Talk:Foghorn

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Maritime task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Drunken

In the line "was invented by Robert Foulis, a drunken Scotsman who", what does drunken add to anything? 173.29.0.124 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Belated thanks. The current version of the article doesn't include "drunken". —173.56.111.206 (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia Section

The 'trivia' section seems completely unnecessary, even for an entry of this importance rating. Further, train horns are far more commonplace in hockey arenas to denote a scored goal, and I have never once heard a fog horn sound during a hockey game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.72.8 (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. The current version of the article doesn't include a trivia section or hockey. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frequency (Hz) of tones related to vessel size

The frequency of a foghorn is related to the size of the vessel, so large ships have deeper tones, and smaller vessels smaller tones. land-based foghorns (e.g. lighthouses) have very deep tones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.144.172 (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. If this is confirmed by a reliable published source, we can include it in the article. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fog Gong

One type of fog(signal) not mentioned was the GONG. It was shaped like a large shield with the concaved side facing to sea. It was struck on the back with a solenoid striker. To make make the sound of the gong the right length. The striker would re-hit The gong but not back off. This stopped the reverberations of the gong. It made for a very funny sound. Bong.... then a very dud sounding..Bonk!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarny52 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. The current version of the article includes gongs. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

low tones a mistake?

Low pitches are rather non-directional to human ears. That's why many stereo audio systems have just one subwoofer.

Has anyone ascertained if the low tones of fog horns really are superior for locating dangers in fog? By the article it sounds like low tones were chosen just on the anecdotal observation of one person.--23.119.204.117 (talk) 04:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks. Low tones are indeed less directional, but Foulis was correct that they can be heard over longer distances. —173.56.111.206 (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foghorn. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709040136/http://homepages.manx.net/fredd/siren.html to http://homepages.manx.net/fredd/siren.html

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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Foghorn. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061126203244/http://www.sanpedro.com/spcom/foghorn.htm to http://www.sanpedro.com/spcom/foghorn.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

obsolescence

In this section, there is a misprint. The sentence "if the laser beam is reflected" should be "if the laser beam is not reflected" 143.159.160.91 (talk) 09:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@143.159.160.91 correction:

"if the beam reflects back" should be "unless the beam reflects back" 143.159.160.91 (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're both incorrect. Fog scatters the laser beam, and reflects some of it back. No reflection = no fog. E Eng 07:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two incorrect comments were by the same user, a few minutes apart. Nevertheless, thank you both. The current version of the article seems to be correct and hopefully a bit clearer: "a laser or photo beam is shot out to sea, and if the beam reflects back to the source (i.e., the laser beam is visible due to fog or precipitation), the sensor sends a signal to activate the foghorn." —173.56.111.206 (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]