[Bored chemist]

this is one of them.

What is?

[The Spoon]

What is the point of this thread?

There are many hypotheses for the formation of killer waves, this is one of them.
Many sailors are in the seas and oceans, and for them the prediction of the formation of killer waves is vital.

Given your complete ignorance of how tides work and other elements of oceanography what you post is worse than useless with regard to prediction of killer waves. It is not a hypotheses, it is speculation based on idiotic speculation.

[accountsconfidant]

Can this mystery be solved?

[The Spoon]

Can this mystery be solved?

Why are you posting the same idiotic nonsense using a sock account?

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

Given your complete ignorance of how tides work

This topic is not about how tides are formed.
This topic is about how tidal waves work.

[Bored chemist]

This topic is about how tidal waves work.

Given your complete ignorance of how tides work and other elements of oceanography what you post is worse than useless with regard to prediction of killer waves.

[The Spoon]

Given your complete ignorance of how tides work

This topic is not about how tides are formed.
This topic is about how tidal waves work.

Tidal waves - there is a bit of a clue in the name....
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/tidalwave.html

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

Can this mystery be solved?

It is already solved, moreover, you read it.

[pensador]

Can this mystery be solved?

It is already solved, moreover, you read it.

I managed to read down the first page of this thread, and realized the point of your confusion, is likely a lack of knowledge on ocean depths, as compared to the north sea. Gas Platforms are placed in shallowish water, when waves form in shallow water where it shelves they get bigger, even coming from 1000m to 40m with a current flowing up onto the shallow area huge waves can form, this can be seen, at various geological locations in the world. The north sea which has recorded super waves hitting gas platforms is shallow.

The Atlantic where the Bermuda triangle is located is very deep. Tidal waves/sunamis caused by under sea earth quakes are hardly noticed in deep water. As they approach land or shallower water the wave is increased sometimes dramatically. Huge Argon gas emissions from the sea floor are a likely cause of the effects seen in the Bermuda triangle, such as compasses not pointing north, and the surface of the ocean releasing lots of small bubbles, as one person who witnessed these effects explained to me. I have no reason not to believe her it was my wife.

In storm conditions in any ocean/sea, huge waves do form as a result of waves from different directions, and moving at slightly different speeds, interacting with each other. 10m waves near hurricanes or 6m waves near storms are not common place, but for some weird reason they always come in threes. Maybe somebody can explain? Its probably a fourier thing, or chaos theory, maybe mother nature stretching her muscles . I dont fully understand why this happens maybe some one can explain? why do big waves come in threes?

[Colin2B]

10m waves near hurricanes or 6m waves near storms are not common place, but for some weird reason they always come in threes. Maybe somebody can explain? Its probably a fourier thing, or chaos theory, maybe mother nature stretching her muscles . I dont fully understand why this happens maybe some one can explain? why do big waves come in threes?

Waves do come in sets, but not necessarily in 3s, often quoted as 7.
What happens starts far out in the ocean where storm conditions create waves of many different wavelengths. Ocean waves are dispersive with the longer wavelengths travelling faster and as these wave travel from their source they leave the ‘clutter’ of smaller waves behind (similar to near field far field effect) and fall into a relatively predictable sequence, usually one with a long wavelength or distance between two consecutive crests. These swell waves also mix (yes Fourier analysis comes into it) with more local wind driven waves where the wavelength is determined by wind strength and the fetch - distance the wind blows over. The sort of swells we are likely to observe on a fair-weather day at the beach will commonly arrive in groups of 12 to 16 waves, which coupled with the tendency of wave groups to bundle their tallest waves in the centre of the group, provides a possible basis for the often quoted seventh wave claim.
 So the first wave in a group is tiny, the next one is bigger and so on until you get the biggest one in the middle of the group. Then they get smaller again. The last one is tiny, so the biggest wave in the group is in the middle, and if there are 14 waves in a group, the seventh wave is the biggest. A similar effect happens with waves in 6 groups, the third is biggest. When sailing it’s helpful to try and count the waves to determine the group size, very important when coming about to know where the lull will fall - the opposite to what surfers are looking for.

The problem with the OP is that he has a very poor understanding of both astronomy and wave/tidal effects. As you say, waves outside the norm are more common in shallower area eg Biscay and areas of upwelling currents eg S Africa coast. What the OP misses in the N Sea was the weather conditions at the time and the effect this had, particularly as you mentioned the crossing sea.

All currents that move in the seas and oceans reflect a tidal wave, and they are called tidal currents, and the greater the kinetic energy of the currents, the greater the tidal wave.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/ocean-current4.htm

This article does not support your assertion.

No one is questioning the existence of rogue waves ie waves whose height is more than twice the significant wave height (Hs or SWH), SWH = mean of the largest third of waves in measurement period.
What we are questioning is your explanation of their formation.

