A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old September 9th 03, 09:45 AM
sean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Craig Markwardt wrote in message ...

There is a nice definition of resonance can be found here by
Dr. Vincenz [ref. 1], which I primarily agree with:

* Resonance is the process in which oscillations in a system are
produced, maintained or enhanced by means of a periodic transfer
of energy from another oscillating system, whose frequency is
identical to that of the first system.

It is important to recognize that there must be some form of forcing
or other energy transfer; a vibrating string by itself does not
resonate. Also there is a critical or resonant frequency where that
energy transfer is at a maximum.

Examples of resonances which are not waves:
1. An RLC circuit driven its natural frequency;
2. A playground swing pushed at the natural pendulum frequency;
3. Certain well known orbital configurations. Bodies with orbital
radii that have integer ratios, which would normally not exert a
large gravitational force on each other, become coupled because
of repeated interactions.

So obviously not all resonances involve wave phenomena. On the other
hand, it is also true that resonance *can* involve waves.


Hi Craig
The original point was that I responded to Davids claim that resonance
was not possible described as a wave phenomena in refernce of course
to various people like myself claiming that a wave only classical
model can explain observed phenomena.
I agree with your point that some phenomena may be not clasified as
wave s like a swing but it as a addendum I could still argue that a
swing does in a sense still have a maxima where the swing arc is
greatest and minima with the fulcrum . And the energy has a oscilation
period from each swing extreme as does a wave resonance so it becomes
a bit blurred I think the line between a swing resonating to a string
and then a medium. But maybe thats not important here.

I suppose that the original question was whether photoelectric
absorption can be modeled as a resonant process. This is essentially
the quantum model of the atom, where the probability of absorption is
enhanced for certain frequencies of light, so it's not clear to me
what the issue is.



I think thats a question for George and David as it is they who claim
that resonance cannot involve waves.I say it can . The issue then is
why do they insist it cant?
---

As to your statement a few weeks ago about the "atom capacitor" model
performing better than quantum mechanics and the Grangier experiment:
I heartily disagree. In our private correspondence I showed that you
made a number of identifiable mistakes (which leaves open the question
of as-yet unidentified mistakes); you disgregarded statistical
uncertainties (even though I should they were large); and you appeared
to ignore even fundamental mathematics. In numerous simulations of
thousands of runs I showed that the (simple) "atom capacitor" model
does *not* reproduce Grangier's results as you claim.

These points I dispute. Statistical uncertainties were a claim you
made to say that my results when giving a0 were a statistical fluke
I think are unfounded as I redid the numbers experiment about 15 times
in different amounts of atoms and all the results were compatible and
consistently below a=1 for waves. If anything the onus is on you to
show enough or any results that go against mine.
The maths accusation stems from early on when Steve C told me that N1
and N2 were the same and that N1+ N2 = N both. I then assumed that
N1and2 were the amount of events and equal and calculated accordingly.
Later you corrected me and said that N 1 and 2 were the amounts of
events where `photons` were recorded. I then corrected my procedure
but you still used those early results based on my incorrect
assumption that N1 and 2 were the number of events as examples of bad
maths. Thats Incorrect and an unfair critism really as it was Steves
mistake to have initially said vaguely that N1 and2 were equal and
mine inadvertant mistake to assume that meant they had to be equal.
When I was first looking into Grangiers experiment it took a bit of
deciphering to interpret everyone else sketchy descriptions as to what
N1 N2 Nboth represented
And finally I dispute your claim that you `Did` the experiment. At no
time have you duplicated it correctly and therefore at no time have
you been in a position to claim you have performed the experiment I
use to show how classical can explain the photoelectric effect.
Looking back at our correspondence I find you have given each
detector only 1 atom and calculated what happens when 50 per cent of
light goes to each detector albeit with a probability formula. That is
what Grangier did and that has always been incompatible with my model.
To make mine work the detector has to be divided into many atoms and
each atom has to be calculated seperately and then corellated together
with the other detectors results. At no time did you ever do the
experiment in this specified way and always cut corners using averages
and statistical probabilities instead of the hard graft needed to
duplicate the model correctly
If you were to do it as follows:

Choose a certain number of atoms per detector . I did 64
Choose a unit value to represent the photon. I used 8. this number is
also the same as the 100 per cent full value of each atom
Randomly allocate each of those 64 atoms with a set value between
1-100 per cent full. I did 0-8.0 with all different values inbetween
like 4.127 or 2.958 etc. Then make two tables with the 64 atoms in
each table sort of like as follows

0.162 0.973 1.729 1.978 2.103 2.794 etc for 64 atoms till 7.975
(8 being full)

Then below each of the above numbers add for each event exactly 1/128
of 8 units(1 photon and also equivelent to a full atom)
So if one photon is released to both detectors at each event then each
event you add 0.0625 to each column above. Then just start
calculating.
An example would be for the first column as follows..

0.162
0.787 event 1
0.8495event2
0.912 event3
etc ... all the way until the event where when you add 0.0625 and the
column number reaches 8 or more. At that event you then mark that to
one side as a photon triggered.
What you should then get is a huge table of columns with little `*`
marks at each event where a column reached or past 8 ( full) sort of
like so below with each vertical line of `|` marks denoting a column
of numbers denoting each of the 128 atoms filling...

detector 1 detector 2
|||||||||| |||||||||* event1
||||||||||* ||||||||| event2
|||||||||| |||||||||** event 3
||||||||||* |||||||||* - coincidence event4
||||||||||** ||||||||| event5
||||||||||* |||||||||* -coincidence event6
|||||||||| ||||||||| event7
|||||||||| |||||||||* event8
||||||||||* ||||||||| event9
|||||||||| |||||||||* event10
etc...

If you do it exactly as follows and then again with a 1/2 a photon per
event( thats 0.03125 per photon pere event ) and then another trial
with a 1/4 photon per event and one with 1/8 per event you will find
that the 1st trial will give around a=0.8 then the 1/2 photon trial
and 1/4 etc will each succesively bring down alpha to about 0.3 for
1/4 to 1/8 photon per event. Just as Grangier observed. And remem
ber that Grangier used only about 1/80,000 of a photon per event PER
DETECTOR ! in his trials
And just to remind you of how completely different your version of my
trials were here is sample of yours from back then.

Time history N2 N23 ALPHA
Trial 1 N3
02001000011100001100201000000010 10 3 0.6400
10100222001010001010010111010020 15
Trial 2
00020003100101000121000000100020 10 6 1.6000
02010002000101000001001120001110 12


Each single line above is your version of one of my whole tables !!!!
Here, this is what you did ..02001000011100001100201000000010...
......and that line is supposed to be the same as my table of 64
seperate numbers horizontally of about 64 lines deep per collumn of
figures or a table 64 deep by 64 across each number being at least 4
digits .. all calculated seperately and correlated with the other
similar table from the other detector.
And you claim that this is duplicating my guidelines as you have used
some advanced probability formula to DO AWAY with the neccesity for
labouriously doing whole tables manualy. Well Craig I`m sorry but your
wrong and way off. One of the main reasons for my model is too
explicitly show how probability formulas CANNOT duplicate wave atoms
and wave only propogation so for you to use them in place of my
model is basically defeating the whole purpose and raison d`etre of my
experiment.

I gaurantee that if you redo the trials exactly as I have specified
you will always get a0. And if even you do them over and over again
or with 100`s of atoms per detector you will always get well below a=1
and the smaller amount of light used per event will as I have started
to illuminate with my own trials will always give you a smaller alpha
value. And from a graph of my results I can already see a clear
decreasing log curve graph that points towards a=0.18 for a very small
photon per event number.

But I bet you Craig that you wont do these trials either because as I
have found, it takes days for just 1 set of trials or even if you
managed to program your pc to do it *correctly* and faster you would
not dare to find out that I am right . And thats a challenge .

And finally, the "atom capacitor" model disregards the fact that light
also has a detectably different wavelengths/frequencies/energies, and
instead lumps all radiation into a single "bucket."


This is eaxctly the argument David used and I am afraid I dont think
it works. It implies that the photoelectric particle theory accounts
for an atom being able to detect all frequencies just as easily but in
actuall fact all detectors are Very wave specific sensitive with
sensitivities centred really around 1 or maybe 2 distinct frequencies
with a sharp hump. In other words atoms *cannot* detect all
frequencies in photoelectric experiments but are instead only very
wavelength specific and a wave only atom can cope with this.
I in fact even think now that resonance is how a wave only atom would
absorb energy as in experiments on resonance it is the system that
responds with an increase in amplitude(just as a wave atom would do )
only when a wavelength of similar frequency is used . THere is a sharp
fall off of increased amplitude as the wavelength difference between
stystem and inputbecomes more pronounced and this not only is a wave
only explanation it is also duplicating that seen in PMT`s where the
sensitivity is frequency specific with a sharp falloff on either side.
It fits wave theory perfectly!
Not only that but Compton scattering experiments apparently I have
read have unexplained delays between incidence and reflected light
which fits my capacitor theory and cannot be explained by QT.
Furthermore I dont know enough about specific experimental results but
I wonder if resonance experiments also show systems either with a
slight delay in decay for one input or a resonant frequency or
amplitude that seems to have a seperate distinct rhythm of beats or
frequencies with a regular input then it does without . This would
imply that a resonant system when experiencing a driving force input
of similar frequency would have some sort of different measurable
oscillation or maybe a delayed oscilation. That would be enough to
explain the capacitor like ability that I speak of. I need to look
more into these sort of experiments tosee if there is some sort of
effects similar to the system re- emiting energy in different ways
then it is absorbed.
Sean

  #62  
Old September 9th 03, 10:09 AM
George Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS


"sean" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message

...
"sean" wrote in message

om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message

...


Right, now this is a pattern produced by flexing of the plate or
by interference of sound travelling through the plate and being
reflected from the boundary. Clearly the medium is essential, no
plate, no resonance.

Hi George
I think whole system is elastic and on very short time scales, parts
of the `medium` resonate before parts of the container do.
In a violin it is the string then the `air and violin case` . The
string also vibrates the air as well as the frame and it almost could
be said that the air first begins to vibrate within the frame and it
then sets off sympathetic vibrations within the wooden frame which


You could say that but you would be wrong. The string does not
couple to the air directly because it is thin and cuts through
the air instead of moving it. Try bowing an electric guitar with
no amp. The string moves the bridge and the soundpost and bass
bar transmit the motion to the bulk of the panels. It is the
large surface area of the panels that moves the air like a piston.

Hi George
THats not true George.


True, I should have said it couples very poorly rather than
"does not couple", sorry. The point is that by far most of
the sound is produced by the method I outlined, not direct
coupling from string to air.

If you were right then a rubber band stretched
between your fingers and plucked would be inaudible but both of us
know that it is indeed audible . The only way to hear the band is by
the air vibrating the air about your ear. So in fact the string
resonates the case AND the air and in turn to lesser or greater
degrees each sympathetically induces further vibrations in the other.


They are coupled and all have a slight effect. If you pluck
the string once, the oscillation will die away slowly over
a large number of cycles. The energy lost per cycle is small
so the other effects can have only a small influence on the
motion of the string.

If you stopped reading books and watching the world around you you
would understand physics better


Go get yourself an empty bottle ;-)

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/violintro.html#bridge


then feeds back into the air and string but mostly the energy from all
3 dissapates to the concert hall and in turn to the structure , which
then disappates some back to the air and some to the outside or
foundations etc...

In different situations I think diofferent parts of the system
resonate firstbut remember this started out as my response to davids
claim that a medium could not exhibit resonance! The sad thing is that
even if you agree with me that he is wrong on that point


I don't.

There you go George you say just for the sake of it that you dont
agree with me yet later on you admit that a medium like air IS part of
a resonating system and I supply you with your own quotes to back this
up. So you contradict yourself when you say that you Do agree with
him that a medium cannot resonate within a system. Make up your mind,
can a medium within a system be said to exhibit resonance?


The system can exhibit resonance, the medium can be part of the
system, but I wouldn't say the medium was exhibiting the resonance.

Have you got that empty bottle yet? Good, now blow over the
top and see if you can get a note. The note is determined
by the shape of the bottle. Now try it without the bottle.
The air is still there but do you get a nice clean note?

Bexcause if
you say that NO a medium in a system cannot be said to exhibit
resonace then you immediately contradict yourself with the quotes
later reproduced in this post . One being that if one removes the air
or medium from a resonating system then the remaining part of the
system experiences an increase in amplituide or stored energy or Q or
whatever particular term you wish to call it . And the Q could only
increase in the remaining part of the system if it had only been
present in the air/medium before it had been removed.


One classic resonant system is a mass, spring and damper.
The mass bounces on the spring and the oscillation dies
away exponentially as energy is turned into heat in the
damper. Take away the damper and the spring bounces for
longer. I believe the letter "Q" is used because it is
a "Quality Factor", so reduce the damping and you increase
the Q. Removing the air means that sound is no longer
produced so energy is not lost that way. There are still
losses in the string and wood but Q will increase due to
the reduced loss.


I think actually George it is you who must learn what resonance is as
you seem to constantly offer opposing views of what it is.


I am trying to show examples that highlight the essential
features of resonance. With the bottle example, if you
remove either the bottle or the air you won't get the
resonance. Fill the bottle with helium and the frequency
will change. Clearly the medium plays a part but without
the bottle there is no resonance.

he will still
continue to post that a medium cannot resonate. He doesnt seem to
listen and learn.


I have said I don't agree with you several times. I have also given
you several examples of resonance in systems without waves. If you
listen and think about those, you may learn what the word "resonance"
means.

How about we stick to this short definition: Resonance is `when a
vibrating system responds in amplitude with an alternate driving force
where the two frequencies are similar. `


Fine. The key phrase there is "vibrating system". First you have
a system that vibrates, then you drive it at its natural frequency.

So for instance, if two vibrating sources in an open water tank


What is the natural frequency of water in an open tank? Put in
just a single source running at that frequency and you would have
resonance. However, the resonant frequency in a tank of water is
determined by the dimensions, typically when the wavelength on
the water is comparable to the size of the tank. Put a vibration
source in the middle of the Atlantic and you just get ripples
moving away from it and dying out before they can hit a continent.
You get travelling waves, not resonance.

as I
described earlier set up nodes of maxima patterns. (which are what you
call interfernce yet still can be said to be stationary maxima or ` a
vibrating system` or stored energy)If a third vibrating source is
added to create a triangle of 3 sources then the maxima pattern
changes and one would get a different pattern of nodes instead of
bands and the central part of the vibrating medium now or central
maxima has increased amplitude. Now that is a definition of resonance
according to the textbook definition. I have a vibrating system,the
water in between the two sources that has staionary maxima between the
two sources .And then I add a new driving force of similar wavelength
and the maxima, still stationary, now have their amplitude increased.
That is all within the textbook definition.
I think you are being dogmatic by saying a medium cannot` resonate `.
Yet there is no restriction I have read in textbook definitions of
resonance that say only solid objects like wood or metal can resonate.


Absolutely. Let me give you another example that you might find
'contradictory'. The Sun is just a ball of gas, pure medium, yet
it exhibits resonance! The subject of helio-siesmology is greatly
concerned with resonance. I talk below of "containment" and in
this case it is the boundary between regions of different density
that provides the container.

The only prerequisite is that the system has to be vibrating, and the
word system does not exclude a medium like air or water
You are being dogmatic in saying that only a vibrating string
contained at either end that has additional energy input and has its
amplitude increased can be said to resonate and yet, When water in a
vibrating container has the vibrations increased in amplitude those
maxima within the water increase. That is to me a vibrating system
that responds with an increased amplitude to additional driving force.


Of course, I agree, but there you have a container. All I am
saying is that the thing you are considering has to have a
natural vibration. Air in a container does, air without the
container doesn't.

The only difference I can see is that the strings `resonance` has a
longer sustain then the water in the tank. For instance if I vibrate
the tank the nodes appear and when I stop the vibrations they will
disappear very rapidly probably within a second


They dissapear progressively as the end of the ripples from the
source moves over the surface at the speed of the waves in the
medium.

whereas the string
will sustain for a few seconds although it must be said that the water
when the outside vibration source stops probably still has a sustain
of those nodes its just that they become too small to see with our
eyes.
And if you consider a string that is vibrating and then continuously
plucked that string continues exhibiting resonance. But surely when a
container of water is continuosuly vibrated , each shake is
essentially the same as each pluck of the string in that it is a
series of additional driving forces and the result is a continously
vibrating container of water . That water is exhibiting resonance
becuase the waves contained within the system have their amplitudes
continuosly added to by additional driving forces of similar
wavelength which in turn sustains the amplitude of the stationary
nodes. And if a different frequency of vibrations was introduced those
particular nodes would disapeear as they did not have the defining
"additional driving force of similar wavelength "


That's right, but again you are talking of "a container of water"
and "the waves contained within the system". The containment is
an esential part of the system. We talked about this befo

.... My argument would be that in an infinite
universe as long as the density is homogenous in all parts of this
infinite universe the density at any one point is constant or average.


OK. In fact any change in homogeneity could act as a boundary.


The changes in density in the Sun are an example of what I meant.

Therefore one important prerequisite for a resonating infinite medium
is met.
Secondly I thought about it and actually a medium can resonateand
standing nodes of maxima CAN occur in our observable world in water or
etc in open uncontained systems . This can be done simply by having 2
identical energy sources creating waves and at the point or in the
region between the two sources there are standing waves produced
| | |

A | | | B

| | |

Above A and B are vibrating sources in an open uncontained medium and
the vertical lines denote maxima where overlapping waves create
standing waves .


This is _interference_, not _resonance_!

For resonance you must be able to store the energy _after_ the
driving force has gone. Please try to understand what the word
means. The interference pattern exists only as long as the sources
remain active.

That is such a load of nonsense George. That is physically impossible
for those maxima to instantly disapear and if you believe that then
you believe in magic. Those maxima or nodes will disapear but within a
short time frame as the energy disapates to the surrounding air,


They disappear at the speed of the waves in the medium.

just
as a string stops vibrating over a slightly longer but still short
time frame of maybe a second or two . I bet if one took high speed
photography of my above illustration one could actually see the water
maxima decay over a few hundreths of a second maybe even a tenth of a
second. Do you really seriuosly believe that the maxima disapear
instantaneously with no decay?


No, nor did I suggest they would. Remember my diagram:


Take a very long taut wire and send two bursts of a wave
of the same frequency travelling in opposite directions
from the ends towards the cent

--\/\/\/\/\/\/\----------------------/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/---
--- ---

When they meet in the middle, they will create a standing
wave pattern of while they overlap (it's twice the height
but I can't show that) and pass through each other

-----------------\/\/\/\/\/\/\------------------------

after that they just separate though

--\/\/\/\/\/\/\----------------------/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/---
--- ---

The interference pattern in the middle is a wave phenomenon
but it is not resonance.


You have to imagine the two bursts moving in the direction
of the arrows. When they meet there is a small region of
interference (shown with '|') that grows and then shrinks.

-----------\/\/\/\/\/\/\----/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/------------
------------\/\/\/\/\/\/\--/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/-------------
-------------\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/--------------
--------------\/\/\/\/\/\||/\/\/\/\/\/\/---------------
---------------\/\/\/\/\||||/\/\/\/\/\/----------------
----------------\/\/\/\||||||/\/\/\/\/-----------------
-----------------\/\/\||||||||/\/\/\/------------------
------------------\/\||||||||||/\/\/-------------------
-------------------\||||||||||||/\/--------------------
-------------------/|||||||||||||/---------------------
------------------/\/||||||||||||\---------------------
-----------------/\/\/||||||||||\/\--------------------
----------------/\/\/\/||||||||\/\/\-------------------
---------------/\/\/\/\/||||||\/\/\/\------------------
--------------/\/\/\/\/\/||||\/\/\/\/\-----------------
-------------/\/\/\/\/\/\/||\/\/\/\/\/\----------------
------------/\/\/\/\/\/\/\|\/\/\/\/\/\/\---------------
-----------/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/--\/\/\/\/\/\/\--------------
----------/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/----\/\/\/\/\/\/\-------------
---------/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/------\/\/\/\/\/\/\------------



Show me the experimental proof that a
system as I propose defies conservation of energy and actually some
energy according to you `disapears instantaneously` from our universe.
This is seen in water tanks etc experiments and shows how classical
waves can resonate in an open system and create maxima (in this case
bands rather than nodes)
So theoretically in a open infinite universe the aethger medium could
resonate and nodes of maxima would be possible.


Nodes and antinodes occur due to interference.

Yes,Nodes and antinodes are seen in interference patterns . But if
you read a textbook definition they are also said to occur in standing
waves. And is not a string vibrating in essence a standing wave? A
vibrating string is where the wave energy travelling down the string
is reflected back at the boundary, the guitar bridge, and is
superimposed on the incident wave creating a staionary node in the
midle of the string with the standing wave as having the same length
as the length of the confined string.


Exactly, and the point I am trying to get across is that something
to reflect the energy and keep it contained is the key to turning
travelling waves into a resonant system.

And finally how to account for the sources A and B in a infinite
classical universe? If the universe is infinite and of homogenous
density aether, wave energy of all wavelengths travels across any
point from all directions at any time . So at any point in this
universe a situation that duplicates the above illustration can occur
where the overlapping wavefronts cancel out as in a closed system and
create maxima. As the similar wavefronts come from all directions and
not just the two as in the above illustration instead of bands of
maxima one gets nodes. In otther words this is how a wave only atom
can be explained in a infinite universe using examples of resonating
open systems of mediums already observed in our world.
The medium in which
these nodes appear is not one object but can consist of air, gas,
water sand etc.
It isnt then the cavity that resonates but the medium within the
cavity that resonates

No, it is the combination. That's why I emphasise it is a system
not just the medium. For example your plate would not resonate if

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
it were infinite in size, it is the boundaries that create the
resonance.

Here you do admit that a medium can resonate


I suggest you read it more carefully again, I said exactly the
opposite.

You speak in riddles and contradictions. What is the opposite of me
saying a medium can resonate? Answer: You say It CANT resonate... I
assume thats what you mean by "the opposite".


I didn't use the words "the opposite".

Then you suggest that a
medium CAN resonate, within a system, by saying "no its a
combination". Ah,! a contradiction .


No, not a contradiction, that is the whole point of my saying it
that way! You have to ask yourself what is the difference between
"the combination can resonate" and "the medium on its own does not
resonate". How can both be true?

You just said a medium cant
resonate and then you suggest it can . Maybe what you mean to say is
that a medium can resonate within a contained system? Is that what you
mean by " no its the combination" ?


What I mean is that the medium can be part of a system that resonates.
It is "the system" that is resonating, not just the medium.

You can drive to work in a car but you can't drive to work on a piston
even though pistons are an essential part of the car. You get resonance
from a bottle of air but you don't get resonance from the air on its
own even though the air is an essential part of the bottle/air system.


Yes but hopefullly I have shown that in an infinite open system there
is always wave energy arriving and that in an open system resonance
can occur with maxima.


Resonance does not mean maxima and you have not deemonstrated how
energy can be stored on a small fixed region using only an
infinite and homogenous medium.

Where did I ever say that Resonance is just maxima?


You said "I have shown ... that in an open system resonance can
occur with maxima." when in fact all you had shown was that
maxima could occur. You phrasing suggests you were using "with
maxima" to imply they were the means by which you had demonstrated
resonance rather than "with" meaning "in addition to".

That doesnt even
make sense. Its kind of like me describing an orange and you saying
"NO ,you are wromg an orange isnt just orange"..
Resonance does not just mean maxima but maxima can be seen in a
resonating system.


Absolutely correct, that is what I said, but you had only shown
you could get maxima (by interference) and then claimed you had
shown resonance.

The central point of a vibrating string is a maxima
where the displacement of string mass is greatest.
And in a pendulum the maximum displacement and therefore stored
energy is in the end weight of the pendulum. Is that not a node or
maxima in both central point of a guitar string and end weight of a
pendulum?
Regarding whether or not a infinite medium can store energy in a
fixed point like a node how about this: Two vibrating sources of


Try showing it with one source.

energy A and B are infinitely far apart and have been vibrating at the
same frequency for infinity and their two wavefronts approach and
overlap as follows


A | | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | | B

This duplicates the earlier diagram where the two sources are a finite
distance apart and as long as the two sources have been vibrating
infinitely then when they do reach and overlap a series of standing
waves or maxima nodes occur exactly as in the finite example. And
these nodes will remain in the same spot and retain the same amplitude
as long as A and B have not moved. And finally viewed up close at one
maxima the maxima can be said to be duplicating in all respects the
same conditions and appearances as a similar maxima within a finite
container where the additinal driving force on that container is
exerted continuosly and is said to be a resonating system.


"Resonance does not just mean maxima"

In a `violin in air` situation the air within the frame also resonates
and this amplifies and feeds back into the whole system so it is
technically the string ,bridge, frame and air within the cavity that
resonate.


No, technically there are several independent resonators that are
coupled mechanically.

How petty. Thats just another way of phrasing my description.


You said "technically" and if you want to get into the
technical details we need to extend this to include
coupling coefficients and stuff. It gets a lot harder
and I don't want to get into that.

Thats
like me saying..."putting a plug into the drain will prevent the
bath from emptying".... and then you saying.." No, technically a
stopcap is coupled manually with the outflow port of a water system to
prevent leakage"


Suspend two pendulums of slightly different length on a common
mounting. Start one swinging and after a while the other will
swing. Eventually the first will stop and then the whole thing
reverses. Each swings at its own frequency.

Glue the two weights together and the combination swings at an
intermediate rate. There is a significant (technical) difference
between saying the string vibrates and excites other resonances
and saying they all resonate as a single system.

Yes the string I am sure would still vibrate in a vacuum. And if the
body were also removed yes the string itself would also vibrate . So
the conclusion is that a system of one or many parts can resonate .


Right, but remove the bridge and it wont. The string must be held
in tension, it must be fairly free to move over most of its length
but has to be clamped at the ends to reflect the wave. All those are
required for it to contain the energy of the vibration.

Of course this is true. What I was suggesting that if the string were
clamped or held rigid but the body were removed so as to remove
vibrations from a closed or semi closed wooden frame from the system.
Sort of like stretching a rubber band between your fingers.Effectively
your fingers are not part of the resonating system except that they
contain the rubber band.


But that is exactly what makes them a part of the resonating system.

The fact is, remove the clamps the string
would flop down to the floor of the room or whatever and it would be
impossible to input a energy to the string in the first place and I
never suggested that a medium or object could resonate without any
input energy.


No, but you are suggesting the rubber band will resonate without
the fingers when you say an _open_ medium can resonate.

A medium /object will also only resonate (or vibrate and
give stationary nodes) if there is energy input and the medium/object
density remains the same . For instance a bell will resonate even if
is floating in air by being thrown as long as the bells density
remains the same and if it were possible to continually strike it with
the same input driving force while mid air its resonance would not
decay.


Absolutely, and it would also resonate in a vacuum if excited by
a pure sine wave from a nearby electromagnet. By adjusting the
source frequency for maximum amplitude, you can find the resonant
frequency of the bell.

In an infinite universe the density can remain the same and the
energy input can remain constant as I have explained earlier and
therefore a uncontained medium like aether could exhibit resonance as
nodes of energy


Nope, to get nodes you _must_ have something to reflect the
waves back so they interfere with themselves.

You have shown you can get interference in an unbounded medium
which was never in dispute. You still seem not to be listening
to what the word "resonance" means. All the arguments you have
oferred are applicable to interference, not resonance. Forget
about waves for a moment and consider how a mass and spring
system or a pendulum can be resonant.

I have already answered this but I will again but if you dont mind I
will stick to my one textbook definition of resonance as yours seems
to change depending on the point you are arguing...
`Resonance is where the amplitude of a vibrating system responds to an
additional driving force of similar frequency.`

Hence... a medium in this case is constrained


That's the point Sean (or is it Jay BTW?), to make a "vibrating
system" you have to _constrain_ the medium.

and vibrating and
contains energy stored as maxima minima where the reflected waves of
the enrgy in the medium overlap and superimpose.
Or.. a string constrained is vibrating and the energy is stored as
maxima and minima in the string where the reflected waves of the
energy in the string overlap and superimpose.


Next,...
An additional driving force of similar frequency is exerted on the
medium and the amplitude/energy of the maxima and minima is increased
or sustained

Or,...An additional driving force of similar frequency is exerted on
the string and the amplitude/energy of the maxima and minima is
increased or sustained

In experiment each continued shake of the container sustains the
resonance of the system of the container and the medium and in the
case of the string each additional pluck of the string sustains the
resonance of system being the string and the clamped frame that holds
it
Your
second point doesnt make sense in grammatical terms. What do you mean
by "..but nothing else.." in the sentence above?


I meant with nothing to refect the waves back so they can be
contained in one area thus storing energy.

George


That means You said. quote ...."If you said you can get resonance
with waves in a medium but nothing else then you are also
wrong."..unquote.


That is correct, you need something to constrain the medium. Even
a change of density can be enough.

In response to me saying..."In other words David is completely wrong
in saying that a single particle or object vibrating is the only
manifestation of resonance."...


That is correct. A spring/mass system is resonant but a mass
on its own isn't, and nor would a massless spring be.

Note that my line you responded to (obliquely and with intent to
obfuscate) actually wasnt saying that a medium uncontained could
resonate but that David was wrong to assume that a medium vibrating in
a container was not exhibiting resonance.


If that's what you meant then I would not have responded but it
is not what the post I saw said, and you have continued over the
last several posts to argue that open, unconstrained medium can
resonate.

Yet you knew that if you
responded directly to my point you couldnt say that David was right in
saying that a medium in a system wasnt resonating because even above
you admit that a system with a medium and a container can be said to
resonate. So to avoid the embarrasment of having to admit David is
wrong to think a medium in a system cannot resonate you instead
fabricate the untruth that I was always insisting that only a medium
without a container could resonate . Thats absolutely untrue as
initially my point to David was quite clearly that a medium in a
container could be said to resonate.
And I know what your response will be to this will be . You will say
something contradictory that implicitly agrees with me yet tries to
make it seem you dont agree as in one of your below quotes
previously..


No, I'll just let you say it for me .....

GD.. "No, it is the combination. That's why I emphasise it is a system
not just the medium. "...



(Sean..goodness that sounds like you admit a medium constrained can
resonate)


GD..""If you said you can get resonance with waves in a medium but
nothing else then you are also wrong."...


(Sean ..there you go again, the implication in that statement is that
with nothing else, ie no container , there can be no resonace which
implies that with a container the medium and the system can resonate)


I think all of the above are very clear in the distinction
they are drawing.

GD.."Of course no air, no resonance in this case, but for the string,
bridge and fret resonance, putting the violin in a vacuum chamber
would actually increase the Q of the resonance since a large part of
the power lost from the string goes into moving the air via the
mechanical linkages to make the sound we hear."...


( Sean.. there you go again suggesting that in a vacuum without the
air to `absorb` or hold some of the resonant energy the energy
amplitude has to increase in the remaining parts of the system.
Implicit in your statement is then the assumption that with air in the
system the energy stored is less in the other parts of the system and
therefore the only conclusion is that if the air stores some of the
energy and it is part of the resonating system then a medium can be
part of a resonating system which according to David is not possible)


The energy is mainly stored in the string and some is transferred
to the flexions of the body. There is only energy stored in the air
in the form of the Helmholz resonance (as in blowing over the bottle)
but the more important aspect is that the air acts principally like
the damper in the mass/spring system. It removes energy from the
'vibrating system' of your definition and converts it as the sound
we hear.

George


  #63  
Old September 9th 03, 12:50 PM
Aleksandr Timofeev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

(Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message . com...
TO ALL COLLEAGUES:

Dear Colleagues,

I always wonder, how do you confuse yourself by substituting the
statement of problem by the desirable model. What concern
RC-oscillator has here? The wave model of photoeffect is based on
interaction of EM wave with orbital electrons of atom. Resonance
characteristics of electrons movement in their orbit define the
stationary processes in atom. You would re-read Niels Bohr. Secondary
wave excited by electrons is possible only in transitions between the
resonance states. The same, transitions of orbital electrons between
the levels are possible only in case if both levels are stable.
Transitions from the stable level to some unstable location lead to
the spontaneous emission of electron and to returning to the stable
level. Or rather, factually the processes will be more complicated
there, but in your trivial plane terminology it sounds approximately
so. Again, read Bohr. And please don't model any waveguides either
oscillators in order to substitute EM wave as an external affection
onto the resonance system by some model propagating the wave within a
waveguide either cable. These models don't correlate!

Again, as to resonance. If resonance is not the characteristic of
vibration system, what are we speaking about, at all? Resonance has
been introduced as a concept inalienable from the dynamics of
vibration system. Now you are revising and take it away from the wave
physics? Well done, Colleagues!



" Resonance has been introduced as a concept inalienable
from the dynamics of vibration system."

Excepting me, all participants of a controversy avoid arguing
properties of a PARAMETRIC RESONANCE. They reduce all kinds
of a resonance in an electricity only to a Helmholtz resonance,
i.e. to the theory of a resonance of the nineteenth century.
(XIX century!!!).

This problem is interlinked to psychology of thinking
by physical stereotypes.
The overcoming of error physical stereotypes of thinking
is the PURPOSE of the given controversy.

REVERSIBLE MODEL of a PARAMETRIC RESONANCE
during absorption and radiation
of electromagnetic radiation by Atom.

THE REQUIREMENTS to MODEL.

0. The atom is active dynamic system, i.e. atom and its
elements are not passive systems.
1. Reversibility of the mechanism.
2. Usage of the mechanism of a complex parametric resonance.
3. Explanation of existence of the Planck constant from
positions of the mechanism of a complex parametric
resonance.


REVERSIBLE MODEL of absorption and radiation by Atom
OR
REVERSIBLE MODEL of processes of ABSORPTION and RADIATION
of electromagnetic radiation by Atom.



The atom absorbs and radiates electromagnetic radiation,
which one has a wave length superior the size of atom many
times over, i.e.:

(lambda E/M radiation) (d = size of atom)

^
wave direction |
|
|
|
|

  #64  
Old September 10th 03, 12:54 AM
[email protected] \(formerly\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:9o87b.47469$Qy4.20923@fed1read05...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...

...
If we shall eliminate transients viewing, the source
of oscillations is indispensable for observation
of oscillations in resonant system.
If a source of oscillations, which one has frequency
close to frequency of resonant system, misses,
the oscillations in resonant system CAN NOT BE WATCHED.

Ah you mean a signal source, not a power source.
I thought you meant like the power supply needed
for the RC oscillator. Yes, the phenomenon of
resonance is an interaction between a signal
source and a system capable of oscillation, but
that resonant system can itself be passive.


George, would you say that photons that couple the source to the system

in
only one direction provide sufficient "interaction" for an RC based
oscillator?


Sorry David, I'm not sure what you mean. By an RC
oscillator I mean a discrete circuit built from
electrical components. Photons would let you see
the PCB and the components but that's all.


It would appear that Aleksandr is attempting to liken the behaviour of an
RC circuit to the conduction-band behaviour of electrons in the
photoelectric effect. Then he wants the source (namely the photons) to
create resonance in the "RC circuit".

If you put a diode between the power supply and the RC circuit, can

you
still get resonant behaviour?


The supply would be DC so if the positive goes to
the anode the circuit would work as usual but if
it goes to the cathode there would be no power
to the circuit and it just wouldn't work.

I think you may be referring back to an earlier
part of the thread that I missed.


I'm trying to head off a few partial questions/answers and cut to the
chase. Aleksandr tends to not get to the point sometimes...

The source in the exmaple you discuss has inductance (no matter how distant
it might be) that the RC circuit can "store momentum" in. If the
communication from the source is one way, like a diode, then communication
can only be one way. Resonant behaviour cannot be elicited in a pure RC
circuit with only a diode to couple.

Can it?

David A. Smith


  #65  
Old September 10th 03, 09:38 AM
George Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS


(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:JKt7b.47635$Qy4.32727@fed1read05...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:9o87b.47469$Qy4.20923@fed1read05...

George, would you say that photons that couple the source to the

system in
only one direction provide sufficient "interaction" for an RC based
oscillator?


Sorry David, I'm not sure what you mean. By an RC
oscillator I mean a discrete circuit built from
electrical components. Photons would let you see
the PCB and the components but that's all.


It would appear that Aleksandr is attempting to liken the behaviour of an
RC circuit to the conduction-band behaviour of electrons in the
photoelectric effect. Then he wants the source (namely the photons) to
create resonance in the "RC circuit".


OK, in that case the answer is that a single RC circuit
does not provide enough phase to oscillate. It takes at
least three connected in series, but I am surprised as I
think Aleksandr knows that.

If you put a diode between the power supply and the RC circuit, can

you
still get resonant behaviour?


The supply would be DC so if the positive goes to
the anode the circuit would work as usual but if
it goes to the cathode there would be no power
to the circuit and it just wouldn't work.

I think you may be referring back to an earlier
part of the thread that I missed.


I'm trying to head off a few partial questions/answers and cut to the
chase. Aleksandr tends to not get to the point sometimes...

The source in the exmaple you discuss has inductance (no matter how

distant
it might be) that the RC circuit can "store momentum" in.


In that case it is not an RC circuit but an LRC. That can
oscillate but note that the energy can be entirely in the
C and half a cycle later it will be entirely in the L. The
R produces the loss per cycle and needs to be small or the
system will be over-damped.

The problem here is how do you set this up so that the
existence of momentum in the source provides the stimulus
for the conduction band, and also once that transfer is
complete, then have the momentum now in the conduction
band produce the opposite-sense stimulus back to the
source, all within the period of a single cycle. How
distant the source is would be very important.

If the
communication from the source is one way, like a diode, then communication
can only be one way. Resonant behaviour cannot be elicited in a pure RC
circuit with only a diode to couple.

Can it?


Resonance cannot occur in a pure RC period but it will occur
in an LCR if the losses aren't too great. The effect of a
diode in the driving signal as you describe (not the power
supply) is simply to create an impulsive force like giving
a swing a brief push on the way down rather than a sine
wave force over the whole swing. Certainly that would
exhibit resonance.

George


  #66  
Old September 10th 03, 12:56 PM
Aleksandr Timofeev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:JKt7b.47635$Qy4.32727@fed1read05...
[snip]
I think you may be referring back to an earlier
part of the thread that I missed.


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10...s.uk.clara.net

I'm trying to head off a few partial questions/answers and cut to the
chase. Aleksandr tends to not get to the point sometimes...

