Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om...

Whether you can describe physical principles of operation of the RC-oscillator
(capacitance-resistance oscillator) from a point of view of a resonance?

Although a capacitor stores energy an RC circuit is not a
resonant system. The voltage and current in an RC circuit
decay exponentially and have no natural oscillation. The
differential equation is first order while resonance
requires second order.

Then you should explain the physical mechanism of the RC-generator,
which one ensures on an output of the RC-generator (RC-oscillator)
only sine-wave oscillations. ;-)

You mean as I mentioned in the next paragraph? ;-)

To make an oscillator using an RC requires a separate
non-linear gain stage (a 'relaxation' oscillator)

This doesn't give a sine wave but just for completeness:

http://www.ee.polyu.edu.hk/staff/een.../ee251lab2.htm

or you
need multiple RC stages.

This is the one you are thinking of and does give a
sine wave:

http://home.earthlink.net/~doncox/wec/Oscillators.html

Note that you need at least three stages. You need to get
180 degrees phase shift from the RC delays to produce an
in-phase signal into the inverting amplifier. In theory a
single RC stage will produce 90 degrees shift but only
when the gain is zero. The oscillator as a whole can have
a similar frequency characteristic to a resonant system
but the initial energy in the capacitors is lost as heat
in the resistors and base of the transistors and has to
be continually replaced from the power supply. The
individual RC sections only provide phase shift, not
useable power storage so it is not resonant in the
physical sense. (Some electronics texts may describe it
as resonant because of the response, not the mechanism.)

As Craig pointed out a simple LCR circuit can be resonant
provided the resistance is low enough (series mode) or
high enough (parallel mode) to avoid excessive damping.
This is a good description of that (9 page PDF):

http://faculty.washington.edu/maniso.../resonance.pdf

The key difference is that in an LC circuit, energy can
be stored in the magnetic field in the inductor and in the
electric field in the capacitor. The collapse of the
magnetic field induces a voltages that charges the
capacitor, the voltage across the capacitor then builds
the current in the inductor in the opposite sense to the
original and so on. Without resistive losses this could
go on indefinitely.

With just an RC, the energy in the capacitor is turned
into heat in the resistor and that is the end.

Perfectly well. You have done large work with
a profound knowledge of a subject.

But now, just for completeness, you should explain
the physical mechanism of the parametric generator,
which one ensures on an output of the parametric
generator only sine-wave oscillations. ;-)

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om...

Whether you can describe physical principles of operation of the RC-oscillator
(capacitance-resistance oscillator) from a point of view of a resonance?

Although a capacitor stores energy an RC circuit is not a
resonant system. The voltage and current in an RC circuit
decay exponentially and have no natural oscillation. The
differential equation is first order while resonance
requires second order.

Then you should explain the physical mechanism of the RC-generator,
which one ensures on an output of the RC-generator (RC-oscillator)
only sine-wave oscillations. ;-)

You mean as I mentioned in the next paragraph? ;-)

To make an oscillator using an RC requires a separate
non-linear gain stage (a 'relaxation' oscillator)

This doesn't give a sine wave but just for completeness:

http://www.ee.polyu.edu.hk/staff/een.../ee251lab2.htm

or you
need multiple RC stages.

This is the one you are thinking of and does give a
sine wave:

http://home.earthlink.net/~doncox/wec/Oscillators.html

Note that you need at least three stages. You need to get
180 degrees phase shift from the RC delays to produce an
in-phase signal into the inverting amplifier. In theory a
single RC stage will produce 90 degrees shift but only
when the gain is zero. The oscillator as a whole can have
a similar frequency characteristic to a resonant system
but the initial energy in the capacitors is lost as heat
in the resistors and base of the transistors and has to
be continually replaced from the power supply. The
individual RC sections only provide phase shift, not
useable power storage so it is not resonant in the
physical sense. (Some electronics texts may describe it
as resonant because of the response, not the mechanism.)

As Craig pointed out a simple LCR circuit can be resonant
provided the resistance is low enough (series mode) or
high enough (parallel mode) to avoid excessive damping.
This is a good description of that (9 page PDF):

http://faculty.washington.edu/maniso.../resonance.pdf

The key difference is that in an LC circuit, energy can
be stored in the magnetic field in the inductor and in the
electric field in the capacitor. The collapse of the
magnetic field induces a voltages that charges the
capacitor, the voltage across the capacitor then builds
the current in the inductor in the opposite sense to the
original and so on. Without resistive losses this could
go on indefinitely.

With just an RC, the energy in the capacitor is turned
into heat in the resistor and that is the end.

Perfectly well. You have done large work with
a profound knowledge of a subject.

Thank you.

