PDA

View Full Version : Tide



2001-Nov-30, 11:33 AM
November 30, 2001 5:02 A.M. PST | 8 IMIX 19 CEH
.1 the "CLAM TIDE" gets displaced 7 days
a. from WHEN to Moon Conjuncts Sun! Why?
2: in fig #3 "the angle" between Earths
b. Tidal bulge and line to Moon
c. remain constant or does it warble?
3? how many lunar orbiting satalites are
f. there currently?
e. and what are the links to...
d. Data (range from moon) [etc] for`EM

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Nov-30, 11:51 AM
I did a search for "clam tide" and the only sites that popped up were in the North American Pacific Northwest, especially Washington and Alaska. I've clammed in Seattle, and the tide is huge. When it goes out, it goes way out.

Normally, tidal range is a couple feet, but that is open ocean. Geometry of the shore plays a big part. For instance, the tidal range in Baltimore is 1'8" (one foot, eight inches), according to the World Almanac, but in Seattle it is 11'4". Also, the tidal bulge of the diagrams is at low latitudes--at higher latitudes, like Washington or Alaska, the "bulge" is different.

The bulge tends to point towards the moon, with a depression ninety degrees away--but that depression occurs ninety degrees away north and south too!

SeanF
2001-Nov-30, 01:00 PM
I hate to post something obvious, but isn't "clam tide" a low tide? If so, I would expect it to be at first and last quarter moons rather than at full and new moons . . . wouldn't I?

Or am I misunderstanding Hub's question?

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Nov-30, 01:38 PM
On 2001-11-30 08:00, SeanF wrote:
Or am I misunderstanding Hub's question?

Hahahahahahahahahaha

Oh, sorry. Really, it's hard to tell. What does it mean to be displaced seven days? There are high tides and low tides every day.

SeanF
2001-Nov-30, 02:13 PM
On 2001-11-30 08:38, GrapesOfWrath wrote:


On 2001-11-30 08:00, SeanF wrote:
Or am I misunderstanding Hub's question?

Hahahahahahahahahaha


Glad you appreciated that! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif



Oh, sorry. Really, it's hard to tell. What does it mean to be displaced seven days? There are high tides and low tides every day.


Okay, I've got to rethink what I was thinking now. The tides are greater when the sun, moon, and earth all line up (the sun's and moon's tidal forces are in the same direction) and lesser when the three bodes form a 90-degree angle (the sun's and moon's tidal forces are opposing and "cancel out" each other to a certain degree). Alignment produces "spring tides" while 90-degrees produces "neap tides".

However, that means that the low tide during alignment is actually lower than otherwise -- the difference between high and low spring tides is greater, while the difference between high and low neap tides is lesser.

So, the tides identified as "clam tides," which HUb' says are off seven days from conjunction, would be the smallest differences and not the absolute lowest lows.

Maybe that makes them extra good for clam digging? I don't know.

David Simmons
2001-Nov-30, 02:57 PM
On 2001-11-30 08:00, SeanF wrote:
I hate to post something obvious, but isn't "clam tide" a low tide? If so, I would expect it to be at first and last quarter moons rather than at full and new moons . . . wouldn't I?



Lowest tides occur when the moon is either new or full and at sunset or dawn. Draw yourself a sketch of the earth with the tidal bulge pointing at the moon and imagine where on earth you would be a low tide.

Highest tides occur when the moon is new or full and directly overhead, at noon or at midnight.

These times are greatly modified by the local configuration of the coastline.

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Nov-30, 03:29 PM
On 2001-11-30 09:13, SeanF wrote:
So, the tides identified as "clam tides," which HUb' says are off seven days from conjunction, would be the smallest differences and not the absolute lowest lows.

Maybe that makes them extra good for clam digging? I don't know.

Right. His would be "high" low tides, apparently, although it might help to know where HUb' is, since the tides are dependent upon geography.

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Nov-30, 03:32 PM
HUb'

We don't need to know where you are, we just need to know where "the "CLAM TIDE" gets displaced 7 days from WHEN to Moon Conjuncts Sun!" And what a "CLAM TIDE" is. Is it just low tide? Or is it a very low tide?

2001-Dec-01, 05:57 PM
[quote]
On 2001-11-30 08:00, SeanF wrote:
I hate to post something obvious, but isn't "clam tide" a low tide? If so, I would expect it to be at first and last quarter moons rather than at full and new moons . . . wouldn't I?

