could you eliminate a tsunami with a bunch of opposing waves?

[brainhulk]

That are 180 degrees out of phase of the oncoming wave(s)?

 

[glenn1]

That are 180 degrees out of phase of the oncoming wave(s)?

Theoretically, I suppose, only the tsunami would spread in a circular pattern from the point source of the earthquake rather than in a straight line making it a far more complex matter. Also, if you had an energy source large enough to create a sufficiently-sized destructive interference wave in a basin as large as the Pacific Ocean, then the actual tsunami itself would probably be a relatively minor event.

 

[CZroe]

Theoretically, I suppose, only the tsunami would spread in a circular pattern from the point source of the earthquake rather than in a straight line making it a far more complex matter. Also, if you had an energy source large enough to create a sufficiently-sized destructive interference wave in a basin as large as the Pacific Ocean, then the actual tsunami itself would probably be a relatively minor event.

Weaponize that shiz.

 

[unokitty]

That are 180 degrees out of phase of the oncoming wave(s)?

In theory, it shouldn't be a problem.

At that Galveston Seawall, you can observe wave interference any time there is a good sized storm out in the Gulf.

Uno

 

[Murloc]

Weaponize that shiz.

you tried to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami_bomb
result of the study: too much explosive is needed.
It's better to throw an atomic bomb.


anyway it's theoretically possible but practically impossible.
Even if there was a way to have that much mechanical energy, how are you going to use it to elide the tsunami?

 

[IronWing]

You would need to generate a compression (body) wave as opposed to a surface wave (storm waves are surface waves). Starting your wave at a distance from the point of origin of the tsunami there would only be a few isolated points where your counter wave would cancel the original wave. Everywhere else you would cause two tsunamis.

The only way to make your wave completely cancel the tsunami would be to trigger it at the point of origin of the original wave and at the same time as the original event but with the phase reversed.

With a bunch of waves you might be able to protect a single point but again you would cause more tsunamis everywhere else.

 

[silverpig]

Mr Fourier says yes. Mr reality says no.

 

[darkxshade]

Just detonate a nuke in front of it... send that shit back the other way. I'm pretty sure the US has more than enough to win the pong battle.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

A tsunami is different from some normal wave.Its millions and millions and millions of liters of water being shoved away by the force of the earth itself.

Out tiny ass nukes are just pissing into the sheer amount of energy that is a tsunami/

 

[CZroe]

you tried to do that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsunami_bomb
result of the study: too much explosive is needed.
It's better to throw an atomic bomb.


anyway it's theoretically possible but practically impossible.
Even if there was a way to have that much mechanical energy, how are you going to use it to elide the tsunami?

Ever read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear?" You just need a few cavitation machines.

 

[DrPizza]

My eyebrows are all scrunched up on my forehead, because I thought the obvious answer is, "uhhhh, no."

The two waves would pass through each other. At the point of superposition, you would get either constructive or destructive interference.

Now, since a tsunami isn't a single wave, but is usually a wave train of 5 or more waves, you would have to produce a wave train moving in the opposite direction. At the nodes, you'd have complete destructive interference, provided the waves you created had the same wavelength and energy. But midway between nodes, you would get constructive interference, resulting in a tsunami twice as high.

 

[TecHNooB]

My eyebrows are all scrunched up on my forehead, because I thought the obvious answer is, "uhhhh, no."

The two waves would pass through each other. At the point of superposition, you would get either constructive or destructive interference.

Now, since a tsunami isn't a single wave, but is usually a wave train of 5 or more waves, you would have to produce a wave train moving in the opposite direction. At the nodes, you'd have complete destructive interference, provided the waves you created had the same wavelength and energy. But midway between nodes, you would get constructive interference, resulting in a tsunami twice as high.

this is correct. you'd have to have the waves moving in the same direction for them to cancel out everywhere by being 180 out of phase.

 

[Greenman]

I thought a tsunami was a fast moving, deep water event, with almost no visible surface indication of it's passing until it hit shallow water? Wouldn't deep water pressure waves behave deferentially than surface waves?

 

[dennilfloss]

A tsunami is more than just a wave like the 'ripples' we see on the ocean's surface because the water is actually being moved (whereas the water in normal oceanic waves just completes a more or less circular motion and something floating only travels in that circular pattern with it to return to its original position), it's a large-scale flooding, part wave, part current. The whole body of water is projected up and spreads out before returning to its original place.

 

[eits]

my immediate thought was that the two waves would collide and bounce back with a greater intensity. i don't know, though... i'm just trying to conceptualize based on how i'm picturing waves hitting each other in a bathtub lol

 

[tcsenter]

I foresee one of those bad made-for-TV disaster movies where the plot is using nuclear bombs to dispatch a megatsunami.

 

[jupiter57]

Home-School FAIL!