But now, just for completeness, you should explain
the physical mechanism of the parametric generator,
which one ensures on an output of the parametric
generator only sine-wave oscillations. ;-)

My knowledge of such systems is far more limited,
but in this example

http://members.aol.com/overunity/html/paraintr.htm

you can see it is just a means to pump an LCR circuit
by varying a circuit parameter, L in this case.

For other examples I think you will also find there
is a resonant system which is pumped in a similar
manner.

However, I think we have answered sean's question,
resonance is not a wave phenomenon, so I'll leave
it at that.

best regards
George

(Aleksandr Timofeev) wrote in message . com...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:rSz0b.5442$Qy4.4087@fed1read05...
Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:rbWZa.9683$2g.438@fed1read05...
...
[snip]

I am not a "you". I know that the wave model of light is incorrect. I
have asked you to tell me how I am wrong, and yet you come back with
resonance to describe the photoelectric effect. So you come back with a
broken explanation. Knowing it is broken. And claim it is because science
does not want to (or cannot) fix it.


Dear David please point even alone experiment of "interaction" really
of free electron with "photon". I am absolutely sure, that you can not
make it for a real _free_ electron.

I do not like tricks with feeblly bound electrons.


You think, what was
done before you is quite enough. Besides, you colleagues want to see
or hear nothing.

[snip]


Dear Aleksandr,

What an interesting question have you put. Though, judging by this
discussion with David, he's unable to answer. He hears and sees
nothing except slogans in textbooks. Now he is running round the
threads to agitate against wave physics, though he doesn't know and
doesn't want to know that without achievements in wave physics we
wouldn't have QM, neither EM theory and many other things.

See what he replied you in the neighbouring post:

[David]
Then resonance cannot apply if there is no "real" binding force to
provide
the "spring". Because there are lots of other orbitals that the
light
*would* be in resonance with.

Let us take as an example a very simple (of course, conventionally)
model of the wave oscilloscope. We all well know that the frequency
limitation from above is determined not only by the amplifier of
oscilloscope but also by the wave processes which occur when the beam
of electrons interacts with the deviating field. David says, if an
electron is out of the atom orbit, the resonance phenomena are absent.
He-he! Only one who understands nothing in dynamics of the system of
bodies can claim so.

First of all one should take into account that we never - NEVER deal
with single electrons. We can speak of rarefied either dense flow, but
this always is the flow either some aggregate in a bound region. Even
when we study radiation/absorption of EM waves by orbital electrons -
even in this case we deal with an assemblage of electrons in a
definite set of atoms or molecules. Second, no one never saw and will
not see an immovable electron. We can localise the region of
electron's motion, but they always move from somewhere and to
somewhere else. In the oscilloscope this is the anode of screen, isn't
it? ;-) Now, will we see a spot at the screen if unfocused? Of course,
no. Without focusing the beam will scatter. Focusing supplies just the
returning force which David cannot understand out of atom, ;-) as
electrons move in orbits and we can consider them in this sense as
free.

Thus we see, the electron beam in the tube creates an elastic line. At
low frequency of E-field of the deviating plates, the wave properties
of the beam reveal weakly, but when hundreds of MHz, we feel it, so we
have to shape tubes as wave channels. This is the interaction.
Supporters of photon theory to be able to imagine such interaction in
the tube, they would have to take again from the loft the idea of
longitudinal and scalar photons. And to rise with it their old
unsolvable problems, as they cancel the longitudinal component of EM
field by Coulomb calibration. Which will be with it the energy of
photon? ;-) In our field theory such calibration is absent, but there
are no photons in our theory. ;-) Well, they make glassy eyes. They
even cannot understand this simple true that in the conventional
Maxwell equations they use the conservation laws for stationary
fields. In dynamic fields these laws essentially change. But alas,
they make glassy eyes.

Thank you for references to interesting web sites. I'll see them.

Kind regards,

Sergey.

P.S. I will be very attentive to Sean's work. ;-)

Sergey

Oh, you don't appreciate good attitude, David. I have read attentively
your last post. You said many different things on me, but this is to
your account.

As I see, you put the question rigidly, requiring from me the
photoeffect with wave physics. However, you didn't understand, I can
explain it only to one who has a necessary amount of knowledge.
Unfortunately, you still don't demonstrate such knowledge.

Yes, I can explain photoeffect with the help of resonance phenomena in
EM wave interaction with the electrons of substance. In metal they are
the electrons of Fermi-gas, in semiconductors and dielectrics -
orbital electrons. I briefly said you of it before. If you want to
hear more, I'm pleased. But before I would like to make certain that
you know resonance systems enough. Aren't you against? You wrote,

[David]
I took a class in "resonance systems". That is why I know that you
have
not even looked at what resonance is. I CAN calculate certain
limited sets
of exact solutions as the need arises.

[Sergey]
Okay. Since you put the question point-blank and state that you know
in resonance systems what I don't, and also

[David]
There is no difficulty in expressing the formulas for resonance. And
the
behaviour is well known in lots of different types of systems.

