Wind wave is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does the amount of water affect the size of the wave?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.42.254 ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 13 December 2005
Certainly not. Water will deform continuously under shear so the amount (Volume basis) of water doesn't have a role to play in the size of the waves.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Samueldevadoss ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 7 February 2006
The image alignment of this page is somewhat odd. Could it be changed so that the text is next to the images?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fods12 ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 1 January 2006
Is a water wave's speed always the same (even if frequency changes) except for when depth changes? I read this formula: v=root(g x d) d=depth—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.132.180 ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 13 March 2006
I do not like the "elliptical trajectory" diagram. Trajectories are never elongated in the vertical, as drawn, but always in the horizontal, and only when the water is shallow. Also, the dashed red trajectory should not extend higher than the tops of the crests. This same diagram is part of the Wave article, and I think it should also be changed there. Rracecarr 23:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
images are taking over this page, perhaps they could be culled a bit, or more written to increase the words:image ratio?-- naught101 06:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
With that background I'll ask before making this change. Would my picture Waveface.jpg add something to the article? I believe it adds value in that it shows the shallow ocean floor where the wave breaks and how sand is being caught by and sucked into the wave when it breaks - and that this visually explains something fundamental about waves to the reader - but I don't want to add more pictures to this article if it is already overloaded. Elmats 12:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I added quite a bit to the page, in a little more layman's terms. Anyone vote for removing the stub tag? LACameraman 08:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I am. I figured this didn't fall under the original research as that article was thoroughly researched. Also no copyright violation as I'm the original author of the original article. Hope that it helped to round out the article a bit. LACameraman 06:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a modification of the image. I think it is better and more correct than the original. I've made it only for shallow water, but it is easy to do it for deep water too. I've chosen the numbers to facilitate the use in any language.(Internationalization)
Zimbres 21:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The 'Types of waves' section is out of tune with the start of the article. It is written in a 'popular' style and IMO should be rewritten or deleted. MH 20:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Ocean waves are inherently mathematical. They are one of the few phenomena described adequately by linear math. The math isn't that hard. User:jmkstrat
Coorect me if i am wrong, but doesnt a longer fectch produce a larger wave, therefore that would be a destructive wave. Also a shorter fetch, makes a constructive wave because the wave has less energy to drag sediment back during the backswash. 88.108.26.22 13:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes it does, it says that constructive waves are formed over a longer fetch and that a destructive wave is formed with a short fetch razza 14:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I've always wondered why every eighth wave striking land is always the biggest. I can't find an answer anywhere. Does anybody know? I'd be grateful if someone could tell me on my talk page. Thanks! Robinoke 14:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The article describes phase velocity as the speed of movement of changes in shape. I believe this is not quite correct. The phase velocity is the speed of propogation of a phase change (ie change in phase angle). Shape changes can occur from amplitude (group velocity) and frequency of source. (Edit: Ill come back in a few days and modify it if there is no comment on this.) User A1 08:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently Ocean surface waves are surface waves that occur at the surface of an ocean. I changed this, hopefully to make it sound better and be a little bit less of a circular definition. Tell me what you think User A1 06:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the correct terminology is "surface gravity wave(s)", as gravity is the restorative mechanism which enables the wave to propagate. This differentiates them from other wave phenomena such as "capillary waves", which are in fact surface waves but are driven by surface tension as the restorative mechanism. One can also observe capillary waves on the ocean surface but it is my understanding that this article refers to surface gravity waves. Michael.morristhomas 18:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone shed any light on the origin and extent of use of the kayaking term Clapitus -- in that article? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clapitor creator ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
Hi,
I think there is no need for the wave close up in the section that you added it to. It does little to increase the reader's understanding of the types of wind waves possible. However the image is quite reasonable and obviously good effort has been expended in achieving it. Finally can you digitally edit (maybe just crop) the image to remove the giant date stamp on it? It detracts from the quality of the image (IMHO). Thanks, User A1 02:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What do we think about merging the content of Waves and shallow water into this article? User A1 16:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The article Soliton mentions that solitary waves were first observed in water, in a barge canal by John Scott Russell. Here's a website about it. Should this be added to the article? How do soliton waves differ from ordinary water waves? -- Chetvorno TALK 00:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
what determines whether there'll be waves in a place of water or not... in some rivers there seems to be waves or is that an innacuracey... do bays have waves... do rivers and canals... what about the thing with the moon... sorry my question mark on the keypad doesnt work... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.49.19.130 ( talk) 18:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Waves poise a serious danger to people and property. Even non-Tsunamis are quite deadly. If the page is to be a FA it should have a section detailing the dangers. I have started edits, but can use other editors.-- Lemmey talk 23:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The edits by InIn9393 ( talk) on April 28 and May 4 are reverted by me, since they are not encyclopedic, using definitions which are uncommon to the literature on the subject, and due to the chosen definitions come to erroneous conclusions regarding the direction of the particle drift motion. The reference used by InIn1993 is a paper by Constantin (2006), Inventiones Mathematicae, vol. 166, p. 523. In the edits by InIn93 also references therein to earlier papers by Constantin seem to be referred.
