitative speculations from the side lines. As has been said before, there are actually model experiments being performed under conditions where the scaling laws are known. The results from those are more important than your wishful thinking. were it to happen, (a similar sized lump arriving from space would be travelling at a much higher speed and would indeed cause allsorts of problems were it to hit ocean). The movement of a tectonic plate can in some instances be at very high speed coupled with the total mass on the move gives a huge amount more energy and even then not all underwater quakes produces these waves. Franz |
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message ... "goldfinch" wrote in message ... Not under our wonderful new legislation. No, it is much closer to home. Regards, Nick Maclaren. --------------- OK. I have been wondering what you meant, Nick, and hoping that someone else would ask ;-) Then today on the news we hear that our insane government had plans to blow up the channel tunnel with a nuclear bomb if the Russians were to try and invade us. The resulting massive waves would devastate most of the S.E. coastal area. We only know this now because of the freedom of information act. No they didnt. Do you write newspaper headlines as well?Or just read the daily mail? (translating 'some officials considered a bomb but it was never implemented' into 'government had plans to swamp SE with massive waves'.) Not that there would have been any 'massive waves' anyway, maybe a small ripple. (raspberry?) -- Tumbleweed ------------- I heard it on the BBC 1 news at 6 pm today. Obviously it was never implemented ;-) Probably more than a ripple though, being close enough to the shore even if it was in the middle of the channel. Not if it was going to make the tunnel unusable for only 3 years. And the middle of the channel is 10 miles from the shore. They had tests in the nevada desert *much* nearer than that from las vegas in the 50's, not even a tremor felt in LV. The chunnel is ideally situated for being the origin of a particularly vicious deep water wave. The Nevada desert has no water. Franz |
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... In article , wrote: On 5 Jan 2005 11:51:10 GMT, (Nick Maclaren) wrote: In article , wrote: but there wasn't a channel tunnel in 1974, or was there a secret one we didn't know about? There was one in 1874! It wasn't complete - which doesn't stop the government planning how to blow it up if it were ever completed. It would need a bit of foresight to anticipate a tunnel and the invention of the atom bomb :-) No foresight needed for the first - look up the history of the tunnel - it was first proposed in the 18th century and preliminary work started in the 19th. The atom bomb was also speculated in the 19th century, but I now forget the reference. Impossible. The structure of the atom was only discovered well into the 20th century, and the energy equivalence of mass was only suggested in 1905. Anyway, you don't need one to blow up a small construction like the tunnel, nor even modern explosives; ordinary gunpowder will do. True. Franz |
"Kay" wrote in message ... In article , Douglas Douglas.1i[color=blue][i] writes Kay Wrote: In article , writes Douglas, I don't know what you are posting with, ***** A computer? ;-) ***** but you must notice that it's impossible to identify your part of the text when you reply to posts? I'm slow here to get the hang of things, but I usually show my reply by warking it with stars. I tend to reply to bits of the message individually instead of saying it all at the end. i'm sure I will improve eventually. Hey! Not one single bit of what you quoted was written by me, despite the attribution! You're absolutely right to reply to each bit individually - that's the convention in this newsgroup, and makes it a lot easier to follow the argument than with the top posting convention generally used in business emails. If you were posting here directly instead of via garden banter, you would be using a newsreader program. I use Turnpike (as do many others) and when I hit 'reply' it automatically inserts '' before each line of the text I am replying to (with more ''s for each successive previous poster) - Therefore the number of ''s at the beginning of the line tells you which person said what. This is a general newsgroup convention and is what allows us to see who said what when we're all interleaving replies. In addition, when I read a post, Turnpike displays all text with a '' in red and just the last author's contribution, with no '', in black. So when your posts turn up with '' at the beginning of each line, they are displayed in red. It's compounded by the fact your posts have the same number of '' as the previous poster - so, as was said above, it is totally impossible to identify your contribution ... or was, until you explained your personal convention of using stars. I don't know how gardenbanter works, but other people seem to have managed to suss out how to get the ''s working - perhaps you could ask in gardenbanter how they do it? Or, why use gardenbanter at all? why not subscribe to urg directly like the vast majority of urglers? Franz |
"Douglas" wrote in message ... Nick Maclaren Wrote: In article , wrote:- but there wasn't a channel tunnel in 1974, or was there a secret one we didn't know about?- ***** I have not read on here, so I'm probably repeating what has already been said: There was a building attempt in 1974, but, as usual, we Brits got scared and pulled out after several miles had been dug, much to the dismay of the French. Douglas, in a spirit of helpfulness I would like to ask how those "" at the beginning of your lines come to be there. Do you put them there? It really is a pain in the backside trying to make sense of who said what once you have contributed something to a thread. If there is another urgler who posts from garbenbanter, please let us know if you have ever had any difficulty with the attribution marks Franz |