In the North Sea, off the coast of Norway, on the Dropner oil platform on January 1, 1995, during a 12-meter storm wave, a killer wave of 25.6 meters was formed.

I believe the reason for this natural phenomenon is the tidal current that moves along the coast of Norway from west to east, reflecting a tidal wave from itself both towards the coast and towards the open sea.
Also, north of the Dropner oil platform through the Pentland Firth Strait, a current moves from west to east at a speed of 16 knots. reflecting a tidal wave from itself, to the north and south.

As @bored says, there is a flaw in trying to link this to the Bermuda Triangle.

Also, there are serious flaws in your attempt to explain the Draupner wave on January 1 1995.
- If the cause was tidal, you would expect similar waves to appear in sync with the tides - they do not.
- the tidal currents are not waves, so they are not reflected in the way wind derived waves are.

The true cause of the wave is meteorological.
Surface ocean waves are gravity waves formed by wind. On Jan 1 ‘95 there were 2 low pressure systems in this area, one a polar low N of Norway and the second over Sweden. The 10m winds in the area of the platform were over 20m/s (45mph - gale force) but added to this, the polar low was moving S then SE at 15m/s, this is fast and would cause a rise in sea level creating significant energy into the waves and the corresponding wave peak period would be around 19 s.  Add to this the effect of the Swedish low giving winds raising waves crossing those from the polar low. As all sailors know these crossing waves cause a dangerous situation known as a disturbed sea; dangerous because wave height can be very unpredictable with both high steep waves and sudden holes. In these conditions the likelihood of a wave outside the general rule of thumb would not be unusual, the rig just happened to be over where it happened.

Just a note: Rayleigh distribution Hs is 10 metres (33 feet), so statistically:

1 in 10 waves will be larger than 10.7 metres (35 ft)
1 in 100 will be larger than 15.1 metres (50 ft)
1 in 1000 will be larger than 18.6 metres (61 ft)
Etc

[pensador]

10m waves near hurricanes or 6m waves near storms are not common place, but for some weird reason they always come in threes. Maybe somebody can explain? Its probably a fourier thing, or chaos theory, maybe mother nature stretching her muscles . I dont fully understand why this happens maybe some one can explain? why do big waves come in threes?

Waves do come in sets, but not necessarily in 3s, often quoted as 7.
What happens starts far out in the ocean where storm conditions create waves of many different wavelengths. Ocean waves are dispersive with the longer wavelengths travelling faster and as these wave travel from their source they leave the ‘clutter’ of smaller waves behind (similar to near field far field effect) and fall into a relatively predictable sequence, usually one with a long wavelength or distance between two consecutive crests. These swell waves also mix (yes Fourier analysis comes into it) with more local wind driven waves where the wavelength is determined by wind strength and the fetch - distance the wind blows over. The sort of swells we are likely to observe on a fair-weather day at the beach will commonly arrive in groups of 12 to 16 waves, which coupled with the tendency of wave groups to bundle their tallest waves in the centre of the group, provides a possible basis for the often quoted seventh wave claim.
 So the first wave in a group is tiny, the next one is bigger and so on until you get the biggest one in the middle of the group. Then they get smaller again. The last one is tiny, so the biggest wave in the group is in the middle, and if there are 14 waves in a group, the seventh wave is the biggest. A similar effect happens with waves in 6 groups, the third is biggest. When sailing it’s helpful to try and count the waves to determine the group size, very important when coming about to know where the lull will fall - the opposite to what surfers are looking for.

The problem with the OP is that he has a very poor understanding of both astronomy and wave/tidal effects. As you say, waves outside the norm are more common in shallower area eg Biscay and areas of upwelling currents eg S Africa coast. What the OP misses in the N Sea was the weather conditions at the time and the effect this had, particularly as you mentioned the crossing sea.

All currents that move in the seas and oceans reflect a tidal wave, and they are called tidal currents, and the greater the kinetic energy of the currents, the greater the tidal wave.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/ocean-current4.htm

This article does not support your assertion.

No one is questioning the existence of rogue waves ie waves whose height is more than twice the significant wave height (Hs or SWH), SWH = mean of the largest third of waves in measurement period.
What we are questioning is your explanation of their formation.

In the North Sea, off the coast of Norway, on the Dropner oil platform on January 1, 1995, during a 12-meter storm wave, a killer wave of 25.6 meters was formed.

I believe the reason for this natural phenomenon is the tidal current that moves along the coast of Norway from west to east, reflecting a tidal wave from itself both towards the coast and towards the open sea.
Also, north of the Dropner oil platform through the Pentland Firth Strait, a current moves from west to east at a speed of 16 knots. reflecting a tidal wave from itself, to the north and south.

As @bored says, there is a flaw in trying to link this to the Bermuda Triangle.