[Sergey]
I will not bother you with complicated systems. Please go to page 42
of our paper "OSCILLATION PATTERN FEATURES IN MISMATCHED FINITE
ELECTRIC LADDER FILTERS"

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...42/load42.html

and see formulas (23) - (25). This is the exact analytical solution
for a heterogeneous line shown in Fig. 4a in the same page. You can
make sure, these solutions are exact. It is sufficient for it to
compare the diagrams in Fig. 6, page 44

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...44/load44.html

plotted with these formulas, with the experimental diagrams in Fig.
10, page 46

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...46/load46.html

The calculation of this mechanical elastic line is surely simple,
takes several pages and a trifle of time. Please do show me, how I
made it. This will make me sure that when I begin telling you, I will
not see glassy eyes. ;-)

After this we can advance into wave physics with a great speed, and
you will soon see, wave physics is not so simple as you used to think
outwardly, and photoeffect doesn't limit its scope.

Sergey.

P.S. I didn't want to touch other issues in this post, but couldn't
resist a temptation. ;-)

1. In your post you stated unambiguously that photon has a "zero"
size:

[David]
The size of the photon (as determined by experiment) is "zero", and
has nothing to do with the distance it travels before it achieves the
same
E&B orientation again.

At odd moment, could you explain me: if it has such size as you are
saying, it must be smaller than a period of wave (at least for radio
waves). It moves with the light velocity - it means, with the same
velocity as vector E varies in space. Hence, I have natural questions:

a) the integral field of photon will be in this case non-zero, and
what about uncharged photon?
b) no changes in time can occur within photon, as with it the field
variation registered by the receiver would be more either less than
the light velocity (so-called group velocity which is formed when
within some system there exists a subsystem with the time-variable
phase shift); then of what changes of E&B are you saying?
c) If the wave period consists of multitude photons, how photons do
correlate with each other, keeping a strong sequence for many
thousands and millions kilometres, especially when there propagates
not a monochromatic wave but a packet?

2. As to the beyond-cutoff luminescence of substance you have written
the following:

[David]
Or systems that express temperature, which is relative motion of the
individual emitters and absorbers. This is simply saying that
quantum
mechanics is right. What is not right about what you have said is
that it
has anything to do with resonant behaviour. Absorption of a photon
does
*not* occur for electrons in orbitals that are just under a photon
energy,
and produce a near-zero KE electron, they produce a conduction
electron
with all the energy. This is NOT resonant behaviour.

a) please show me the regularity of energy of secondary quanta in
Planck formula with respect to temperature; ;-)
b) of which relative motion of individual emitters and absorbers are
you saying for a solid state of luminophor which so much distorts the
pattern of emission?

Only having answered these questions, you may judge, how much right is
QM.

3. As to your following claim:

[David]
There are no behaviours that wave theory describes,
that particle theory cannot.

I guess, you are speaking here of the photon theory as a part of
particle theory. If so, I would like simply to cite Niels Bohr:

In the view of quantum theory, the discussed hypothesis cannot be
nonetheless considered as a satisfying solution. As is known, just
this hypothesis brings insurmountable difficulties in explanation of
interference phenomena - the main means in studying the radiation
properties [see: H.A. Lorentz. Phys. Zs., 1910, *11*, 349]. In any
case we can ascertain that the underlying statement of the hypothesis
of light quanta basically excludes the possibility to comprehend the
concept of frequency nu playing the main part in this theory. So the
hypothesis of light quanta is invalid to give general pattern of
processes which might include the entire amount of phenomena
considered in quantum theory applications

[Niels Bohr. On the quantum theory application to the structure of
atom. 1. The main postulates of quantum theory. Chapter 3. On formal
nature of quantum theory. Item 1. Hypothesis of light quanta].

This organically supplements what I usually say you and you stubbornly
don't hear. We all can take offence, the more when have such necessity
to avoid answering inconvenient questions. This, David, is too
trivial. ;-)

4. And one premature note on your dear photoeffect and your statement
that

[David]
Wave theory does not describe the photoelectric effect, and
particle theory does.

[Sergey]
Please take any book on photoeffect and open where the spectral
characteristics for metals are shown. You will see that the quantum
output dependence on frequency is not so much like a direct line as
Planck equation predicts. These curves are gently sloping near the
'red' boundary and increasing as the square of difference of
frequencies. After it you see an abrupt rise. And this rise relates to
the frequency band at which the material stops effectively reflecting
EM waves. The further the more. The curve reaches its maximum, then
the photoeffect abruptly falls. Began the material again reflecting EM
waves? Yes, but not so much abruptly as the quantum output falls.
Well, now please answer, David, my very simple question. As a result
of what there appears the maximum of absorption of EM waves by the
surface of metal?