"Tim Challenger" wrote in message news:1104832182.7eab743324810ae0059abdfe5cb57dda@t eranews... On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 20:28:29 +0000 (UTC), Franz Heymann wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:53:00 +0100, Tim Challenger wrote: On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 14:40:51 +0000 (UTC), Mike wrote: They say when it goes, that will be the end of New York. I believe that if that is the case, 'something' would have been done by now if 'any time now' relates to this year!! And what would you suggest that "they" do? Get a couple of big sticks and prop it up? You'd need a lot of string and blu-tac to hold back 500 billion tons of rock. Don't let science ruin a good discussion, that's Franz's job. :-) {:-)) I would recommend that they start making plans for evacuating New York. They wil have around 10 hours warning. Perhaps theyhave already made plans, but can't make them public because of the grand panic which would follow immediately after the announcement. Franz Thanks Franz, knew we could rely on you ;-) Glad to be of service. {:-)) Franz -- Tim C. |
|
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 01:35:51 GMT, "JeffC"
wrote: For those interested in technicalities, the following may be of use http://www.fluidmech.net/tutorials/ocean/tsunami.htm http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/%7Emat...lecture10.html -- Chris E-mail: christopher[dot]hogg[at]virgin[dot]net |
In article ,
Franz Heymann wrote: No foresight needed for the first - look up the history of the tunnel - it was first proposed in the 18th century and preliminary work started in the 19th. The atom bomb was also speculated in the 19th century, but I now forget the reference. Impossible. Don't be ridiculous. I said 'speculated', not 'built'. The structure of the atom was only discovered well into the 20th century, and the energy equivalence of mass was only suggested in 1905. So? Many things were speculated centuries or millennia before the underlying science for them was known. All you need is enough of a clue to formulate a well-specified hypothesis and an imagination. All right, damn few people have either, but some people have had since time immemorial. Many 'primitive' peoples had beliefs involving ancestral relationships between apes and men. The heliocentric solar system dates from some time before Christ. Rocket-driven space travel was speculated before Newton's laws of motion were formulated. I speculated that there could be non-nuclear DNA years before mitochondrial DNA was discovered. In fact, I also speculated quite a lot of other things about DNA, many of which are turning out to be partially true. I have discovered since that time that a fair number of other people had made similar speculations, some well before I did. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 22:18:03 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote: If you were to crack a book on hydrodynamics you will find that there are essentially four different types of wave in an ideal non-viscous liquid Capillary waves Surface waves Deep water waves Solitons (actually, there are also linear combinations of the first two) Capillary waves are what you get if you induce a wave by vibrating a tuning fork witih one tine just touching the liquid Surface waves are what you normally see on the surface of the ocean before they break near the shore. That includes the so-called "Giant waves". These are simply distinguished by having a very large amplitude of oscillation. In both those types of wave any "piece" of water moves vertically up and down. In the case of a deep water wave, any *piece" of water executes a circular motion, with the diameter of the circle equal to the depth of the water. Both tidal waves and tsunamis are synonyms for deep water waves. In the open ocean with a constant depth, a deep water wave is essentially harmless and may pass practically unnoticed. In the links I posted earlier (see below) and which seemed authoritative, tsunamis were described as shallow water waves, despite propagating in deep water. I assumed this meant their characteristics place them in the 'shallow water wave' category, and didn't mean they only appear in shallow water. I am now confused. http://www.fluidmech.net/tutorials/ocean/tsunami.htm http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/%7Emat...lecture10.html It only becomes dangerous when it meets a sloping ocean floor, so that the nornal circular motion can no longer be accomodated. It is at that stage that it begins to "suck" in water ahead of it and begins to pile up in height. That would certainly fit the descriptions coming from survivors, who talked about the tide going right out very rapidly, before the crest of the wave arrived. But I also heard that it doesn't always happen this way, depending on whether a crest or a trough hits the shore first. And wouldn't this also occur with any type of wave? They all presumably have peaks and troughs. Solitons are peculiar beasts in which certain specifically-shaped transient surface disturbances can move unchanged in shape. Franz -- Chris E-mail: christopher[dot]hogg[at]virgin[dot]net |
-- (remove the troll to reply) Always look on the bright side of life (De do, de do, de doody doody do) "Douglas" wrote in message ... JeffC Wrote: -- (remove the troll to reply) Always look on the bright side of life (De do, de do, de doody doody do) Funny how you remember these things, I recall it from when I was whisteling it as it was in the monty Python film, and it went something like: 'always look on the the bright side of lif, Slu-ur, toungue, tongue, tongue, tongue, slu-ur......' If you are going to whistle it, then at least get it right! I'll get me coat. -- Douglas I can' t whistle! |
I'm given to unstandand the reason why the IOW and the rest of the south
coast for that matter is sinking is due to the fact that the highlands of Scotland are still rising as a result of the "decompression" of the subterrain from the relief of pressure from the last ice age. So like a seesaw, the north of Britain is rising while the south of Britain is sinking. -- (remove the troll to reply) Always look on the bright side of life (De do, de do, de doody doody do) "Franz Heymann" wrote in message ... "Mike" wrote in message ... What are the views of those on uk.rec.gardening if it happens, and who will it effect? I am about 50 metres inland from the Cliff Walk between Sandown and Shanklin on the Isle of Wight and about 50 metres above sea level. But the Island could very well become 3 Islands again. Unless I am mistaken, there is no plate boundary nearby, nor are there any active submarine volcanoes around there, so you will probably be OK. I think you will be reasonably shielded from that island in the Canaries, part of which is expected to dslide off into the Atlantic at any time now. They say when it goes, that will be the end of New York. Franz |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter