Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

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

Hi Sean,

Yes I can understand that an object can have or generate `resonance`

Systems are usually said to 'exhibit' resonance.

but it is true also to say that standing waves and vibrating nodes in
mediums like sand water etc also can be said to be resonant systems

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.

Now put a clamp on the wire to stop it moving at each end
of a section

------------------------------------------------------
^ ^

If you tap one end of the wire, it will vibrate. If you tap
in sync with the vibration, each tap adds a little energy
and the amplitude builds up. This is a resonant system.

It is insecure interpretation.
Composite interaction of oscillations of two independent
generators(oscillators) here is circumscribed. These
generators(oscillators) have by a loading the same resonator.

The exclusive importance of a "reference frequency" or SYNC
here visually is demonstrated.

The two waves do not even need to be of the same frequency.
If they differ, the pattern of nodes will drift sideways.

By the way. What devices are indispensable for
the generator(oscillator) of auto-oscillations?

No device is indispensable. You need a power source, gain
and feedback as Bjacoby said but there are many ways to
achieve those.

The obvious example is a violin.

Now think of two mirrors, or a pice of wave guide with the
ends closed off. You can inject light and get a laser or
inject RF and get a standing wave as Aleksandr said. These
are also resonant but they are called "resonant cavities"
because it is the act of closing off the ends that creates
the resonance.

and store energy and be measured in the same terms of frequencies
oscillations as objects. These phenomena are also essentially
identical to what would be termed a wave only atom or `particle` .
They are stationary and point like

They are stationary but cannot be point-like because the
length of the cavity must be an integer multiple of half
the wavelength.

but are not objects like pendulums
or particles but superimpositions of many waves on a point source.So
it seems to me that for david to say only particles can explain
resonance is incorrect and wave only models seen classically as
standing wave s are also resonant systems

Superimposition and standing waves are not of themselves
resonant. What creates the resonance is the cavity that
contains them,

For a resonance is indispensable:
- power source;

A pendulum is resonant but contains no power source.

- nonlinear transformer of energy;

A RLC circuit is linear and resonant.

- a source of a reference frequency;

A resonant system usually defines its own charateristic frequency
without an external reference.

- an energy absorber.

There is always loss in any real system but it is not
a needed for resonance.

Contrary to your interpretation,
the PHENOMENON of a RESONANCE is ABSORPTION of energy of oscillations
by an only PURE RESISTANCE.

That would make every resistor connected to an AC supply
a resonant system. I don't think your definition will
catch on.

it is the cavity that is described as
resonant and the waves are merely the form of energy that
it stores.


The resonator ("cavity") has an only PURE RESISTANCE on frequency
of a RESONANCE.

True.

As I said to Aleksandr, this is really just a question of
terminology. There is an accepted understanding of the word
resonance


The accepted understanding of the term "resonance" is disputable.

Other understanding of a physical phenomenon of a RESONANCE:

================================================== ===================
the PHENOMENON of a RESONANCE is ABSORPTION of energy of oscillations
by an only PURE RESISTANCE.
================================================== ===================

It takes more than that.

and you will be able to explain your ideas best
if you stick to that meaning rather than try to adapt it.

Remember, a child on a swing is a resonant system, small
pushes correctly timed can build up a large amplitude,
but it is not a wave phenomenon.

You have described here PHENOMENON of the parametric
generator(oscillator) of oscillations.

No, I have described excitation of a simple harmonic oscillator
by a near-impulsive force. If I wanted to describe parametric
excitation, I would have talked of the child standing and sitting,
not being pushed.

George

"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
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 he will still
continue to post that a medium cannot resonate. He doesnt seem to
listen and learn.
They are raised humps of sand each in static position and
each hump or node is centerd about 1 point on the plate yet each node
is not a distinct object with a distinct edge. Furthermore you can
even manipulate these nodes and move them by touching the plate with
your finger.These nodes ARE the equivelent of what I call wave only
atoms in a medium. Furthermore these nodes are what you call the
exhibition of resonance.

No, that is the subtlety. You can get node by reflecting a
moving wave of a mirror but that is not resonance, just two
wave phenomena, reflection and interference. The single mirror
doesn't store energy while your vibrating plate could.

Yet each node is not an object but a standing
wave focused at a point like location in space.

Nodes are actually points where the waves cancel. That minor
point aside, note that the nodes are produced by superposition
of two waves that are moving in opposite directions. Without
something to reflect them back and localise the energy, you
just have two overlapping waves, not resonance.


This is an interesting point as it refers to the part of my argument
that follows on from the acceptance that a medium can be said to
exhibit resonance and that a wave only atom in a classical model would
be described as a node in a medium. This model would have that atom in
a infinite universe and I think you even refered earlier that although
you could accept the concept of a analogy of the wave only atom in a
contained sysetm it breaks down in an open infinite universe system.
But does it?
If we can agree that in a closed system a medium can resonate and that
medium can have maxima nodes that can be compared to atoms in a wave
only classical model then I would just have to show how a node in a
resonating medium could occur in an open system.
there are two points to support this. First of all one prerequisite of
the closed system is that like a gas in a chamber the medium has to be
of homogenous density or pressure and you would argue taht an open
universe would in a sense because it would not be `contained` it
wouyld lose pressure etc. 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.
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 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.
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 and above I have shown
that the medium does not need to be contained to resonate and create
maxima. Everyday examples in water and air show how open systems of
mediums of homogenous density CAN resonate and can produce nodes of
maxima.
What I find amusing is I can tell from your posts that you know that a
constrained medium CAN resonate in the same way as a constrained
object like a string can resonate.