In semiconductors the quantum output has some other pattern. In the
area of red boundary you see an abrupt raise and saturation and almost
smooth plateau. Here also the surface absorbs in the area of plateau?
;-)

Of course, these are far from all questions, but if you can answer
specifically at least to these - I will be grateful. ;-)

Sergey.



\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:rSz0b.5442$Qy4.4087@fed1read05...
Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:rbWZa.9683$2g.438@fed1read05...
...
He has made no substantive comment in the post to which I replied.
Certainly nothing except his opinions. And he left not one shred of my
last post to him, to continue a dialog.

David, you know well, this is not so.

Which part is not so? You left none of my comments, to which you provide
"explanation". Therefore your discussion is of no interest to me.

There in my post was not only my
above phrase but also 3 items of explanation. You would read them
attentively and with wish to understand what I wrote, even if this was
inconvenient for you.

Inconvenient is not the word I would choose. "Evasive" or "rude" come to
mind. I have tried to leave the portions of dialogue of yours that I would
then respond to. It at least *feels* like a conversation.

In the first item I forwarded a natural for physics stipulation - if
we explain some phenomenon on the basis of some phenomenology, this
phenomenology has to be non-contradictive. Photon theory hasn't such
property, and you sequentially avoided all my questions, having caught
on the photoeffect, since relativists used to think that wave theory
is unable to explain it.

One reproducible case is all that is required to *invalidate* a theory.
That means the theory does not describe ALL OF REALITY, and is valid in
some domain. Wave theory does not describe the photoelectric effect, and
particle theory does. There are no behaviours that wave theory describes,
that particle theory cannot. Therefore wave theory has one tiny little
area where it does not apply, and has some extremely useful tools with a
lot of power that it can bring to bear. But particle theory is superior,
if calculation intensive, since it describes all behaviours yet observed.
And it didn't get *there* without a lot of really smart people driving it.

Particle theory is not relativitistic, but quantum mechanical, so the
slander against "relativists" is inappropriate and appears to be intended
to inflame and stop communication. If you want to posture, claim you are
right, and have no response from me, do not leave "dlzc" in your reply.
That way the final words will be yours.

In the second item I drew your attention that Planck's quantum theory
and Bohr's theory are inadequate to the Einstein's theory. This is the
known fact, as well as it is well known that Planck and Bohr were
Einstein's opponents. Planck only found that EM energy is emitted and
absorbed by portions, but he didn't think out any particles. Bohr has
calculated the orbits of electrons in atom, taking into account that
they are discrete, and without any indeterminacy. In his theory
everything has been determined! If you read attentively his basic
work, you will easily understand, discretisation which he postulated
is the consequence of resonance excluding the continuous spectrum of
levels.

Relativity and quantum mechanics are two entirely different beasts. And
relativity is closest to your wave model, since they are both applicable
ONLY to large statistical populations. If you have a beef it should be
with *QM*.

If you then read our paper "On the nature of red shift of
Metagalaxy"

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/hubbl.../hubble44.html

where we analyse the luminescence, you will understand that known
Planck's formula E = h*nu is true only when averaging (this is just
typical for his formula describing the radiation of absolutely black
body). See the experimental curve in Fig. 10

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/hubbl.../hubble45.html

In each specific case Planck's formula is not exactly true, which says
that energy ABSORPTION and EMISSION quantization has a limited rigour.
This is also typical just for resonance systems. ;-)

Or systems that express temperature, which is relative motion of the
individual emitters and absorbers. This is simply saying that quantum
mechanics is right. What is not right about what you have said is that it
has anything to do with resonant behaviour. Absorption of a photon does
*not* occur for electrons in orbitals that are just under a photon energy,
and produce a near-zero KE electron, they produce a conduction electron
with all the energy. This is NOT resonant behaviour.

As opposite to Bohr's theory, Einstein's theory is fully absurd.
Beginning with the fact that Bose distribution means arithmetic
summation of quanta energy which is basically discrepant with the
experimental regularities of interference and diffraction of light.
Further, orbital electron interacts with the wave in time, but photon
absorption must be instantaneous (there were very many questions to
Einstein about it, and he couldn't answer). Furthermore, no one of
adherents of photon theory can substantiate the contradiction
connected with the geometrical size of photon and how this size
corresponds to wavelength - where from the postulate of uncharged and
non-interacting photon follows contradictive. You also cannot explain
it, and even if you try, you can only produce new discrepancies.

Your are arguing out of both sides of your mouth. I will leave you to do
this. The size of the photon (as determined by experiment) is "zero", and
has nothing to do with the distance it travels before it achieves the same
E&B orientation again. I don't need to explain it. They are two entirely
different things. Any other claim is your own fabrication, and is therfore
your problem.

