NavList:

   

Reply

Bill Noyce wrote-

>> I was interested in the use of "drew" and "hauled" to describe the
>> change in wind direction in this passage (in the southern hemisphere).
>>
>> > The phenomena of ocean meteorology were interesting studies even here
>> > in the trade-winds. I observed that about every seven days the wind
>> > freshened and drew several points farther than usual from the direction
>> > of the pole; that is, it went round from east-southeast to
>> > south-southeast, while at the same time a heavy swell rolled up from
>> > the southwest. All this indicated that gales were going on in the
>> > anti-trades. The wind then hauled day after day as it moderated, till
>> > it stood again at the normal point, east-southeast. This is more or
>> > less the constant state of the winter trades in latitude 12? S., where
>> > I "ran down the latitude" for weeks.
>>
>> Seems like we were debating the terms used in this situation a while ago,
>> though I don't remember whether we reached a conclusion.  Slocum seems to
>> feel "drew" needs explanation, while "hauled" is treated as self-evident,
>> though perhaps it's just obvious that it's the reverse of the prior motion.

And Herbert Prinz replied-

>No, Bill. The wind "draws" simply means that it fills the sails. The change of
>direction that is opposite to "haul" is expressed by "farther [...] from the
>direction of the pole".

From George-

I think it's less simple than Herbert makes out. I will quote below two
mailings from earlier this year on a related thread, "Veering and backing"

From me on 4 March-

===========================

>Veering and backing, again.
>
>A thread arose, then fizzled out, some weeks ago about the meaning of the
>terms veering and backing of the wind, particularly as to how these terms
>apply in the Southern hemisphere. I was away at the time, but have done a
>bit of book-study since. I no longer have records of that correspondence,
>so can't recall the precise title of that thread, nor much about the
>postings. So if I repeat here what others have said, I'm sorry.
>
>Anyway, here's my ha'porth.
>
>American readers will no doubt regard what Bowditch says as gospel. On
>page 906 of vol 1 (1977), in the section on tropical cyclones, is the
>statement-
>
>"Within the cyclonic circulation, a VEERING wind (one changing direction
>to the right in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern
>Hemisphere) indicates the vessel is probably in the dangerous semicircle,
>and a BACKING wind (one changing direction opposite to a veering wind)
>indicates the vessel is probably in the navigable semicircle."
>
>Here, we are not considering Bowditch's impeccable advice about storm
>tactics, just his definition of veering and backing.
>
>Bowditch is supported, to some extent, by the usually-dependable Peter
>Kemp (ed) in the Oxford Companion to ships and the sea.
>
>Kemp states- "The wind is said to back when it changes contrary from its
>normal pattern. In the northern hemisphere, north of the trade wind belt,
>the wind usually changes clockwise- from north through east, south, and
>west. When the change is anticlockwise, the wind is backing. In the
>southern hemisphere, the reverse is the general pattern of the winds. When
>the wind backs in either hemisphere it is generally taken as a sign that
>it will freshen."
>
>About backing, Bowditch and Kemp agree. But a question arises about what
>Kemp thinks of as the "normal" pattern of the winds. When a depression
>passes westward across the norther hemisphere, mariners to the north of
>its track will see the wind direction changing in an anticlockwise
>direction, those south of its track will see the reverse. At least, that's
>what my own thumbnail sketches suggest. There could be just as many
>mariners in each category. So why should Kemp say that in the northern
>hemisphere "the wind usually changes clockwise". It seems against
>commonsense, and contrary to my own experience at sea. Can others comment?
>
>However, Kemp defines "veer" as- "The operation of the wind when it
>changes direction in a clockwise direction. A wind which veers is
>frequently a sign of settled weather in the northern hemisphere, of
>unsettled weather in the southern.". It's clear from that last sentence
>that he really does expect veer to mean a clockwise change, worldwide. In
>that respect it is NOT the converse of his definition for "back" (which
>seems odd), and is quite contrary to Bowditch.
>
>It's all rather unsatisfactory. How would the "Bowditch definition" work
>out in practice? Remember that in a broad band around the equator,
>Coriolis forces are negligible anyway, so this business about the law of
>storms just doesn't apply. Is the Bowditch definition of "veer" intended
>to suddenly reverse as the equator is crossed? Put yourself in the
>position of a watch-officer in low latitudes having to report a 2-point
>change in the wind direction to the old-man. Would you have to think-out
>which side of the equator you happened to be before you reported it as a
>veering or a backing? And would the old-man need to agree about which
>hemisphere, and which definition, before he understood? It seems a crazy
>arrangement that would not stand up at sea: not in a windship, anyway.
>Perhaps the Bowditch definition is by, and for, meteorologists.
>
>I will cite another authority who disagrees with Bowditch completely (in
>respect of Southern waters). In "A Glossary of Sea Terms" (Cassell, 1954),
>Gershom Bradford is quite specific. He states- "The wind backs when it
>changes against the hands of a watch, but veers if it changes with them.",
>and "When the wind changes direction to the right with the hands of a
>watch- for instance, from west to north, it is said to veer; otherwise, it
>backs. This holds in both hemispheres, North and South."
>
>However, he goes on to complicate matters by adding- "If the wind is abeam
>and changes forward, it is said to haul, and if it changes aft it veers.
>It is, however, often spoken of as hauling aft." Here is a completly
>different application of the word "veer", now with respect to the
>direction of the ship's bow. According to modern usage these words haul
>and veer would correspond to today's heading and lifting of the wind.
>Harland , in "Seamanship in the Age of Sail", refers (only) to this
>understanding of "veer".
>
>In an attempt to get a definitive answer (in terms of 18th century
>practice) I have examined the Beaglehole edition of Cook's journal of his
>first circumnavigation (1768 - 1770) in Endeavour, skimming through for
>references to backing and veering. Most of that voyage was in Southern
>latitudes.
>
>I have not found a single mention by Cook of "backing" of the wind.
>However, he used "veering" 13 times, all when he was well into the
>Southern hemisphere. In 2 of those references, it wasn't possible to be
>sure, from the context, whether this corresponded to a clockwise or
>anticlockwise change in the wind direction. On 7 occasions this was
>clearly an anticlockwise change, and on 4 it was clearly clockwise. It
>appears that Cook took the word "veer" to imply no more than a change in
>wind direction, and didn't care which way the change occurred.
>
>Anothr word Cook occasionally used for changes in the wind direction was
>"shifting", but I haven't been able to conclude whether this corresponded
>to a particular direction of change.
>
>After all that, my conclusion, about the use of "backing" and "veering" in
>the Southern hemisphere, is that there is no conclusion to be drawn. The
>words can take either meaning. At least, in Northern waters, there's no
>disagreement about their usage.
>
>George Huxtable.

