"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
Right, but those are not entered on a chart are they?


MHWS & HLWS? No, they are not mentioned on the chart. I've just checked
one of my charts, and it explains that CD is "about" LAT - but, it doesn't
say where??? I wonder if that means that there are multiple CD's for a
chart that covers a 50 mile stretch of shoreline?

On the back of the chart, they have printed all sorts of useful information,
including definitions of MHWS, MHWN and MHW!!!

I don't remember learning about MHW, and I cannot think of any practical use
for the figure.

Perhaps Bob can explain what use one could make of the MHW figure??

Regards

Donal
--




Cheers MC

Donal wrote:

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

Yes, those of us with a functioning brain knew that. I believe that
charted depths are given at MLW and it's up to the sailor to know the
tide
table and apply it. Maybe that's why that site gave it that way?

Scotty


Around here, heights are given above chart datum, which is traditionally
the
same as LAT. This can vary from one port to another. Today, at Low
Water,
Portsmouth will have 2m (6'6") above CD.


http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/ViewArti...rticleID=55658
2


Also, we have MLWS, and MWLN but we don't have a plain MLW.


Regards


Donal
--

Well, right under the sea serpent and above the mermaid it says '' 1927
DATUM , Soundings in Feet at MLW''

Low Low Water Low Tide?????

SV

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
How old is that chart? All of my US charts from the recent past use MLLW
as the datum for
soundings. I even checked in my Chesapeake ChartKit to see if they were
different.

OK - Here's a quiz: What's the meaning of LLWLT?

BTW, I thought of commenting on the "8 feet above MLW" also - around here
we have 10 foot
tides and flooding is measured above MHW

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
Found the 'old' chart. It reads '' controlling depths in feet at Mean
Low
Water (MLW)''. AND; depths reffered to soundings (MLW)''.

Scotty


"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
Are you sure?
Don't keep charts at the house, thus the ''I believe'' .

SV



"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
No they are not. Read the chart legend

Cheers MC

Scott Vernon wrote:
I believe that
charted depths are given at MLW and it's up to the sailor to know
the
tide
table and apply it.

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
The fog around here can be so thick as to prevent one
from seeing the bow of a 40 foot boat.

That is meaningless, unless we know how far you are from this 40 foot boat?



Regards


Donal
--

According to Chapman;

MLW: the avg. height of all low waters at a place over a 19-year cycle.


MLLW: the avg. height of the lower low waters over a 19-year cycle.

SV


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
No - LAT is "Lowest Astronomical Tide" or the lowest tide that would be
predicted. LLWLT,
or "Lower Low Water Large Tide" is the average of the lowest low water for
each year in a
19 year cycle.

Presumably, LAT would be the lowest of the lowest low water in the 19 year
cycle, not the
average.



"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
Here (and the UK I believe) it is the "lowest astromical tide". If you
think about it, that is the only sensible datum for a _sounding_!

Cheers MC

Jeff Morris wrote:

If you were going to take the time to look it up, you could have at
least said how it
is
defined.


"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...

How old is that chart? All of my US charts from the recent past use
MLLW

as the datum for

soundings. I even checked in my Chesapeake ChartKit to see if they
were

different.

OK - Here's a quiz: What's the meaning of LLWLT?

Lower Low Water Large Tide.


Sounds similiar to LAT.


Regards


Donal
--

Very Good.

Another quiz: What's the meaning of "Lower Low"?


"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
According to Chapman;

MLW: the avg. height of all low waters at a place over a 19-year cycle.


MLLW: the avg. height of the lower low waters over a 19-year cycle.

SV


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
No - LAT is "Lowest Astronomical Tide" or the lowest tide that would be
predicted. LLWLT,
or "Lower Low Water Large Tide" is the average of the lowest low water for
each year in a
19 year cycle.

Presumably, LAT would be the lowest of the lowest low water in the 19 year
cycle, not the
average.



"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
Here (and the UK I believe) it is the "lowest astromical tide". If you
think about it, that is the only sensible datum for a _sounding_!

Cheers MC

Jeff Morris wrote:

If you were going to take the time to look it up, you could have at
least said how it
is
defined.


"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...

How old is that chart? All of my US charts from the recent past use
MLLW

as the datum for

soundings. I even checked in my Chesapeake ChartKit to see if they
were

different.

OK - Here's a quiz: What's the meaning of LLWLT?

Lower Low Water Large Tide.


Sounds similiar to LAT.


Regards


Donal
--

That would be when there are two low tides in a day, the lower one being
''Lower Low''.

???????



"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
Very Good.

Another quiz: What's the meaning of "Lower Low"?


"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
According to Chapman;

MLW: the avg. height of all low waters at a place over a 19-year cycle.


MLLW: the avg. height of the lower low waters over a 19-year cycle.