The source in the exmaple you discuss has inductance (no matter how distant
it might be) that the RC circuit can "store momentum" in. If the
communication from the source is one way, like a diode, then communication
can only be one way. Resonant behaviour cannot be elicited in a pure RC
circuit with only a diode to couple.

Can it?


OSCILLATORS
Phase-Shift Oscillator
http://home.earthlink.net/~doncox/wec/Oscillators.html
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10...s.uk.clara.net

Aleksandr
  #67  
Old September 10th 03, 03:21 PM
[email protected] \(formerly\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message

news:JKt7b.47635$Qy4.32727@fed1read05...
[snip]
I think you may be referring back to an earlier
part of the thread that I missed.


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10...s.uk.clara.net

I'm trying to head off a few partial questions/answers and cut to the
chase. Aleksandr tends to not get to the point sometimes...

The source in the exmaple you discuss has inductance (no matter how

distant
it might be) that the RC circuit can "store momentum" in. If the
communication from the source is one way, like a diode, then

communication
can only be one way. Resonant behaviour cannot be elicited in a pure

RC
circuit with only a diode to couple.

Can it?


OSCILLATORS
Phase-Shift Oscillator
http://home.earthlink.net/~doncox/wec/Oscillators.html
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10...s.uk.clara.net


Too bad the source (transistor) and receiver (RC network) are directly
coupled, such that they do communicate. Even a diode (which would be silly
anyway) added to the base junction would have little effect. Isn't this
circuit "locked in" on a single operating "resonant" frequency? Hardly the
behaviour of the real thing...

So are you claiming that the photoelectric effect is explained by a wavelet
being absorbed by a section of a conductor, and even with losses (the
threshold presumably) somewhere else (perhaps) the electron is emitted?

Such delays are not seen in the real effect. Electrons are noted arriving
"on time" for release of electron upon arrival of photon.

How do the local conduction-carrier-centers know how many times the arrival
information has been passed down? Electrons are detected when photon
intensity is reduced to the point where only one is arriving at a time.
Must be quite a signalling system. Doesn't even care what the structure of
the base material is.

Decreasing the resistance by heating creates just a lower threshold (your
example, thermionic emission). I believe this would alter your example
"phase-shift oscillator" in the wrong direction, increasing the oscillating
frequency. As if requring more energy in the photon, and not less as seen.

A valiant effort Alexsandr.

David A. Smith


  #68  
Old September 10th 03, 03:48 PM
George Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS


(formerly)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
newsrG7b.48431$Qy4.11136@fed1read05...
Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message

news:JKt7b.47635$Qy4.32727@fed1read05...
[snip]
I think you may be referring back to an earlier
part of the thread that I missed.


http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10...s.uk.clara.net

I'm trying to head off a few partial questions/answers and cut to the
chase. Aleksandr tends to not get to the point sometimes...

The source in the exmaple you discuss has inductance (no matter how

distant
it might be) that the RC circuit can "store momentum" in. If the
communication from the source is one way, like a diode, then

communication
can only be one way. Resonant behaviour cannot be elicited in a pure

RC
circuit with only a diode to couple.

Can it?


OSCILLATORS
Phase-Shift Oscillator
http://home.earthlink.net/~doncox/wec/Oscillators.html
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10...s.uk.clara.net


Too bad the source (transistor) and receiver (RC network) are directly
coupled, such that they do communicate.


There is no source shown in this circuit. The whole thing is
the oscillator or "vibrating system" in the definition Sean
gave. There are a number of ways to add a source such as
injecting a current into the base or emitter via a high value
resistor (direct) or by varying the value of the first C in
the chain (parametric).

Even a diode (which would be silly
anyway) added to the base junction would have little effect.


You could add it in series with the source resistor but you
are right, it would have little effect unless the resonant
frequency were a harmonic of the source frequency.

BTW, what I called the power source is the 10V battery on
this diagram so you can understand why I wondered why you
asked about putting a diode in series with it.

Isn't this
circuit "locked in" on a single operating "resonant" frequency? Hardly

the
behaviour of the real thing...


Reduce the amplifier gain, the ratio of Rc to the transistor's
internal emitter resistance (not Re!), until the circuit just
fails to oscillate then apply the source signal.

I'll leave you to debate how this relates to the photoelectric
effect with Aleksandr.

George


  #69  
Old September 10th 03, 06:21 PM
sean
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

"George Dishman" wrote in message ...





The energy is mainly stored in the string and some is transferred
to the flexions of the body. There is only energy stored in the air
in the form of the Helmholz resonance (as in blowing over the bottle)
but the more important aspect is that the air acts principally like
the damper in the mass/spring system. It removes energy from the
'vibrating system' of your definition and converts it as the sound
we hear.

George


Hi George
THanks for your informative reply and if you dont mind I will still
argue my case
I will post this message as a response to all your valid points made
and save google space by deleting both of our arguments. I have quoted
from your arguments and hopefully anyone else reading will go back to
your post to see the relevent context rather than me reposting the
whole argument.
George

Here are a few quotes of yours .........



That is correct, you need something to constrain the medium. Even
a change of density can be enough.

That is correct. A spring/mass system is resonant but a mass
on its own isn't, and nor would a massless spring be.


Clearly the medium plays a part but without
the bottle there is no resonance.

What I mean is that the medium can be part of a system that resonates.
It is "the system" that is resonating, not just the medium.

The Sun is just a ball of gas, pure medium, yet
it exhibits resonance! The subject of helio-siesmology is greatly
concerned with resonance. I talk below of "containment" and in
this case it is the boundary between regions of different density
that provides the container........



In other words here you say that a resonating system that is only a
medium, "pure medium" as you say in your sun example can, as long as
it was contained , exhibit resonance!

So Davids claim that a medium cannot exhibit resonance is incorrect
unless he were to have added the proviso that it had to be contained
to exhibit resonance. And he didnt offer this option on this thread
that a medium could exhibit resonance if it were contained but rather
was trying to insinuate that a medium in any circumstance,.. contained
or uncontained,.. could not exhibit resonance. Therefore he is wrong
to insinuate this UNLESS he is willing to admit that yes a medium
contained , CAN exhibit resonance

That was the reason why I interjected and will continue to do so
whenever he claims that only a particle can exhibit resonance. Because
he is wrong and the fact is that a medium like gas or air CAN exhibit
resonance as long as it conforms to.. "George Dishmans rules of
containment"
And this leads me to the next part of my argument