============================

and from Dan Allen on 12th March.

> From John Harland's "Seamanship in the age of Sail" (Naval Institute
>Press: 1985) -- an excellent summary of how ships were sailed from
>1600-1860 -- he has written on page 12:
>
>Veering, hauling and backing of the wind.
>
>When the wind shifts around, so as to come from further aft, the modern
>convention is to say it has 'veered'.  An older alternative was to say
>the wind 'larges'.  If the wind draws forward, 'scants' as the
>old-timers put it, it is said to 'haul'.  Thus the wind 'hauls
>forward', but 'veers aft'.  I do not know how ancient this rule is, but
>I have seenit as far back as 1878 (Uggla).  To find the principle
>violated, the wind 'hauling aft' is not unusual in the old accounts,
>some preferring 'draw aft', and 'haul forward'.  Along the same lines,
>convention has it that the wind 'veers' when it shifts to the right or
>clockwise, as one looks at the horizon, or with the sun.
>Counter-clockwise movement is called 'backing'.  This is another area
>where some confusion exists, some authorities considering 'haul' as
>synonymous with 'veer' in this particular context.  Furthermore the
>idea underlying 'backing' is that the wind is moving contrary to the
>usual pattern of wind shifts, which in the Northern Hemisphere is
>clockwise.  The exact opposite, however, is true in southern latitudes.
>(Kemp; de Kerchove).  A wind which kept changing direction was said to
>'chop about', and Uggla says that a wind which had shifted about was
>said to have 'checked around'.  In Danish, there were different words
>for a sudden marked change, vinden springer, 'the wind jumps', and a
>gradual change, vinden skager sig, 'the wind checks [itself]'.  The
>Elizabethan expression 'spring a-loof', meaning to turn abruptly to
>windward is using 'spring' in this sense.  Skage literally means
>'shake', but is closely connected with 'check' in its sea-sense.
>
>Dan

================================================================
contact George Huxtable by email at george@huxtable.u-net.com, by phone at
01865 820222 (from outside UK, +44 1865 820222), or by mail at 1 Sandy
Lane, Southmoor, Abingdon, Oxon OX13 5HX, UK.
================================================================

   

Reply