Or am I misunderstanding Hub's question?
11:29 A.M. HUb' sure "Clam Tides" are
also called Minus Tides { or if you like }
Very low tides. Its just tha on those {days
of the month} theres also a VERY high tide
and the tidal range reaches a Maximum see 11:32

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Dec-01, 06:02 PM
That's kinda what I was thinking you meant.

I'd say, at most places, that very low tide is during full and new moon, but maybe not everywhere. Where is it that it is displaced seven days?

2001-Dec-01, 06:03 PM
HUb' 11:33 A.M. ? the points i tried to make
WHERE: when the Moon and Sun are in
conjunction {aka New Moon} what earthlings
now days call gravity { I call it instant Gr }
should be at its max {instanttaniously}
and an Earth Tide{al} [RANGE] should2 be
Hahahahahahahahahaha
11:36 A.M. HUb' that however's not true
Oh, sorry. Really, it's hard to tell. What does it mean to be displaced seven days? There are high tides and low tides every day.
[/quote] 11:36 A.M. REALLY the Clams come in about 7 days ?Comprenda?

2001-Dec-01, 06:08 PM
On 2001-11-30 09:57, David Simmons wrote:


On 2001-11-30 08:00, SeanF wrote:
I hate to post something obvious, but isn't "clam tide" a low tide? If so, I would expect it to be at first and last quarter moons rather than at full and new moons . . . wouldn't I?



Lowest tides occur when the moon is either new or full and at sunset or dawn. Draw yourself a sketch of the earth with the tidal bulge pointing at the moon and imagine where on earth you would be a low tide.

Highest tides occur when the moon is new or full and directly overhead, at noon or at midnight.

These times are greatly modified by the local configuration of the coastline.
11:41 A.M. let me simply say I disagree COMPLETELY, especially with the logic and the posativeism I try to mention "Tidal Range" Hi tide - Low tide

2001-Dec-03, 03:51 PM
On 2001-11-30 10:32, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
HUb'

We don't need to know where you are, we just need to know where "the "CLAM TIDE" gets displaced 7 days from WHEN to Moon Conjuncts Sun!" And what a "CLAM TIDE" is. Is it just low tide? Or is it a very low tide?
HUb' 9:24 A.M. PST never had so much trouble
with on idea befor. Today was my second
thwarted try to post http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/pred_retrieve.shtml?input_code=100001101ppr&type=pred
url=http://tidesonline.nos.noaa.gov/coastline.shtml?region=or
http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/faq2.html#15

2001-Dec-03, 03:58 PM
its very true that the current numbers i get
<pre>
11/30/2001, 2.90 -0.25 = 3.15 Range | I have not yet found
2.50. .1 = 2.4 | my argument for
3.00 -0.25 = 3.25 | these HISTORical days
first quarter 2.30 0.30 = 2.0 | I will do a search
</pre> do NOT support my asertion that there
does exist a seven day delay between the day
of the "NEW" moon and the so called "Clam Tide"
Maybe I was just wrong
however its sure a strong memory
and a thought i'll presue as to when Last line =9:32 A.M.
I had the idea ? and one i'll watch closly now

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Dec-03, 06:18 PM
Have you always lived in Astoria?

2001-Dec-05, 02:25 PM
On 2001-12-03 13:18, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Have you always lived in Astoria?

1-12-05 7:56 A.M. HUb'
I don't actually live in Astoria
its just the closest place i have data for.
I live in Portland {about 8 hours up river}
on the Williamette a Main tributary of the
Columbia which mouths at Astoria?

GrapesOfWrath
2001-Dec-05, 02:45 PM
I was just thinking that maybe there might have been some other place where the tidal conditions were modified by geography, or something.

2004-Sep-17, 02:34 PM
3AKBAL 6CHEN
things are sure Quiet around here
so i've dredged up my OLD old argument?
about why Clam Tides {Do Not Occure}
when the Moon is New Or Full
{some when later as I recall}
1: like to tides 4cast
http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/pred_retrieve.shtml?input_code=100001101ppr&amp;type=p red

http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/co-ops_qry_wlpred.cgi?stn=9439040+ASTORIA%2C+TONGUE+P OINT%2C+COLUMBIA+RIVER+%2C+OR&amp;unit=0&amp;shift=0&amp;mins= 6&amp;datum=MLLW&amp;bdate=20040916&amp;edate=20040917&amp;dcp=1&amp;s sid=PR&amp;pc=W1&amp;format=View+Plot