Crowsnest ( talk) 14:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, it seems that there is a widely held misunderstanding about this topic. It is correct that the orbits are not closed for non-linear waves, but this is also true for linear waves, although this requires a careful calculation ( Stokes drift). Indeed the mean drift of water particles is related to the wave momentum, which, just like the wave energy, is a nonlinear property, proportional to the amplitude squared. I could expand on this here but you may otherwise consult Phillips (1977). I would thus suggest that the page is corrected accordingly. Ardhuin ( talk) 08:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
This article consisted of too many pictures for their own sake -- these images do not connect to the article prose in any way. I have removed them for this reason. If a gallery is desried, it may be an idea to add an external link to a creative commons gallery. User A1 ( talk) 05:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The wind waves described in this article occur on lakes and large rivers as well as oceans. Ocean surface waves also encompasses Kelvin waves, Rossby waves, tidal waves etc. which are not mentioned (although there is a brief mention of tsunamis, which does not fit with the rest of the article). Maybe this article should be titled "wind waves"? And a separate article on "Water waves" should describe the many different types of water wave, of which "Wind waves" is a sub-set. "Ocean surface waves" is also sub-set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.208.199 ( talk) 20:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the name and available articles: there is no general article on "surface gravity wave" (they are mentioned in gravity wave, about 1000 hits on this phrase on Google Scholar), the common (scientific) name for these waves, irrespective on how they are generated. They also include tsunamis and seiches, tides as forced gravity waves, and the wave swimming pool. So what would a good structure be? Have a separate article on "surface gravity wave", focussing on the scientific aspects of these waves, and this article as the wind-generated waves (incl. their generation by wind)? -- Crowsnest ( talk) 09:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I moved Ocean surface wave to Wind wave, and created a redirect Wind generated wave. And some more redirects which seemed plausible to me. -- Crowsnest ( talk) 11:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Lots of, esp. wrt physics and generation. Wegesrand ( talk) 10:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The article needs to define the terms referenced at Beaufort scale since sailors use wave appearance to help distinguish wind speeds (e.g., "whitecaps" and "white horses"). Also proper wikilinks both ways and mentions at the disambiguation pages for each of the terms themselves. Lots of work; sorry! -- 72.70.31.129 ( talk) 18:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Strangely, this article was not in the list of wave topics until I put it there a few seconds ago. If anyone know of others that are not listed but should be, could they add those too? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
As I understood, the theory says that each particle moves in a circular orbit. I simulated this phenomenon, and as a result, the distance between the particles changes in time. This means that the density of the fluid changes. Isn't this a paradox, while we know that water is incompressible? What is the problem? -- Reza M. Namin ( talk) 09:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not see the paradox of having a drift without compressibility effect: this is also the case in Couette or Poiseuille flow. What is a bit more surprising is to have a drift that varies over the vertical without having vorticity. This is really because the surface deforms so that the vorticity of the mean Lagrangian motion is different from the Lagrangian mean of the vorticity. Fabrice Ardhuin ( talk) 06:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Why do the wind waves not appear if an oil layer is placed on the water surface? -- Reza M. Namin ( talk) 13:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
it does not stretch like the surface of clean water, such that there is a big difference in the velocity of the water and of the oil. This very strong shear also produced a strong dissipation. See e.g. K. H. Christensen, “Transient and steady drift currents in waves damped by surfactants,” Phys. of Fluids, vol. 17, p. 042102, 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.253.224.234 ( talk) 11:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I just visited this page and it brought my broswer to a stand still for a short time.
