Talk:Amphidromic point

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics: Fluid Dynamics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Amphidromic points have little to do with standing waves. They do not represent a 3D version of a standing wave either. An amphidromic points has to do with the way the tidal waves travel through the oceans. Due to the coriolis effect and the shape of the ocean basins, the waves do not travel in straight lines but become deflected, in about the same way as air circulation does. In air you see the eye of a low pressure system, which is the point around which the flow circles. This can be seen as an equivalent to the amphidromic point. Wikiklaas 00:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all there is no such thing as Coriolis Effect. If you have ever watch the cyclogenesis of a tropical storm for example and followed the process through to cyclosis you will realise this.

Seeing as we do not fully understand how tides work, it is silly to insist on any belief system about the subject.

Air can not possible be in thrall to any pressure system that is alleged to draw it sideways for any reason under the sun. Any pressure change applied to air is immediately tranformed into heat of chill. The gas laws apply. This is regardless of any pocke t of gas that may be said to be a part of an air mass under consideration as in a cyclone or anticyclone.

It is all fairly simple schoolboy physics.

Weatherlawyer (talk) 00:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a deeply unpleasant fellow you appear to be. I can't fathom why you would respond to a ten year-old comment, from someone with whom you almost certainly have not had any prior interaction, with such condescension, as well as misinformation - sorry, "alternative facts".

You might like to familiarise yourself about the Coriolis Effect here. The tides are pretty well understood these days but even if they weren't, we can still make statements of fact about what we do know. This is how science works which, incidentally, is not a "belief system".

I'm really not sure what you're on about with trying to invoke the "gas laws" to say that the atmosphere is not subjected to forces caused by differences in pressure. Furthermore, these differences in pressure occur over large distances and their effects do not propagate instantaneously, generally being limited to the speed of sound. If they did, then we wouldn't have noticeable differences in pressure in the first place. I have no idea what you think "heat of chill" is. Latent heat?

So, perhaps not so simple school physics after all (yes, I've heard that some schools are teaching physics to girls. Shocking!). 124.168.106.61 (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Heat of Chill" - I think that might be a rave. If it isn't, it should be. :o) 92.24.196.223 (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because getting out the Oceanography textbooks feels like work man. This is in every modern textbook in the section on tides.FX (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added one more ref. All of them need tweaking to meet wikipedia standards. FX (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other wise it is original content and will be deleted. Arguing in the comment section is considered bad form. That's what the talk page is for.

FX (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See e.g. page 34 of: Arthur Thomas Doodson "Tidal Theory." Bulletin of the National Research Council 78 (Chapter II), February 1931, pp. 19–39. -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any text on tides. Doodson works, or I can find more sources if there's a need. Waleswatcher (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to a source that says each major tidal component has it's own amphidromic system. The sort of thing I was asking you about. FX (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave sources, but I'm glad you understand it now. Waleswatcher (talk) 01:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patent nonsense. FX (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that someone created this but next it could use work. There is no summary /lead...instead the body of the article is put into the position of the lead. The main explanation of what Amphidromic point is is put in words even more abstract than the word itself. North8000 (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Infinitely Long Channel" and "Semi-Enclosed Basin" sections (which aren't necessarily great names here, descriptively, for a general audience) reference "Animation 1" and "Animation 2" repeatedly, and no such animations seem to be on the page. Are these files that were edited out and the text not changed accordingly? Or is there some weirder issue? Rkolozsvari (talk) 08:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to make the same comment. I would appreciate seeing the mentioned animations, too. Wilkus (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly two years later I was similarly perplexed. They were removed three years ago do to lack of license https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amphidromic_point&oldid=1024971375

I really want to see these animations as wave propagation is difficult to visualise from a single image or written description. I could just remove where they are referenced, but the article would really benefit their readmission. However I have little understanding of how to go about finding an appropriately licensed replacement. BeardedChimp (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]