http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/co-ops_qry_wlpred.cgi?stn=9439099+WAUNA%2C+COLUMBIA+R IVER+%2C+OR&amp;unit=0&amp;shift=0&amp;mins=6&amp;datum=MLLW&amp;bdate =20040916&amp;edate=20040917&amp;dcp=1&amp;ssid=PR&amp;pc=W1&amp;forma t=View+Plot

http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/co-ops_qry_wlpred.cgi?stn=9440422+LONGVIEW%2C+COLUMBI A+RIVER+%2C+WA&amp;unit=0&amp;shift=0&amp;mins=6&amp;datum=MLLW&amp;bd ate=20040916&amp;edate=20040917&amp;dcp=1&amp;ssid=PR&amp;pc=W1&amp;fo rmat=View+Plot

http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/co-ops_qry_wlpred.cgi?stn=9439189+ROCKY+POINT%2C+MULT NOMAH+CHANNEL+%2C+OR&amp;unit=0&amp;shift=0&amp;mins=6&amp;datum=M LLW&amp;bdate=20040916&amp;edate=20040917&amp;dcp=1&amp;ssid=PR&amp;pc =W1&amp;format=View+Plot

http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/co-ops_qry_wlpred.cgi?stn=9439201+SAINT+HELENS%2C+COL UMBIA+RIVER+%2C+OR&amp;unit=0&amp;shift=0&amp;mins=6&amp;datum=MLL W&amp;bdate=20040916&amp;edate=20040917&amp;dcp=1&amp;ssid=PR&amp;pc=W 1&amp;format=View+Plot


http://www.co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/co-ops_qry_wlpred.cgi?stn=9439221+PORTLAND%2C+MORRISO N+STREET+BRIDGE+%2C+OR&amp;unit=0&amp;shift=0&amp;mins=6&amp;datum =MLLW&amp;bdate=20040916&amp;edate=20040917&amp;dcp=1&amp;ssid=PR&amp; pc=W1&amp;format=View+Plot

2: upcoming Full?

http://www.ameritech.net/users/paulcarlisle/MoonCalendar.html

http://imagiware.com/astro/moon.cgi

http://www.calculatorcat.com/moon_phases/moon_phases.phtml


3: ?

Grand Vizier
2004-Sep-17, 02:57 PM
At least I can have a shot at part of Hub''s stuff:



3? how many lunar orbiting satalites are
f. there currently?


Uncertain. All low orbits on the Moon are unstable due to distortions in the gravitational field known as mascons. Plus many orbiters have been deliberately crashed.

Here is a list, but you an see that most of these are in heliocentric orbit or are uncertain:

http://www.kokogiak.com/luna/default.asp?sort=8

What we have is:

1967: Explorer 35
1968: Luna 14
1971: Luna 19
1973: Explorer 49

I would certainly bet on the Explorers still being there, since they were not really designed to examine the Moon, so were in very wide orbits - they were really just using the Moon as an anchor.

None of those craft are still active, but Smart-1, the first European probe, will be placed in lunar orbit later this year.

2004-Sep-17, 03:07 PM
At least I can have a shot at part of Hub''s stuff:



3? how many lunar orbiting satalites are here currently?


http://www.kokogiak.com/luna/default.asp?sort=8

What we have is: 1967: Explorer 35 1968: Luna 14 1971: Luna 19 1973: Explorer 49
will be placed in lunar orbit later this year.

I cannot help notice how many (100%) failures in '58
that looks like the starting year TO ME?
anyway for what its worth/ WHEN i look at that {those} numbers
i think of the electron microscopes over (North) of here{SB2}
in the basement of SB1 {hmm}? (oh well) Back to Deep Red's

Grand Vizier
2004-Sep-17, 03:45 PM
[color=darkred]I cannot help notice how many (100%) failures in '58
that looks like the starting year TO ME?


Both the US and the USSR were extremely ambitious, if you consider that that was only the second year of the space race.

But the early failures hit the US harder. They didn't have a real success until Ranger 7 in 1964, while the USSR had firsts with Lunas 1-3 in 1959. In 1958 the US was sort of trying to run before they could walk.

But after 1964, the situation reverses itself and it's the US that makes the running - they learned a lot from those failures.

And it's also worth noting that many of the Soviet failures that didn't make it beyond Earth orbit were not known at the time. The Russians simply passed them off as regular Sputniks to the world's press. So it must have been a very dispiriting time for US rocketeers.