In the third item I briefly gave the initials of phenomenology on
whose grounds one can easily describe photoeffect with the wave
physics. Yes, today, while physicists CANNOT study resonance phenomena
theoretically, this description will be based on the Planck's formula
of quantization, given Bohr's calculations.

There is no difficulty in expressing the formulas for resonance. And the
behaviour is well known in lots of different types of systems. The
photoelectric effect is contraindicative of resonance. You need a
different model ENTIRELY.

And nothing wrong in it,
as from these works to Einstein's fiction is a large distance. To
calculate this effect deeper, we have to learn to calculate resonance
systems containing resonance subsystems. Such is the trouble: no one
of you all cannot it and doesn't want to know.

I am not a "you". I know that the wave model of light is incorrect. I
have asked you to tell me how I am wrong, and yet you come back with
resonance to describe the photoelectric effect. So you come back with a
broken explanation. Knowing it is broken. And claim it is because science
does not want to (or cannot) fix it.

You think, what was
done before you is quite enough. Besides, you colleagues want to see
or hear nothing.

I cannot speak for my colleagues. I want a single theory that describes
all behaviours. You don't have one. You have an EASY theory, and that is
all.

Just you mechanical engineer are grieving that no one
can calculate resonance systems.

I took a class in "resonance systems". That is why I know that you have
not even looked at what resonance is. I CAN calculate certain limited sets
of exact solutions as the need arises.

You don't need to talk down to me. It seems I am right in front of you.

...
Of course, if you want to understand what occurs in these cases. But
if you feel enough good an old wear out formulation that wave physics
is unable to explain something - this is your right. Indeed, this
theory also has its problems. They are gradually solved. Don't forget,
the mathematical tool of quantum theory has been taken from wave
physics - Aleksandr just told you of it. If you want to sort out this
issue - I'm ready, but not on the worn out dogmas.

Then we should be done. Since what you offer is worn out dogma, based on a
19th century conception of light.

...
So if you wish to quit your posturing, we can continue *our*
discussions.

You (and Sergey) wish to continue describing the behaviours of light
with
the class of equations that describe gestalt behaviours. This is a
wonderful and useful idea. It will help you get the job done, perhaps
even
in your lifetime.

Development of wave physics began long before us and we will not
finish it. But we can do something and have done - at least we in the
laboratory SELF.

As I said. It is a useful TOOL. It lacks only endpoints to be complete.
Alexsandr started this thread proposing that emission and absoprtion were
only boundary conditions. For any sufficiently broad system, this would be
a viable APPROXIMATION. Proceed. It is based, however, on ignoring the
things that make it INVALID.

It does not alter the inescapable fact that the gestalt is made of
quantum
particles, that conform to producing, among other things, the
photoelectric effect.

It's a beloved occupation of relativists - to use developments of
classical physics, to distort them and to palm off their distorted
results as something inachievable in frames of classical physics. ;-)

I tire of your posturing as well. Describe the photoelectric effect using
a wave model. Don't wave "resonance" in front of me again, until you show
how it does not excite those electrons from orbitals that it should for a
resonant system. Otherwise, you are doing exaclty what you accuse me of
doing.

I have heard many people *claim* that waves can
describe the photoelectic effect, but they always seem to fall short.
They
never seem to get past "resonance" in fact.

Well, what you relativists know of resonance? In the neighbouring
thread, "Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations", some colleagues
tried to state that it's very convenient to solve the resonance
systems with Lagrangian and Hamiltonian. However they couldn't get
past general formulas, never transiting to the description of specific
systems. Don't you want to try? Then please prompt me, how have I got
solved the problem of a many-body system with the resonance
substructure? ;-) You are forgetting for a while, where from the QM
has taken its mathematical tool which it distorted up to
unrecognizability.

Done. There is no discussion possible with you. Believe what you will.
If you peddle it as being the truth, be prepared to face humiliation. And
it won't be from a mechanical engineer.

David A. Smith

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om...

Whether you can describe physical principles of operation of the RC-oscillator
(capacitance-resistance oscillator) from a point of view of a resonance?

Although a capacitor stores energy an RC circuit is not a
resonant system. The voltage and current in an RC circuit
decay exponentially and have no natural oscillation. The
differential equation is first order while resonance
requires second order.

Then you should explain the physical mechanism of the RC-generator,
which one ensures on an output of the RC-generator (RC-oscillator)
only sine-wave oscillations. ;-)

You mean as I mentioned in the next paragraph? ;-)

To make an oscillator using an RC requires a separate
non-linear gain stage (a 'relaxation' oscillator)

This doesn't give a sine wave but just for completeness:

http://www.ee.polyu.edu.hk/staff/een.../ee251lab2.htm

or you
need multiple RC stages.

