Re:Putin’s nuclear torpedo and Project Pluto
by jessriedel on Sunday January 03, 2016 @01:19PM
(#10831551)
Doesn't this say that the 1958 Tsunami was 100 ft, not 1,000 ft, in height?
> the sudden displacement of water resulted in a megatsunami that destroyed vegetation up to 1,722 feet (525 m) above the height of the bay and a wave that traveled across the bay with a crest reported by witnesses to be on the order of 98 feet (30 m) in height.
Re:Putin’s nuclear torpedo and Project Pluto
by 13of40 on Sunday January 03, 2016 @01:23PM
(#10831569)
Ah, you're right: "A tsunami with a record run-up height of 1720 feet..."
I guess I should read harder.
Re:Putin’s nuclear torpedo and Project Pluto
by pbowyer on Sunday January 03, 2016 @05:22PM
(#10832825)
Can anyone help me out with how the run-up height is ~17x greater than the wave height? This is because the wave hits the shore and the volume of water in the wave gets squished thin, making it temporarily higher?
"The disturbance created by the underwater burst caused a series of waves to move outward from the center of the explosion across the surface of Bikini lagoon. At 11 seconds after the detonation, the first wave had a maximum height of 94 feet and was about 1,000 feet from surface zero. This moved outward at high speed and was followed by a series of other waves. At 22,000 feet from surface zero, the ninth wave in the series was the highest with a height of 6 feet."
I think the 1000 feet mentioned in this article might come from a misinterpretation of "1000 feet from surface zero" which just means 1000 feet from the center of the explosion.
http://www.abomb1.org/nukeffct/enw77b2.html
[Edited because I can't read and was off by an order of magnitude on my first try.]