SV


"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
No - LAT is "Lowest Astronomical Tide" or the lowest tide that would
be
predicted. LLWLT,
or "Lower Low Water Large Tide" is the average of the lowest low water
for
each year in a
19 year cycle.

Presumably, LAT would be the lowest of the lowest low water in the 19
year
cycle, not the
average.



"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
Here (and the UK I believe) it is the "lowest astromical tide". If
you
think about it, that is the only sensible datum for a _sounding_!

Cheers MC

Jeff Morris wrote:

If you were going to take the time to look it up, you could have
at
least said how it
is
defined.


"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...

How old is that chart? All of my US charts from the recent past
use
MLLW

as the datum for

soundings. I even checked in my Chesapeake ChartKit to see if
they
were

different.

OK - Here's a quiz: What's the meaning of LLWLT?

Lower Low Water Large Tide.


Sounds similiar to LAT.


Regards


Donal
--

Douglas Berry wrote in
:

On 22 Sep 2003 14:03:08 -0700, several witnesses claim to have seen
(Doug Freyburger) scrawl a message on the wall:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Bertie has spent year trolling many newsgroups attacking Asatru
and this is one of his milder trolls. Having such a vulgar
and delusional obessive enemy complements Asatru. Folks can
learn much about your by who your enemies are, after all.
Bertie needs medical help.

To tell you the truth, I'm not terribly concerned with the
rampblings of someone who thinks a comic book character is God.

The Aesir hold a lot of concern for you to spend so many years
honoring them with your vulgar opposition. You clearly think
they are worth opposing.

Seek medical help.

huh? Who really cares what you do with your time? You want to
worship the Old Gods, go right ahead.

But don't be hurt when this crap gets cross-linked to alt.atheism,
where we find all religious beliefs rather silly at best.

And for your information, I wear a Tyr rune that was a gift from an
asatru friend. She gave to me as I was about to start chemotherapy.
Said it would help me focus my warrior side for the fight. I've worn
it everyday since. Not because I believe in Tyr, but because I
appreciated the gesture and what it meant.


Oh admit it, you wore it because you thougth it looked cool.

Just like these ****s do.

Bertie

The LAT is the lowest predicted tide, not necessarily the lowest tide that ever occurred.
Its quite possible for weather conditions to create an even lower tide, but LAT, LLWLT,
MLW, and MLLW all relate to astronomical predictions, not the actual observations. I
wonder how frequently they adjust for the rising sea level?

-jeff



"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message
...
No - LAT is "Lowest Astronomical Tide" or the lowest tide that would be
predicted. LLWLT,
or "Lower Low Water Large Tide" is the average of the lowest low water for
each year in a
19 year cycle.

Presumably, LAT would be the lowest of the lowest low water in the 19 year
cycle, not the
average.


That would really depend on whether the lowest low had been predicted,
wouldn't it?

Anyway, LAT is much better than LLWLT.

For one thing, you can remember the letters without having to look them up!


Regards


Donal
--

MHW is very important on US charts. RB might hurt himself trying to figure out why -
should we give him a hint?

As to your other question, yes the Chart Datum for Soundings is not absolute, it is
relative to the local tide. Usually not a factor, but if you're looking at a chart of the
Cape Cod Canal you have rather different tide domains at either end - a 10 foot range on
the CC Bay side, about 3 feet in Buzzard's Bay - hence a rather severe current.

-jeff
"There is a tide in the affairs of men / Which, taken at the flood, leads on to
fortune." - William Shakespeare


"Donal" wrote in message
...

"The_navigator©" wrote in message
...
Right, but those are not entered on a chart are they?


MHWS & HLWS? No, they are not mentioned on the chart. I've just checked
one of my charts, and it explains that CD is "about" LAT - but, it doesn't
say where??? I wonder if that means that there are multiple CD's for a
chart that covers a 50 mile stretch of shoreline?

On the back of the chart, they have printed all sorts of useful information,
including definitions of MHWS, MHWN and MHW!!!

I don't remember learning about MHW, and I cannot think of any practical use
for the figure.

Perhaps Bob can explain what use one could make of the MHW figure??

Regards

Donal
--




Cheers MC

Donal wrote:

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

Yes, those of us with a functioning brain knew that. I believe that
charted depths are given at MLW and it's up to the sailor to know the
tide
table and apply it. Maybe that's why that site gave it that way?

Scotty


Around here, heights are given above chart datum, which is traditionally
the
same as LAT. This can vary from one port to another. Today, at Low
Water,
Portsmouth will have 2m (6'6") above CD.


http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/ViewArti...rticleID=55658
2


Also, we have MLWS, and MWLN but we don't have a plain MLW.


Regards


Donal
--

Heights on land and clearances are above MWHS -right?

Cheers MC