This is the one you are thinking of and does give a
sine wave:

http://home.earthlink.net/~doncox/wec/Oscillators.html

Note that you need at least three stages. You need to get
180 degrees phase shift from the RC delays to produce an
in-phase signal into the inverting amplifier. In theory a
single RC stage will produce 90 degrees shift but only
when the gain is zero. The oscillator as a whole can have
a similar frequency characteristic to a resonant system
but the initial energy in the capacitors is lost as heat
in the resistors and base of the transistors and has to
be continually replaced from the power supply. The
individual RC sections only provide phase shift, not
useable power storage so it is not resonant in the
physical sense. (Some electronics texts may describe it
as resonant because of the response, not the mechanism.)

As Craig pointed out a simple LCR circuit can be resonant
provided the resistance is low enough (series mode) or
high enough (parallel mode) to avoid excessive damping.
This is a good description of that (9 page PDF):

http://faculty.washington.edu/maniso.../resonance.pdf

The key difference is that in an LC circuit, energy can
be stored in the magnetic field in the inductor and in the
electric field in the capacitor. The collapse of the
magnetic field induces a voltages that charges the
capacitor, the voltage across the capacitor then builds
the current in the inductor in the opposite sense to the
original and so on. Without resistive losses this could
go on indefinitely.

With just an RC, the energy in the capacitor is turned
into heat in the resistor and that is the end.

Perfectly well. You have done large work with
a profound knowledge of a subject.

Thank you.

But now, just for completeness, you should explain
the physical mechanism of the parametric generator,
which one ensures on an output of the parametric
generator only sine-wave oscillations. ;-)

My knowledge of such systems is far more limited,
but in this example

http://members.aol.com/overunity/html/paraintr.htm

you can see it is just a means to pump an LCR circuit
by varying a circuit parameter, L in this case.

Thank you.

For other examples I think you will also find there
is a resonant system which is pumped in a similar
manner.

Earlier, you considered "resonance" in a _passive_ linear system.

The physical phenomenon is considered here in _active
nonlinear_ system of completely other type.

However, I think we have answered sean's question,
resonance is not a wave phenomenon,

"resonance is not a wave phenomenon"

Why?

What is a standing wave in a wave guide?

What is a standing wave in a segment of a coaxial line?

What is a standing wave in a very high frequency
the resonator?


From a wave point of view there are two classes of systems:
- lumped-parameter systems (for example condensers, inductance
coils, resistors);
- distributed-parameter systems (for example wave guides,
coaxial lines, very high frequency resonators).

so I'll leave it at that.

???

Best regards
Aleksandr

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...
Hi George!

"George Dishman" writes:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om...

Whether you can describe physical principles of operation of the RC-oscillator
(capacitance-resistance oscillator) from a point of view of a resonance?

Although a capacitor stores energy an RC circuit is not a
resonant system. The voltage and current in an RC circuit
decay exponentially and have no natural oscillation. The
differential equation is first order while resonance
requires second order.

However, an LC circuit can be a resonant system. [inductor-capacitor]
No "waves" are involved in an LC circuit.

Whether you can describe physical principles
of operation of the parametric generator?

By the way. What type of generators is applied on electrical
energy stations from a physical point of view?

Aleksandr

Sergey Karavashkin:


a) the integral field of photon will be in this case non-zero, and
what about uncharged photon?

What about it? Photons have no charge. That's why charge is conserved.

b) no changes in time can occur within photon,

That's a meaningless statement.

as with it the field variation registered by the receiver would be
more either less than the light velocity (so-called group velocity
which is formed when within some system there exists a subsystem with
the time-variable phase shift);

The phase of a photon does not advance in time. In fact, it's
completely meaningless to discuss the absolute phase of a photon.

then of what changes of E&B are you saying?
c) If the wave period consists of multitude photons, how photons do
correlate with each other, keeping a strong sequence for many
thousands and millions kilometres, especially when there propagates
not a monochromatic wave but a packet?

That's pretty naive. The photons (or any wave packet) emitted are
emitted by sources. If the sources are correlated, why wouldn't
the radiation carry those correlations to the receiver when the
intervening distance between the source and emitter is just the
vacuum in space and doesn't affect the radiation in any way?

2. As to the beyond-cutoff luminescence of substance you have written
the following:

[David]
Or systems that express temperature, which is relative motion of the
individual emitters and absorbers. This is simply saying that
quantum
mechanics is right. What is not right about what you have said is
that it
has anything to do with resonant behaviour. Absorption of a photon
does
*not* occur for electrons in orbitals that are just under a photon
energy,
and produce a near-zero KE electron, they produce a conduction
electron
with all the energy. This is NOT resonant behaviour.

a) please show me the regularity of energy of secondary quanta in
Planck formula with respect to temperature; ;-)

What does "regularity of energy of secondary quanta mean"? Planck's
formula refers to the oscillators that produce the quanta. It says
nothing about the nature of the quanta other than what the principle
of detailed balance tells you.

b) of which relative motion of individual emitters and absorbers are
you saying for a solid state of luminophor which so much distorts the
pattern of emission?