That in an infinite universe wave only atoms in medium *can* exhibit
resonance. You say that an infinite homogenous universe cannot exhibit
resonance because the medium called aether or vacuum is uncontained.
Yet if the medium were not homogenous but as observed having different
densities would it not be true that the boundaries between these
different densities could supply the requisite George Dishman boundary
conditions to allow a medium to resonate?
And the observed universe does indeed have different densities from
stars to interstellar mediums to intergalactic mediums.
And a medium within a resonating system like a sun or star is said to
exhibit resonance according to the George Dishman rules of resonance
And a resonating system is said to contain nodes or maxima and
although according to the GD rules these nodes do not constitute
resonance themselvesthey are none the less observed within resonating
systems.
And atoms, by classical wave only theorists like myself, are
essentially theoretically referred to as nodes within a resonating
system (that is a medium exhibiting resonance like the sun withy
boundary conditions)
And as the universe has observed boudary conditions by way of observed
different observed interstellarmedium densities then it can be said
that according to the George Dishman rules of resonance the universe
as it contains OBSERVED boundaries and yet is only a medium then
therefore one, can according to GD rules, say that nodes of maxima
occur within this resonating system of a universe medium that is
contained (or more correctly maybe ...subcontained)
And therefore according to George Dishman rules if a wave only
theorist says that an atom is only a node within a resonating
contained medium then George HIMSELF has confirmed this to be
possible.

And just a seperate question which you may be able to supply the
answer. Why does a TV picture on a tube TV reduce slightly before
disappearing when the OFF button is pressed? It seems that the whole
image reduces in entirety and not just the edges creeping in. This
happens within less than a second after the off button is pressed
Sean
  #70  
Old September 10th 03, 07:27 PM
George Dishman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS


"sean" wrote in message
om...
Hi George
THanks for your informative reply and if you dont mind I will still
argue my case
I will post this message as a response to all your valid points made
and save google space by deleting both of our arguments. I have quoted
from your arguments and hopefully anyone else reading will go back to
your post to see the relevent context rather than me reposting the
whole argument.
George

Here are a few quotes of yours .........



That is correct, you need something to constrain the medium. Even
a change of density can be enough.

That is correct. A spring/mass system is resonant but a mass
on its own isn't, and nor would a massless spring be.


Clearly the medium plays a part but without
the bottle there is no resonance.

What I mean is that the medium can be part of a system that resonates.
It is "the system" that is resonating, not just the medium.

The Sun is just a ball of gas, pure medium, yet
it exhibits resonance! The subject of helio-siesmology is greatly
concerned with resonance. I talk below of "containment" and in
this case it is the boundary between regions of different density
that provides the container........



In other words here you say that a resonating system that is only a
medium, "pure medium" as you say in your sun example can, as long as
it was contained , exhibit resonance!


I think your getting the idea :-)

So Davids claim that a medium cannot exhibit resonance is incorrect
unless he were to have added the proviso that it had to be contained
to exhibit resonance. And he didnt offer this option on this thread
that a medium could exhibit resonance if it were contained but rather
was trying to insinuate that a medium in any circumstance,.. contained
or uncontained,.. could not exhibit resonance. Therefore he is wrong
to insinuate this UNLESS he is willing to admit that yes a medium
contained , CAN exhibit resonance


You can argue that with David.

That was the reason why I interjected and will continue to do so
whenever he claims that only a particle can exhibit resonance. Because
he is wrong and the fact is that a medium like gas or air CAN exhibit
resonance as long as it conforms to.. "George Dishmans rules of
containment"
And this leads me to the next part of my argument

That in an infinite universe wave only atoms in medium *can* exhibit
resonance.


Any system that can oscillate, or 'ring', can resonate if
driven by a signal at the same frequency as its own natural
oscialltion. The most common use is probably in old radio
receivers where a "tuned circuit" was used to select the
wanted signal. The only other requirement is that losses
are not too hig so that there is still some energy left
after each cycle. I mentioned that in respect of the "Q"
factor of electrical circuits on a number of ocassions.

You say that an infinite homogenous universe cannot exhibit
resonance because the medium called aether or vacuum is uncontained.
Yet if the medium were not homogenous but as observed having different
densities would it not be true that the boundaries between these
different densities could supply the requisite George Dishman boundary
conditions to allow a medium to resonate?


Yes, you have got it :-)

And the observed universe does indeed have different densities from
stars to interstellar mediums to intergalactic mediums.


We are now measuring the ringing of other stars, but losses
in the interstellar medium would probably prevent resonance
on larger scales. Still there is another article in the group
on "sound" travelling through interstellar gas with a period
of millions of years and if the nebula has an abrupt boundary
even that could resonate when the sound is reflected back.

And a medium within a resonating system like a sun or star is said to
exhibit resonance according to the George Dishman rules of resonance


No, the system is said to exhibit resonance, the medium is
not. That is the point I was making about terminology. Your
understanding of the physics is now right but your use of
the word is unconventional and hence confusing.

And a resonating system is said to contain nodes or maxima and
although according to the GD rules these nodes do not constitute
resonance themselvesthey are none the less observed within resonating
systems.


Right, nodes and antinodes also occur in interference so
you can have nodes without resonance. A mass and spring
system can also exhibit resonance without any waves being
involved.

And atoms, by classical wave only theorists like myself, are
essentially theoretically referred to as nodes within a resonating
system (that is a medium exhibiting resonance like the sun withy
boundary conditions)


I would have expected them to be antinodes but QM is
too far in my past to remember clearly.

And as the universe has observed boudary conditions by way of observed
different observed interstellarmedium densities then it can be said
that according to the George Dishman rules of resonance the universe
as it contains OBSERVED boundaries and yet is only a medium then
therefore one, can according to GD rules, say that nodes of maxima
occur within this resonating system of a universe medium that is
contained (or more correctly maybe ...subcontained)


I think you got over-enthusiastic when writing that. I think
I follow but you are jumping ahead. If you are talking about
pressure waves in interstellar gas, you need to consider
dispersion and losses. Situations where you can have resonance
do exist such as is seen in stars (astro-seismology?).

And therefore according to George Dishman rules if a wave only
theorist says that an atom is only a node within a resonating
contained medium then George HIMSELF has confirmed this to be
possible.


The interstellar medium consists of atoms and a pressure
wave travels through that medium by atoms bumping into
each other. You cannot explain atoms as a resonance in
the bumping of atoms. Also remember that nodes (and
antinodes) are separated by half a wavelength. You might
try this with atoms in a monatomic crystal though.

And just a seperate question which you may be able to supply the
answer. Why does a TV picture on a tube TV reduce slightly before
disappearing when the OFF button is pressed? It seems that the whole
image reduces in entirety and not just the edges creeping in. This
happens within less than a second after the off button is pressed


Hey, that's sneaky! It's a long time since I had
anything to do with TVs. Do you mean reduce in size
or in brightness?

George


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.