The GIFs on this page are ~5MB, that is to large for non-optional page content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.99.220.68 ( talk) 20:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
This edit introduced copyright-claimed material from Yale-New Haven Teachers' Institute. Hesitating to delete, as some material from outside sources has been "donated" to the page in the past. The outside edit is dated 2006, the WP entry June 2007. Requesting other views, please. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 16:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I know it does not belong to this article, but it lies very close to it. In the article airy wave theory, equation 4 in the section about the mathematical formulation of the theory doesn't make any sense to me. It might also be an incorrect equation, but I'm not completely sure. Could someone please check it out and if it's correct explain it to me? You can read what I've written about it on the talk page of the airy wind theory article. Thanks to anyone who can help me understand it! -- Kri ( talk) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The article states "Individual waves in deep water break when the wave steepness — the ratio of the wave height H to the wavelength λ — exceeds about 0.17, so for H > 0.17 λ." without reference. Other references I've found (e.g., Scripps' website) state that the deep water ratio is about 1/7 (i.e., 0.14), based on observations of wave behavior (so it's apparently not based on rigorous fluid dynamics). This suggests a possible typo or misrecollection (1/7 to 0.17?). Does anyone have a good textbook reference either way? 192.5.27.138 ( talk) 16:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The first correct estimation of the maximum wave height as a function of the water depth D was performed by Miche (Annales des Ponts et Chaussées, Vol. Tome 114 (1944), pp. 369-406.) using analytical calculations. The result is very well approximated by H/λ = 0.14 tanh (2 π D / λ). This was confirmed by the computer calculation of Dean and Dalrymple (1974), as reported, for example in: Filipot, J.-F., F. Ardhuin, and A. V. Babanin (2010), A unified deep-to-shallow water wave-breaking probability parameterization, J. Geophys. Res., 115, C04022, doi:10.1029/2009JC005448. Ardhuin ( talk) 08:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
In 'Seaworthiness', Marchaj says water waves can be described as trochoidal waves. So shouldn't that be mentioned here as well? (Even if it is wrong, since an expert mentions it.) Also see another thread at Talk:Trochoid. DirkvdM ( talk) 08:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I find the name of the article confusing. It suggests that it's about waves in the wind. Which, indeed, do exist. At least, there are fluctuations in wind (which makes sense since any (relative) movement causes vibrations). 'Ocean surface wave' was too limiting, but then what about 'water surface wave'? That would include other sorts of waves (rogue). Above, 'wind generated wave' has been suggested, which also isn't perfect, but seems less confusing to me. The most descriptive name woud be 'wind generated water surface wave'. A bit of a mouthful, though. :) DirkvdM ( talk) 09:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The info in wave formation is great. However, I'd really like to see it expanded just a bit, to help improve understanding of wave formation in intuitive terms. Currently, it says that all 5 factors cause waves to be higher when the factor is increased. This is correct, but as I recall from "weather for sailors":
As a consequence, we see the following:
All other things being equal, waves travel more slowly (with shorter wavelength) in shallower water. That causes them to turn towards shore.
I think observations of this kind would help folks who are intelligent but aren't quite up to interpreting the math given below, which I believe does cover most of these factors, except for fetch and fetch width. No doubt there are mistakes in my observations, but if someone who really understands the subject could include something like this I think it would be very helpful.
Learjeff ( talk) 22:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is there no explicit answer to why buoyant objects bob (like a bottle) on the waves and don't really move in the direction of the wave as much as you'd expect?
If we followed a single drop of water during a passing wave, we would see it move in a vertical circle, returning to a point near its original position at the wave's end. These vertical circles are more obvious at the surface. As depth increases, their effects slowly decrease until completely disappearing about half a wavelength below the surface.
http://www.onr.navy.mil/Focus/ocean/motion/waves1.htm
I understand that the above websites buoyant object/bottle .gif and description may not be the whole story, as according to the article, Stokes drift prevents the ellipses/circles from being entirely closed, but either way, why is there no mention at all to the motion of bottles/buoyant objects in general, in this article? Is their motion best described as the sum of the surface and subsurface motions due to stokes drift?
Secondly why is there no answer in the article to the question of why "whitecaps" are white? AKA How ocean waves turn the water from blue/transparent to white in color? My limited physics knowledge would lead me to conclude it is due to air bubbles being entrained within the water/ the water turning frothy and light scattering due to Mie scattering, but either why, the article should have an explanation for the "white" color of waves. As presently it just assumes everyone knows waves go white but doesn't explain why.