Only having answered these questions, you may judge, how much right is
QM.

First you have to ask a sensible question.

[...]
I guess, you are speaking here of the photon theory as a part of
particle theory. If so, I would like simply to cite Niels Bohr:

In the view of quantum theory, the discussed hypothesis cannot be
nonetheless considered as a satisfying solution. As is known, just
this hypothesis brings insurmountable difficulties in explanation of
interference phenomena - the main means in studying the radiation
properties [see: H.A. Lorentz. Phys. Zs., 1910, *11*, 349].

Let's see, 1910... That was about 5 years before bohr had a model of the
atom, 18 years before quantum mechanics was a theory and about a quarter
century before there was a relativistic theory which included photons and
about a half-century before quantum field theories came into existence.
What's your point? That bohr knew all of those things in 1910?

In any
case we can ascertain that the underlying statement of the hypothesis
of light quanta basically excludes the possibility to comprehend the
concept of frequency nu playing the main part in this theory.

The frequency plays a role. It just doesn't play the role described by
classical theory (which isn't really clear anyway). Instead, the frequency
plays a role that is better suited to the word frequency: an interaction
probability.

So the
hypothesis of light quanta is invalid to give general pattern of
processes which might include the entire amount of phenomena
considered in quantum theory applications



[Niels Bohr. On the quantum theory application to the structure of
atom. 1. The main postulates of quantum theory. Chapter 3. On formal
nature of quantum theory. Item 1. Hypothesis of light quanta].

This organically supplements what I usually say you and you stubbornly
don't hear.

So, essentially, you are arguing that given the understanding of
quantum mechanics in 1910, quanta don't make sense. That is certainly
true, since there was no such thing as quantum mechanics in 1910.
However, that is not an argument. No one understood E&M in AD 1500,
but that isn't an argument against maxwell's equations.

[...]

[Sergey]
Please take any book on photoeffect and open where the spectral
characteristics for metals are shown. You will see that the quantum
output dependence on frequency is not so much like a direct line as
Planck equation predicts.

Planck's equation?

These curves are gently sloping near the
'red' boundary and increasing as the square of difference of
frequencies. After it you see an abrupt rise. And this rise relates to
the frequency band at which the material stops effectively reflecting
EM waves. The further the more. The curve reaches its maximum, then
the photoeffect abruptly falls. Began the material again reflecting EM
waves? Yes, but not so much abruptly as the quantum output falls.
Well, now please answer, David, my very simple question. As a result
of what there appears the maximum of absorption of EM waves by the
surface of metal?

Apparently, you don't understand the photoelectric effect. The quasi-
free electrons in a metal can certainly absorb radiation. Where do you
think the energy that corresponds to the work function goes? Light
can be scattered in the metal. If you think a detailed answer is simple,
then the reason is you're understanding of the photoelectric effect
is naive and you missed even the simple results of the basic description.


In semiconductors the quantum output has some other pattern. In the
area of red boundary you see an abrupt raise and saturation and almost
smooth plateau. Here also the surface absorbs in the area of plateau?

A photodiode or phototransistor has an "abrupt rise" because there is a
fixed gap between te fermi surface and conduction band. In other words, an
electron/hole pair has a fixed mass and it takes a fixed amount of
momentum to create the pair. The saturation occurs for the same reason
that any other semiconductor saturates. The potential difference across
the semiconductor will be zero once there are enough charges created to
cancel the field. Increase the voltage and you increase the number of
charges that can flow before saturation. Increase the ptential too much
and you start pulling electrons from the atomic electrons (dielectric
breakdown otherwise known as a spark). It damages the crystal structure
(which in some cases can even be repaired by annealing).

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
....
However, I think we have answered sean's question,
resonance is not a wave phenomenon,

"resonance is not a wave phenomenon"

Why?

Refration, diffraction and interference are wave phenomena
in this sense in that they rely on the wave nature of the
medium, be it light, water, sound or whatever. Resonance
does not rely on a wave-like behaviour.

What is a standing wave in a wave guide?

What is a standing wave in a segment of a coaxial line?

What is a standing wave in a very high frequency
the resonator?

True they use waves as part of the operation but all of
these are examples of cavities in which energy can
be stored and the cavity can be treated as a single
device. However, that is not the point ...

From a wave point of view there are two classes of systems:
- lumped-parameter systems (for example condensers, inductance
coils, resistors);
- distributed-parameter systems (for example wave guides,
coaxial lines, very high frequency resonators).

so I'll leave it at that.

This started in reply to sean's comment on the page about
lumped systems:

"sean" wrote in message om...

