Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:mLR4b.42838$Qy4.37371@fed1read05...
....
Please David, give universal generalized physical
definition of a resonance, which one is valid for
linear and nonlinear physical systems simultaneously.

Resonance is the arrival of momentum in a structure or node that has a
similar direction to both the motion of the structure or node, the
acceleration of the structure or node, and is "in-phase" with it.
Rough,
but perhaps close enough...

In other words, you state, that the physical phenomenon of a resonance
in "structure" has a place under following conditions:

- the orientation of "structure" should be strictly coordinated
with orientation of electromagnetic radiation (one of a series
of requirements of co-ordinating);

Orientation only of the velocity and acceleration vectors at the "instant"
of momentum transference.

- the FREQUENCY of absorbed radiation should be such, what
the COMPLETE RESISTANCE of system has become a pure RESISTANCE;

Mostly correct. Only linear systems (and simple systems at that) will
there be no other "harmonics" or energy trasnferred to, and stored/lost
from other portions of a structure.

- by the way, you have forgotten about co-ordinating impedances
of "structure" and medium of propagation of electromagnetic
radiation, i.e. about efficiency of the transformer of radiation!
("structure");

I did not forget. Your synopsis (assuming I was an idiot and only looked
in the book for five minutes) assumed so.

I should mark a very large virtue of your DEFINITION
of a RESONANCE, in which one the concrete physical MECHANISM
of ABSORPTION of EXTERIOR electromagnetic radiation MISSES.
Yours " structure " has other title a " BLACK BOX ".

As its definition intends. I am not trying to paint you into a corner with
words. I expect the facts will do this to you shortly.

Remember that resonance already has a definition, and a better one than
mine.

We are agreed on this. ;-)

I shall give more perfect definition of a resonance:

It seems to me, that I have representation about a resonance
with another of more generalized physical point of view.

Let's consider PHYSICAL SYSTEM, which one ABSORBS EXTERIOR
electromagnetic radiation, as a BLACK BOX.

Accepted. Just as a particle is not to be located in space, based on its
definition.

I.e. we abstract from the concrete physical mechanism
of ABSORPTION of EXTERIOR electromagnetic radiation.
Only FREQUENCY BANDS of MAXIMUM ABSORPTION
of electromagnetic radiation have concern for us.
These AREAS of frequencies of MAXIMUM ABSORPTION
of electromagnetic radiation we shall term

as AREAS of a RESONANCE of SYSTEM.

Henceforth known as 'ARS'. The photoelectric effect shows none. Only a
threshold.

From my point of view the given DEFINITION
of a RESONANCE is most GENERALIZED physical DEFINITION
of a PHENOMENON of a RESONANCE.
In this definition of a RESONANCE is included
EFFICIENCY of the COORDINATION of the system with MEDIUM
(space), in which one the radiation is spread.

Accepted. The photoelectric effect shows no ARS. Only a threshold. DOA.

It defines a mechanism, and a behaviour, that is contrary to your
needs.

Let's consider the problem closer.
Our positions are much closer than you guessed earlier.
Our positions coincide everywhere except for final deductions.

To err is human.

I am sure, that you err. Please look above:
" AREAS of frequencies of MAXIMUM ABSORPTION "

I have not erred. I have provided rope and you have made your own trap.
You of course have caught only yourself.

David A. Smith