Replies much appreciated!
86.46.191.135 ( talk) 01:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a work in progress, done by volunteers who are not always experts in their subjects, If you see an article which needs improvement, go ahead and improve it to the best of your ability. Content first. Don't worry about formatting, that can be fixed later. That is what we all try to do here. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Some years ago this was moved from "Ocean surface wave" to "Wind wave". As it stands the former title better covers the article content, I think. Comments? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 00:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC).
This was appalling. I have rewritten it and hope it is now merely bad. I don't have the references, so can't check the validity of my interpretation of the original text. If anyone passes by with an understanding and knowledge of the theory, please help to fix. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wind wave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus not to move this page to Water wave, and no consensus in favor of any other particular move at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 06:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Wind wave →
Water wave – I strongly recommend renaming the article as "Water wave" because nobody in the world really says "wind wave" to refer to the washywashy wave. Everyone always refers these types of wave as "water waves". "Wind waves" sounds just too obscure and unrecognizable.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk |
contribs) 00:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Suggest ocean wave would be a good name and topic, with a minor refocussing of the article to match the new title. This title currently redirects to this article, and has no significant history, although it's interesting... it first redirected to surface wave, then ocean surface wave, then wind wave as now.
I can't see this as possibly being P T for wave. IMO there is no P T, and wave should be a DAB, as is hinted at above.
It's not true that nobody in the world really says "wind wave"..., yachtsmen do all the time, but admittedly more to refer to waves caused by the current wind rather than by far-away winds. Andrewa ( talk) 04:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Oceanographers, naval architects, meteorologists and others refer to wind waves to distinguish them from waves generated by other causes. It is a correct and well defined term used by specialists in several fields on a routine basis. Wikipedia should have an article with this name, not mess with it by confusing it with other types of wave. If other types of wave are worth an article, then create an article for them.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Should there be a section titled "In culture" (meaning "Wind/ocean waves in culture") in this article? It could cover what different cultures thought about waves and so on. The best thumbnail image for that section would be The Great Wave off Kanagawa by Katsushika Hokusai. -- Spunionztastic ( talk) 03:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Wind wave is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does the amount of water affect the size of the wave?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.42.254 ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 13 December 2005
Certainly not. Water will deform continuously under shear so the amount (Volume basis) of water doesn't have a role to play in the size of the waves.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Samueldevadoss ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 7 February 2006
The image alignment of this page is somewhat odd. Could it be changed so that the text is next to the images?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fods12 ( talk • contribs) 04:50, 1 January 2006
Is a water wave's speed always the same (even if frequency changes) except for when depth changes? I read this formula: v=root(g x d) d=depth—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.132.180 ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 13 March 2006
I do not like the "elliptical trajectory" diagram. Trajectories are never elongated in the vertical, as drawn, but always in the horizontal, and only when the water is shallow. Also, the dashed red trajectory should not extend higher than the tops of the crests. This same diagram is part of the Wave article, and I think it should also be changed there. Rracecarr 23:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
images are taking over this page, perhaps they could be culled a bit, or more written to increase the words:image ratio?-- naught101 06:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
With that background I'll ask before making this change. Would my picture Waveface.jpg add something to the article? I believe it adds value in that it shows the shallow ocean floor where the wave breaks and how sand is being caught by and sucked into the wave when it breaks - and that this visually explains something fundamental about waves to the reader - but I don't want to add more pictures to this article if it is already overloaded. Elmats 12:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I added quite a bit to the page, in a little more layman's terms. Anyone vote for removing the stub tag? LACameraman 08:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I am. I figured this didn't fall under the original research as that article was thoroughly researched. Also no copyright violation as I'm the original author of the original article. Hope that it helped to round out the article a bit. LACameraman 06:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a modification of the image. I think it is better and more correct than the original. I've made it only for shallow water, but it is easy to do it for deep water too. I've chosen the numbers to facilitate the use in any language.(Internationalization)
Zimbres 21:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The 'Types of waves' section is out of tune with the start of the article. It is written in a 'popular' style and IMO should be rewritten or deleted. MH 20:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Ocean waves are inherently mathematical. They are one of the few phenomena described adequately by linear math. The math isn't that hard. User:jmkstrat