Read what I could without going into the details of the equations .It
still seems that david is wrong about resonace not being a wave
phenomena? as this url also explains resonance in terms of amplitude,
frequency, harmonics etc. All wave compatible descriptions

Just using terms commonly associated with waves does not mean
that it is also a wave phenomenon. Since my aim was to explain
to Sean the difference between waves and resonance, I choose a
page that emphasised that difference. Using your examples would
not have clarified the terminology IMHO and that is what Sean
needed to understand so that he could appreciate David's point
of view. Once he understands the terminology, he may say that
incoming waves excite a resonance in the material or whatever,
but I am not commenting on his ideas, only trying to clarify
the terminology.

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message ...
...
However, I think we have answered sean's question,
resonance is not a wave phenomenon,

"resonance is not a wave phenomenon"

Why?

Refration, diffraction and interference are wave phenomena
in this sense in that they rely on the wave nature of the
medium, be it light, water, sound or whatever. Resonance
does not rely on a wave-like behaviour.

What is a standing wave in a wave guide?

What is a standing wave in a segment of a coaxial line?

What is a standing wave in a very high frequency
the resonator?

True they use waves as part of the operation but all of
these are examples of cavities in which energy can
be stored and the cavity can be treated as a single
device. However, that is not the point ...

Dear George:

Look at Subject:
"Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS"

With reference to a viewed wave context let's discuss the following
part of the Subject:

"Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS"

Now we narrowly shall see at the term "Electrodynamics".
Now we shall centre attention on the term "dynamics"
in a context of "BOUNDARY CONDITIONS".

Thus we have the terms: "dynamics" & "BOUNDARY CONDITIONS"

In an ELECTRODYNAMICS the mathematical statement of
"boundary conditions" for concrete physical system
depends on a wave band or from a frequency band.

The mathematical statement of combined equations
for concrete physical system also depends
on a wave band or from a frequency band.

Thus concrete "geometry" of physical devices
of concrete system and "characteristic" length
of an electromagnetic wave determines both
mathematical statement of "boundary conditions"
and mathematical statement of "combined equations"
for concrete physical system.

Thus for essential of miscellaneous quantities
of "characteristic" length of an electromagnetic wave
mathematical representation of the same concrete physical
system will differ for miscellaneous frequency bands
QUALITATIVELY.

It means, that the terms " lumped-parameter " and
" the distributed parameter " have only conditional
character, which one depends from " characteristic
" wave lengths " or on a frequency band.

Thus your definition " of a resonance " gives in paradoxes
in application to the same concrete physical system
in miscellaneous frequency bands!

************************************************** *****
From a physical point of view the physical phenomenon
of a resonance in an oscillatory circuit consisting from
of " lumped-parameters " does not differ from
a resonance of standing light waves between two mirrors
(distributed-parameter system) by anything.
************************************************** *****

Comments.

From a wave point of view there are two classes of systems:
- lumped-parameter systems (for example condensers, inductance
coils, resistors);
- distributed-parameter systems (for example wave guides,
coaxial lines, very high frequency resonators).

so I'll leave it at that.

This started in reply to sean's comment on the page about
lumped systems:

"sean" wrote in message om...

Read what I could without going into the details of the equations .It
still seems that david is wrong about resonace not being a wave
phenomena? as this url also explains resonance in terms of amplitude,
frequency, harmonics etc. All wave compatible descriptions

Just using terms commonly associated with waves does not mean
that it is also a wave phenomenon. Since my aim was to explain
to Sean the difference between waves and resonance,

From a physical point of view the physical phenomenon
of a resonance in an oscillatory circuit consisting from
of " lumped-parameters " does not differ from
a resonance of standing light waves between two mirrors
(distributed-parameter system) by anything.

Please point an odds between "resonance" of standing light
waves between two mirrors (distributed-parameter system) and
"resonance" in an oscillatory circuit consisting from of
" concentrated parameters " from a physical point of view.


I choose a
page that emphasised that difference. Using your examples would
not have clarified the terminology IMHO and that is what Sean
needed to understand so that he could appreciate David's point
of view. Once he understands the terminology, he may say that
incoming waves excite a resonance in the material or whatever,
but I am not commenting on his ideas, only trying to clarify
the terminology.

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message om...

I looked through the site on resonance which you have run into on the
web. It's good, of course, that there exist many different sites which

There are many as you say but this one suited the aim of my post.

We in our laboratory have learned how to solve heterogeneous filters
under mismatched load. ..

Fine, but Sean's comments made it clear that he did not know what
the term 'resonance' meant. It is a technical term and we have a
wide range of experience in many disciplines in this group so there
is no shame in that at all. I specifically choose an introduction
level site that would convey the basic concept. IMHO a site dealing
with heterogeneous filters and mismatched loads would not have been
helpful to Sean.

George