Skip to main content
added 581 characters in body
Source Link
garyp
  • 22.5k
  • 1
  • 45
  • 87

No, I can't, because that formula is nonsense. Furthermore, referring to the first paragraph of you link:

  • Amplitude is not the measure of change over a single period.
  • The maximum height is the amplitude, assuming the wave is a physical displacement wave. But there are many waves that are not: electromagnetic waves, for example.
  • Amplitude may be expressed in dB, but usually isn't, and if it is, one must provide the reference amplitude.

The formula given is wrong. It is not even dimensionally correct. It equates meters with meters/Hz.

Example 2. isn't even wrong. dB is dimensionless, while example 2 has it with units meters/Hz.

Take that web site off of your bookmarks.

update

I poked around that website. The physics descriptions and explanations are garbled at best. Many entries are in poor English grammar, which can lead to ambiguities and wrong conclusions. There are many good sites on the Internet; that one is not one of them. There are also poor sites, and it's impossible for the novice to know which is which unless the writing is so bad as to be useless. You'll have to look at several and see if you can find some kind of consensus.

This problem is not limited to web sites. I'm teaching from a textbook that has mistakes, in one case it has two statements that contradict each other. These two statements are separated by six lines of text!

No, I can't, because that formula is nonsense. Furthermore, referring to the first paragraph of you link:

  • Amplitude is not the measure of change over a single period.
  • The maximum height is the amplitude, assuming the wave is a physical displacement wave. But there are many waves that are not: electromagnetic waves, for example.
  • Amplitude may be expressed in dB, but usually isn't, and if it is, one must provide the reference amplitude.

The formula given is wrong. It is not even dimensionally correct. It equates meters with meters/Hz.

Example 2. isn't even wrong. dB is dimensionless, while example 2 has it with units meters/Hz.

Take that web site off of your bookmarks.

No, I can't, because that formula is nonsense. Furthermore, referring to the first paragraph of you link:

  • Amplitude is not the measure of change over a single period.
  • The maximum height is the amplitude, assuming the wave is a physical displacement wave. But there are many waves that are not: electromagnetic waves, for example.
  • Amplitude may be expressed in dB, but usually isn't, and if it is, one must provide the reference amplitude.

The formula given is wrong. It is not even dimensionally correct. It equates meters with meters/Hz.

Example 2. isn't even wrong. dB is dimensionless, while example 2 has it with units meters/Hz.

Take that web site off of your bookmarks.

update

I poked around that website. The physics descriptions and explanations are garbled at best. Many entries are in poor English grammar, which can lead to ambiguities and wrong conclusions. There are many good sites on the Internet; that one is not one of them. There are also poor sites, and it's impossible for the novice to know which is which unless the writing is so bad as to be useless. You'll have to look at several and see if you can find some kind of consensus.

This problem is not limited to web sites. I'm teaching from a textbook that has mistakes, in one case it has two statements that contradict each other. These two statements are separated by six lines of text!

added 581 characters in body
Source Link
garyp
  • 22.5k
  • 1
  • 45
  • 87

No, I can't, because that formula is nonsense. It's Furthermore, referring to the first paragraph of you link:

  • Amplitude is not the measure of change over a single period.
  • The maximum height is the amplitude, assuming the wave is a physical displacement wave. But there are many waves that are not: electromagnetic waves, for example.
  • Amplitude may be expressed in dB, but usually isn't, and if it is, one must provide the reference amplitude.

The formula given is wrong. It is not even dimensionally correct. TakeIt equates meters with meters/Hz.

Example 2. isn't even wrong. dB is dimensionless, while example 2 has it with units meters/Hz.

Take that web site off of your bookmarks.

No, I can't, because that formula is nonsense. It's not even dimensionally correct. Take that web site off of your bookmarks.

No, I can't, because that formula is nonsense. Furthermore, referring to the first paragraph of you link:

  • Amplitude is not the measure of change over a single period.
  • The maximum height is the amplitude, assuming the wave is a physical displacement wave. But there are many waves that are not: electromagnetic waves, for example.
  • Amplitude may be expressed in dB, but usually isn't, and if it is, one must provide the reference amplitude.

The formula given is wrong. It is not even dimensionally correct. It equates meters with meters/Hz.

Example 2. isn't even wrong. dB is dimensionless, while example 2 has it with units meters/Hz.

Take that web site off of your bookmarks.

Source Link
garyp
  • 22.5k
  • 1
  • 45
  • 87

No, I can't, because that formula is nonsense. It's not even dimensionally correct. Take that web site off of your bookmarks.