Coorect me if i am wrong, but doesnt a longer fectch produce a larger wave, therefore that would be a destructive wave. Also a shorter fetch, makes a constructive wave because the wave has less energy to drag sediment back during the backswash. 88.108.26.22 13:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes it does, it says that constructive waves are formed over a longer fetch and that a destructive wave is formed with a short fetch razza 14:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I've always wondered why every eighth wave striking land is always the biggest. I can't find an answer anywhere. Does anybody know? I'd be grateful if someone could tell me on my talk page. Thanks! Robinoke 14:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
The article describes phase velocity as the speed of movement of changes in shape. I believe this is not quite correct. The phase velocity is the speed of propogation of a phase change (ie change in phase angle). Shape changes can occur from amplitude (group velocity) and frequency of source. (Edit: Ill come back in a few days and modify it if there is no comment on this.) User A1 08:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently Ocean surface waves are surface waves that occur at the surface of an ocean. I changed this, hopefully to make it sound better and be a little bit less of a circular definition. Tell me what you think User A1 06:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the correct terminology is "surface gravity wave(s)", as gravity is the restorative mechanism which enables the wave to propagate. This differentiates them from other wave phenomena such as "capillary waves", which are in fact surface waves but are driven by surface tension as the restorative mechanism. One can also observe capillary waves on the ocean surface but it is my understanding that this article refers to surface gravity waves. Michael.morristhomas 18:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone shed any light on the origin and extent of use of the kayaking term Clapitus -- in that article? Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clapitor creator ( talk • contribs) 04:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
Hi,
I think there is no need for the wave close up in the section that you added it to. It does little to increase the reader's understanding of the types of wind waves possible. However the image is quite reasonable and obviously good effort has been expended in achieving it. Finally can you digitally edit (maybe just crop) the image to remove the giant date stamp on it? It detracts from the quality of the image (IMHO). Thanks, User A1 02:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What do we think about merging the content of Waves and shallow water into this article? User A1 16:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The article Soliton mentions that solitary waves were first observed in water, in a barge canal by John Scott Russell. Here's a website about it. Should this be added to the article? How do soliton waves differ from ordinary water waves? -- Chetvorno TALK 00:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
what determines whether there'll be waves in a place of water or not... in some rivers there seems to be waves or is that an innacuracey... do bays have waves... do rivers and canals... what about the thing with the moon... sorry my question mark on the keypad doesnt work... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.49.19.130 ( talk) 18:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Waves poise a serious danger to people and property. Even non-Tsunamis are quite deadly. If the page is to be a FA it should have a section detailing the dangers. I have started edits, but can use other editors.-- Lemmey talk 23:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The edits by InIn9393 ( talk) on April 28 and May 4 are reverted by me, since they are not encyclopedic, using definitions which are uncommon to the literature on the subject, and due to the chosen definitions come to erroneous conclusions regarding the direction of the particle drift motion. The reference used by InIn1993 is a paper by Constantin (2006), Inventiones Mathematicae, vol. 166, p. 523. In the edits by InIn93 also references therein to earlier papers by Constantin seem to be referred.
Crowsnest ( talk) 14:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear colleagues, it seems that there is a widely held misunderstanding about this topic. It is correct that the orbits are not closed for non-linear waves, but this is also true for linear waves, although this requires a careful calculation ( Stokes drift). Indeed the mean drift of water particles is related to the wave momentum, which, just like the wave energy, is a nonlinear property, proportional to the amplitude squared. I could expand on this here but you may otherwise consult Phillips (1977). I would thus suggest that the page is corrected accordingly. Ardhuin ( talk) 08:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
This article consisted of too many pictures for their own sake -- these images do not connect to the article prose in any way. I have removed them for this reason. If a gallery is desried, it may be an idea to add an external link to a creative commons gallery. User A1 ( talk) 05:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The wind waves described in this article occur on lakes and large rivers as well as oceans. Ocean surface waves also encompasses Kelvin waves, Rossby waves, tidal waves etc. which are not mentioned (although there is a brief mention of tsunamis, which does not fit with the rest of the article). Maybe this article should be titled "wind waves"? And a separate article on "Water waves" should describe the many different types of water wave, of which "Wind waves" is a sub-set. "Ocean surface waves" is also sub-set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.208.199 ( talk) 20:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the name and available articles: there is no general article on "surface gravity wave" (they are mentioned in gravity wave, about 1000 hits on this phrase on Google Scholar), the common (scientific) name for these waves, irrespective on how they are generated. They also include tsunamis and seiches, tides as forced gravity waves, and the wave swimming pool. So what would a good structure be? Have a separate article on "surface gravity wave", focussing on the