MaximalIdeal

This experiment will likely be done very soon ...Any of you brave video burners, afraid to give viewers content choices, care to RISK guessing what the results will be? If you have a receiver in the middle between two opposing antennas, you just get a standing wave. Some parts will be active, other parts will be dead spots. What are you trying to get at with this? You can see this in the very animation you provided. Look at the red wave: https://phantom-technologies.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Waventerference.gif I already explained why maxwell's equations and your idea would be in contradiction.

The third and fourth of maxwell's equations. If you put one into the other, you output the wave equations, which are shown in (5.6) in this link http://webpages.ursinus.edu/lriley/courses/p212/lectures/node23.html The wave equation has the property that it is linear (because it uses the differential operator and the differential operator is linear), which means its solutions can add together, and then it follows that when you superimpose a positive part of the wave with a negative part, they come out to zero (because that's how addition works). You've given no explanation why. I was arguing for conservation of energy as well, so why would you say such a thing? Do you dispute that P = IV?

If you can put your points into written form, it would be appreciated. That way, we can see the arguments all at once and no one would be accused of quoting out of context. My argument is only predicated on the fact that the voltage is doubled when you unblock one transmitter and that current is proportional to the voltage. In such a case, when you double the voltage, the power would be quadrupled by the P = IV formula (since current would also double), and then you're back to the conservation of energy argument about the dead spots. Your idea definitely disputes maxwell's equations though, so....

I think you're confusing me for DraftPhysics. I am arguing why DraftPhysics is wrong based off of the fact that the intensity is proportional to the square of the amplitude of a wave. If this is not true, please tell me. Edit: Ok, I saw the reply. No worries. lol

Nevermind, this does not show what I claimed because the signal is amplified to the maximum whether or not he is blocking one of the transmitters. This is a bad link. Consider this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHU-TIZvJTI&t=29m25s When he removes one antenna, the signal (this time shown in terms of current) drops by about 2 (not quite exactly though). All my other arguments still stand though, so they shouldn't be dismissed. I'd be interested if someone tried to do the MIT demo but with the purpose to read the voltages accurately, and then accurately compare them when one transmitter is blocked vs when it is unblocked.

Sure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO2yFC7_k2s I should have posted it to begin with, sorry. Ideally, an amplifier should give a linear relationship between power_in and power_out. A linear relationship means that if power_in is doubled, then power_out is doubled, and if power_in is 4x, then power_out is 4x, and so on. At higher power, the linear relationship deteriorates, but the problem is that the out/in curve grows less than the linear relationship, which means that you can't get quadruple power_out out of a doubling of power_in. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gain_compression. Based on these points, I don't think you can say the audio has to do with amplification (although if anyone disagrees, please let me know). As far as I know, for any wave, the intensity is related to the square of the amplitude. This means that the amplitude doubles in constructive interference, but the energy has to quadruple (and that energy should come from the destructive interference).

There are experiments with oscilloscopes that show that the voltage is 2x, and since power is P = V^2/R, the power associated with the voltage is 4x. What are you talking about when you say it is a "manifestation of amplification"?

There is one argument that can be made, assuming you accept that the constructive peaks in the radio experiments are 4x in energy. If you have two sources, you would expect the energy to be 2x as large, not 4x, so the other extra 2x factor must come from somewhere. In this case, it comes from the dead spots, which means the dead spots must have zero energy received by conservation of energy.