Also, there are serious flaws in your attempt to explain the Draupner wave on January 1 1995.
- If the cause was tidal, you would expect similar waves to appear in sync with the tides - they do not.
- the tidal currents are not waves, so they are not reflected in the way wind derived waves are.

The true cause of the wave is meteorological.
Surface ocean waves are gravity waves formed by wind. On Jan 1 ‘95 there were 2 low pressure systems in this area, one a polar low N of Norway and the second over Sweden. The 10m winds in the area of the platform were over 20m/s (45mph - gale force) but added to this, the polar low was moving S then SE at 15m/s, this is fast and would cause a rise in sea level creating significant energy into the waves and the corresponding wave peak period would be around 19 s.  Add to this the effect of the Swedish low giving winds raising waves crossing those from the polar low. As all sailors know these crossing waves cause a dangerous situation known as a disturbed sea; dangerous because wave height can be very unpredictable with both high steep waves and sudden holes. In these conditions the likelihood of a wave outside the general rule of thumb would not be unusual, the rig just happened to be over where it happened.

Just a note: Rayleigh distribution Hs is 10 metres (33 feet), so statistically:

1 in 10 waves will be larger than 10.7 metres (35 ft)
1 in 100 will be larger than 15.1 metres (50 ft)
1 in 1000 will be larger than 18.6 metres (61 ft)
Etc

Thanks for the answer, the ocean is not easy to model. Storms in the southern ocean can send waves thousands of miles which interact with storms in the northern side of the equator, I wonder if these effects have been taken into account in the idealized models. The really big waves I have experience do come in 3's. I have experienced them first hand on a number of occasions. They are steep fronted, normally breaking on the top, and often do not come from the same direction as the rest of the waves. for example I was side swiped by a hurricane whilst running down wind in gale force winds. The main wave pattern was from the direction of the prevailing gale, every few minutes or so 3 really big waves would appear from slightly a different angle, ie in the direction of the hurricane.

Really big waves in my experience come in threes. I can see how your model would work in a small sea, but is it still valid in an ocean where waves travel thousands of miles and interact with other storm waves causing confused seas.

 

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

What we are questioning is your explanation of their formation.

Experience to the topic: The mystery of the Bermuda Triangle - killer waves.
There is no such experience on the Internet.

[The Spoon]

What we are questioning is your explanation of their formation.

Experience to the topic: The mystery of the Bermuda Triangle - killer waves.
There is no such experience on the Internet.

Why do you actually think there is a mystery with regard to the Bermuda Triangle?
Secondly, when you state that 'there is no such experience' on the internet, you seem to be displaying ignorance of the existence of waves tanks....although I do grant that your video has a certain naive, childlike charm...

[Colin2B]

killer waves.
There is no such experience on the Internet.

Garbage
Of course there is. Both open published information and research papers behind paywalls. We understand a great deal about waves great and small and your explanations are nowhere near correct.

Didn’t notice this

I can see how your model would work in a small sea, but is it still valid in an ocean where waves travel thousands of miles and interact with other storm waves causing confused seas.

It isn’t a model. It is statistics based on observations from weather ships, research vessels, buoys etc.
I wrote “Waves do come in sets, but not necessarily in 3s, often quoted as 7.” So I have no doubt that you will see sets of 3, it’s just that they are not the most common in the distribution.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

Also, there are serious flaws in your attempt to explain the Draupner wave on January 1 1995.
- If the cause was tidal, you would expect similar waves to appear in sync with the tides - they do not.

That's right, they form every day, but rarely are killer waves huge.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

I can see how your model would work in a small sea, but is it still valid in an ocean where waves travel thousands of miles and interact with other storm waves causing confused seas.

All physical processes that occur in the ocean occur in the seas and lakes.
In seas and oceans, only wind and tidal waves arise, sometimes tsunamis.
In reality, ocean physics is very simple.

[Colin2B]

Also, there are serious flaws in your attempt to explain the Draupner wave on January 1 1995.
- If the cause was tidal, you would expect similar waves to appear in sync with the tides - they do not.

That's right, they form every day,

Wrong

In reality, ocean physics is very simple.

Then it's a pity you don't understand it.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

Experience to the topic: The mystery of the Bermuda Triangle - killer waves.
There is no such experience on the Internet.

your video has a certain naive, childlike charm

You can write more comment on your thought.

[Bored chemist]

"Is the mystery killer of the Bermuda Triangle killer waves?"
No the mystery of the Bermuda triangle is "why is anyone still talking about it?".

[Bored chemist]

"Is the mystery killer of the Bermuda Triangle killer waves?"
No the mystery of the Bermuda triangle is "why is anyone still talking about it?".

Well, I'm not sure what outcome I expected, but wouldn't have guessed at changing the name of the thread.