Conversation:

Just a thought, shouldn't the readings for kph be higher than the corresponding readings for mph, rather than the other way around. E.g. the entry reads Hurricane = <82 mph or <71 kph, but 82mph is 131kph, so I don't get it. Sorry if I'm being obviously thick, it is Friday afternoon after all!

I thoroughly enjoyed it anyway; anything remotely science based interests me.

I was thinking that too.

Look at the column next to kilometers per hour... no not the mph one, to the right.
I wonder how this managed to sneak in, since the kph on the link supplied are correct.

I'm just as confused as you, but I used two published print sources for the wind speeds, and the editors didn't notice. I don't know why the speeds are different, other than perceptions of numbers may be different in the US and the UK.

Since the speed in knots is smack in the middle of the range for the speed in kilometers per hour it seems obvious that someone, somewhere have gotten the two confused. The speed in knots match perfectly the given ranges of speed in miles per hour, so it's very likely knots and mph is correct, while kph should be fixed accordingly.

..."perceptions of numbers may be different in the US and the UK"

That takes the

Hi folks,

I've subbed this great entry, and I also didn't notice the faulty 'kph' column in the table. I'm going alert the Editors about this; I'd like to recommend changing the kph values to the following:

0: 0-1
1: 1-5
2: 6-11
3: 12-19
4: 20-29
5: 30-39
6: 40-49
7: 50-59
8: 60-74
9: 75-89
10: 90-99
11: 100-119
12: 120-134

SchrEck Inc.

Oops, got an inaccurate source. Here are some corrections:

7: 50-61
8: 62-74
9: 75-88
10: 89-102
11: 103-117
12: 118-134

OK, how does it look now? Any better?

Looks fine now.

Excellent - thanks for the feedback.

Yep, much better

*serves *

Don't want to spoil the party, but doesn't the simplicity of the knots column contrast with the excessively (meaninglessly) detailed mph & kph? It's a bit like a cook measuring 454 grams of something (to cook a lb) when half a kilo (give or take) will perfectly satisfy the hunger.

How about at least taking the knots figures and multiplying them by 1.1 and by 1.7 (if I'm correct), rounding the figures and putting a single figure in the mph and kph columns? Same information delivered in less strokes.

~Recumbent "no symbols where none intended" man

Hi Recumbentman,

if you try to find 'beaufort wind scale' via a search engine, you'll find slightly different values in every table, according to rounding errors or to whether the values were derived, calculated and rounded from the 'knots', 'kph' or 'mph' column. So I've taken the 'mph' column as a basis and 'rounded' a bit to get rid of ugly gaps between the wind forces, but I didn't want to introduce any major 'rounding error' by putting in nice values.

SchrEck Inc.

Hi SchrEck

Yes but... the values can't be at all accurate... think about it - wind puffing about, it doesn't keep its eye on the speedometer. Inaccurate values are what you want, a rough guide.

OK, measured wind forces can't be accurate; as I understand it's always a mean value and squalls are excluded. In the table though it should be fairly well accurate IMHO, because otherwise surely some would notice the inaccuracies and complain.

Like me, for instance...

and me

There, there, it's not all bad. Accuracy is a virtue, so I've led myself to believe. I've had to, just to get to sleep at night...