scientific aspects of these waves, and this article as the wind-generated waves (incl. their generation by wind)? -- Crowsnest ( talk) 09:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I moved Ocean surface wave to Wind wave, and created a redirect Wind generated wave. And some more redirects which seemed plausible to me. -- Crowsnest ( talk) 11:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Lots of, esp. wrt physics and generation. Wegesrand ( talk) 10:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The article needs to define the terms referenced at Beaufort scale since sailors use wave appearance to help distinguish wind speeds (e.g., "whitecaps" and "white horses"). Also proper wikilinks both ways and mentions at the disambiguation pages for each of the terms themselves. Lots of work; sorry! -- 72.70.31.129 ( talk) 18:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Strangely, this article was not in the list of wave topics until I put it there a few seconds ago. If anyone know of others that are not listed but should be, could they add those too? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
As I understood, the theory says that each particle moves in a circular orbit. I simulated this phenomenon, and as a result, the distance between the particles changes in time. This means that the density of the fluid changes. Isn't this a paradox, while we know that water is incompressible? What is the problem? -- Reza M. Namin ( talk) 09:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not see the paradox of having a drift without compressibility effect: this is also the case in Couette or Poiseuille flow. What is a bit more surprising is to have a drift that varies over the vertical without having vorticity. This is really because the surface deforms so that the vorticity of the mean Lagrangian motion is different from the Lagrangian mean of the vorticity. Fabrice Ardhuin ( talk) 06:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Why do the wind waves not appear if an oil layer is placed on the water surface? -- Reza M. Namin ( talk) 13:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
it does not stretch like the surface of clean water, such that there is a big difference in the velocity of the water and of the oil. This very strong shear also produced a strong dissipation. See e.g. K. H. Christensen, “Transient and steady drift currents in waves damped by surfactants,” Phys. of Fluids, vol. 17, p. 042102, 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.253.224.234 ( talk) 11:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I just visited this page and it brought my broswer to a stand still for a short time.
The GIFs on this page are ~5MB, that is to large for non-optional page content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.99.220.68 ( talk) 20:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
This edit introduced copyright-claimed material from Yale-New Haven Teachers' Institute. Hesitating to delete, as some material from outside sources has been "donated" to the page in the past. The outside edit is dated 2006, the WP entry June 2007. Requesting other views, please. -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 16:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I know it does not belong to this article, but it lies very close to it. In the article airy wave theory, equation 4 in the section about the mathematical formulation of the theory doesn't make any sense to me. It might also be an incorrect equation, but I'm not completely sure. Could someone please check it out and if it's correct explain it to me? You can read what I've written about it on the talk page of the airy wind theory article. Thanks to anyone who can help me understand it! -- Kri ( talk) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The article states "Individual waves in deep water break when the wave steepness — the ratio of the wave height H to the wavelength λ — exceeds about 0.17, so for H > 0.17 λ." without reference. Other references I've found (e.g., Scripps' website) state that the deep water ratio is about 1/7 (i.e., 0.14), based on observations of wave behavior (so it's apparently not based on rigorous fluid dynamics). This suggests a possible typo or misrecollection (1/7 to 0.17?). Does anyone have a good textbook reference either way? 192.5.27.138 ( talk) 16:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The first correct estimation of the maximum wave height as a function of the water depth D was performed by Miche (Annales des Ponts et Chaussées, Vol. Tome 114 (1944), pp. 369-406.) using analytical calculations. The result is very well approximated by H/λ = 0.14 tanh (2 π D / λ). This was confirmed by the computer calculation of Dean and Dalrymple (1974), as reported, for example in: Filipot, J.-F., F. Ardhuin, and A. V. Babanin (2010), A unified deep-to-shallow water wave-breaking probability parameterization, J. Geophys. Res., 115, C04022, doi:10.1029/2009JC005448. Ardhuin ( talk) 08:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
In 'Seaworthiness', Marchaj says water waves can be described as trochoidal waves. So shouldn't that be mentioned here as well? (Even if it is wrong, since an expert mentions it.) Also see another thread at Talk:Trochoid. DirkvdM ( talk) 08:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I find the name of the article confusing. It suggests that it's about waves in the wind. Which, indeed, do exist. At least, there are fluctuations in wind (which makes sense since any (relative) movement causes vibrations). 'Ocean surface wave' was too limiting, but then what about 'water surface wave'? That would include other sorts of waves (rogue). Above, 'wind generated wave' has been suggested, which also isn't perfect, but seems less confusing to me. The most descriptive name woud be 'wind generated water surface wave'. A bit of a mouthful, though. :) DirkvdM ( talk) 09:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The info in wave formation is great. However, I'd really like to see it expanded just a bit, to help improve understanding of wave formation in intuitive terms. Currently, it says that all 5 factors cause waves to be higher when the factor is increased. This is correct, but as I recall from "weather for sailors":
As a consequence, we see the following:
All other things being equal, waves travel more slowly (with shorter wavelength) in shallower water. That causes them to turn towards shore.
