Linear Wave Theory

[@G-JS]

Great introductory video to Airy's wave theory!

[@hadenhodges8288]

Yes very nice video for conceptualizing Linear Wave Theory, thanks!

[@nicolegiovine243]

do you have any ideas for how to make a DIY wave maker?

[@007aha1]

is it the same with the particel velocity? there are also equations for particel velocity in intermediate and deep water? is the intermediate water depth equation also useable for deep water waves?

[@pouryaasiaban8192]

Great video on wave theory

[@hosseinmehdipour2996]

Terribly sorry to bother you, I have a question but I can't find the answer anywhere, but I wanted to know if there is any theory behind the fact that in order to use Linear Wave Theory, the excursion/oscillation of the device investigated has to be small? and why is the reason behind it? I would be so grateful if you could help me with the answer

[@daenkhimawa5514]

Thank you, you made this become easier to understand

[@SaltEnjoyer007]

Thanks a lot for the video, if you could help me with a doubt i got i would apreciate! To know the ratio of the depth we need the wavelength and i dont have it, only got depth, crest and period. Is it possible to get the wavelength with this 3 values?

[@noodlegod1177]

I don't think it is possible, because you do not have the wave celerity (speed of the wave).

[@vusvis]

Very nice video, really useful.

[@imntts]

Awesome stuff

[@rat_king-]

but why tanh (x)?

[@Richard-kz1ee]

Your video has saved me. Please, thank you. But would like to know the value for g in these calculations.

[@anh8d1997]

9.8 m.s^-2

[@barrjohnm]

Great video

[@lucaparquet1794]

Great video. Thanks for the work put on it

[@60Alter]

Dear Sergio, you have a problem with Bernoulli integral: in 10:22 we see the particle velocity at the crest is even greater than that at the trough, in spite of the difference in elevation. In the same time, for the potential flow the sum of Bernoulli terms (pressure head, velocity head and z) should be the same for all the domain at any time moment.

[@Drama2024JLNI]

Nuh uh

[@MH-oc4de]

If I understand the question you posed, you would look at the distance a crest (or trough) travelled (in this case, the distance between probes = 2.32 m) in the amount of time shown on the oscilloscope (I think you said each box = 0.25 sec, and it looks like about half of this, or .125 sec between the purple/blue crests), so the celerity would be c = 2.32 m / .125 sec = 18.56 m/s. So I guess the snapshot of the oscilloscope is misleading since it shows the period of a much shorter/slower wave, while the wavelength and period of this wave must be much greater.

[@sergiomaldonado2655]

Hi MH, thanks for your comment/question. Your confusion is understandable and lies at the core of the question (see yellow text). A celerity of 18 m/s would clearly be unrealistic. Therefore, you should not use adjacent crests. The distance between 2 probes (2.32 m) is about 2x wavelength; thus, you use the time distance (in the oscilloscope) between the left-most blue crest and the third purple crest. This distance is about 7 'boxes', or 1.75 s. Your celerity is then 2.32/1.75 = 1.3 m/s, as estimated previously. I hope this helps.

[@AhsanKhanPhD]

@@sergiomaldonado2655 How did we know that this 2.32 m distance is almost 2x wavelength? Was the wavelength already known??? If it was known then we could just use the time period of a single wave to calculate the celerity, i.e., c=wavelength/time period.

[@AhsanKhanPhD]

@@sergiomaldonado2655 Or is it the same problem as before? From the laboratory flume??? If that's the case then okay!!!

[@ElBuenAgua]

Very Very awesome. Thanks man!

[@freezyAndHaze]

magical video

[@tiantan7566]

Great!

[@austineadah2843]

Honestly your explanations are very clear.could you dive a bit into radiation and diffraction with some solved problems?

[@alzahraaghonim982]

Great

[@hydrologistkarmakhan]

great video