I think observations of this kind would help folks who are intelligent but aren't quite up to interpreting the math given below, which I believe does cover most of these factors, except for fetch and fetch width. No doubt there are mistakes in my observations, but if someone who really understands the subject could include something like this I think it would be very helpful.
Learjeff ( talk) 22:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is there no explicit answer to why buoyant objects bob (like a bottle) on the waves and don't really move in the direction of the wave as much as you'd expect?
If we followed a single drop of water during a passing wave, we would see it move in a vertical circle, returning to a point near its original position at the wave's end. These vertical circles are more obvious at the surface. As depth increases, their effects slowly decrease until completely disappearing about half a wavelength below the surface.
http://www.onr.navy.mil/Focus/ocean/motion/waves1.htm
I understand that the above websites buoyant object/bottle .gif and description may not be the whole story, as according to the article, Stokes drift prevents the ellipses/circles from being entirely closed, but either way, why is there no mention at all to the motion of bottles/buoyant objects in general, in this article? Is their motion best described as the sum of the surface and subsurface motions due to stokes drift?
Secondly why is there no answer in the article to the question of why "whitecaps" are white? AKA How ocean waves turn the water from blue/transparent to white in color? My limited physics knowledge would lead me to conclude it is due to air bubbles being entrained within the water/ the water turning frothy and light scattering due to Mie scattering, but either why, the article should have an explanation for the "white" color of waves. As presently it just assumes everyone knows waves go white but doesn't explain why.
Replies much appreciated!
86.46.191.135 ( talk) 01:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a work in progress, done by volunteers who are not always experts in their subjects, If you see an article which needs improvement, go ahead and improve it to the best of your ability. Content first. Don't worry about formatting, that can be fixed later. That is what we all try to do here. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Some years ago this was moved from "Ocean surface wave" to "Wind wave". As it stands the former title better covers the article content, I think. Comments? All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 00:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC).
This was appalling. I have rewritten it and hope it is now merely bad. I don't have the references, so can't check the validity of my interpretation of the original text. If anyone passes by with an understanding and knowledge of the theory, please help to fix. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wind wave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus not to move this page to Water wave, and no consensus in favor of any other particular move at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 06:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Wind wave →
Water wave – I strongly recommend renaming the article as "Water wave" because nobody in the world really says "wind wave" to refer to the washywashy wave. Everyone always refers these types of wave as "water waves". "Wind waves" sounds just too obscure and unrecognizable.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk |
contribs) 00:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Suggest ocean wave would be a good name and topic, with a minor refocussing of the article to match the new title. This title currently redirects to this article, and has no significant history, although it's interesting... it first redirected to surface wave, then ocean surface wave, then wind wave as now.
I can't see this as possibly being P T for wave. IMO there is no P T, and wave should be a DAB, as is hinted at above.
It's not true that nobody in the world really says "wind wave"..., yachtsmen do all the time, but admittedly more to refer to waves caused by the current wind rather than by far-away winds. Andrewa ( talk) 04:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Oceanographers, naval architects, meteorologists and others refer to wind waves to distinguish them from waves generated by other causes. It is a correct and well defined term used by specialists in several fields on a routine basis. Wikipedia should have an article with this name, not mess with it by confusing it with other types of wave. If other types of wave are worth an article, then create an article for them.· · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Should there be a section titled "In culture" (meaning "Wind/ocean waves in culture") in this article? It could cover what different cultures thought about waves and so on. The best thumbnail image for that section would be The Great Wave off Kanagawa by Katsushika Hokusai. -- Spunionztastic ( talk) 03:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)