Certainly.

Yet you realize that by admitting
this truism you have to admit that David is wrong in saying that only

I haven't seen David's posts and I am no concerned who is right
or wrong, I am trying to help by clarifying the terminology, not
commenting on your ideas.

an object or single particle can resonate and the uncomfortable truth
you face is to admit that a concept of a wave only atom as a point
like node of superimposed waves in a medium like an aether has
observable analogies in everyday life.

Sure, but just waves in a medium on their own would simply disperse.


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.

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.
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 .
And ifone were to remove the string and hum into a violin frame
containing air the air would resonate and in turn the frame would
resonate sympathetically and the two together as a system would
vibrate or resonate. What we end up with is the fact that resonance is
exhibited by mediums such as air and objects such as wood and metal
contrary to Davids belief that gas air etc and water cannot resonate
Finally we have no conclusive proof that a vacuum be it aether or QT
does or does not resonate in this above situation .Its just we have
yet to measure it.
In the violin, the vibration of the string is coupled to the body
where there are further quite separate resonances in the panels
as you described earlier. (See "Chladni patterns" he
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/strings.html )

Those patterns move the air and that can excite a further resonance
formed by the air inside the body. That is called a Helmholtz Resonance
and is again defined by the cavity. 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.



You certainly eliminate the Helmholtz resonance but the others are
still present though they are now damped. This reduces the Q in
contrast to operation in a vacuum which increases the Q.

And because the air
doesnt resonate their are less sympathetic resonations in the wood
casing of the instrument. If you ever get the opportunity, try this
experiment with a stringed instrument. I have.
In other words David is completely wrong in saying that a single
particle or object vibrating is the only manifestation of resonance.

If that is what he said, he is wrong (e.g. plantary orbital resonances).
If you said you can get resonance with waves in a medium but nothing
else then you are also wrong.

Is this an agreement that a medium can resonate and do you agree that
a medium can resonate in an open system. as I have shown above? Your
second point doesnt make sense in grammatical terms. What do you mean
by "..but nothing else.." in the sentence above?

Sean

"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. 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.
If you stopped reading books and watching the world around you you
would understand physics better
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? 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.
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.
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. `
So for instance, if two vibrating sources in an open water tank 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.
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.
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 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 "

They are raised humps of sand each in static position and
each hump or node is centerd about 1 point on the plate yet each node
is not a distinct object with a distinct edge. Furthermore you can
even manipulate these nodes and move them by touching the plate with
your finger.These nodes ARE the equivelent of what I call wave only
atoms in a medium. Furthermore these nodes are what you call the
exhibition of resonance.

No, that is the subtlety. You can get node by reflecting a
moving wave of a mirror but that is not resonance, just two
wave phenomena, reflection and interference. The single mirror
doesn't store energy while your vibrating plate could.

Yet each node is not an object but a standing
wave focused at a point like location in space.

Nodes are actually points where the waves cancel. That minor
point aside, note that the nodes are produced by superposition
of two waves that are moving in opposite directions. Without
something to reflect them back and localise the energy, you
just have two overlapping waves, not resonance.


This is an interesting point as it refers to the part of my argument
that follows on from the acceptance that a medium can be said to
exhibit resonance and that a wave only atom in a classical model would
be described as a node in a medium. This model would have that atom in
a infinite universe and I think you even refered earlier that although
you could accept the concept of a analogy of the wave only atom in a
contained sysetm it breaks down in an open infinite universe system.
But does it?
If we can agree that in a closed system a medium can resonate and that
medium can have maxima nodes that can be compared to atoms in a wave
only classical model then I would just have to show how a node in a
resonating medium could occur in an open system.
there are two points to support this. First of all one prerequisite of
the closed system is that like a gas in a chamber the medium has to be
of homogenous density or pressure and you would argue taht an open
universe would in a sense because it would not be `contained` it
wouyld lose pressure etc. 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.

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, 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? 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.

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

and above I have shown
that the medium does not need to be contained to resonate and create
maxima. Everyday examples in water and air show how open systems of
mediums of homogenous density CAN resonate and can produce nodes of
maxima.

They are examples of interference, not resonance.

What I find amusing is I can tell from your posts that you know that a
constrained medium CAN resonate in the same way as a constrained
object like a string can resonate.

Certainly.

Yet you realize that by admitting
this truism you have to admit that David is wrong in saying that only

I haven't seen David's posts and I am no concerned who is right
or wrong, I am trying to help by clarifying the terminology, not
commenting on your ideas.

an object or single particle can resonate and the uncomfortable truth
you face is to admit that a concept of a wave only atom as a point
like node of superimposed waves in a medium like an aether has
observable analogies in everyday life.

Sure, but just waves in a medium on their own would simply disperse.


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? 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. 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
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.

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. 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"

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. 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. 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.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
And ifone were to remove the string and hum into a violin frame
containing air the air would resonate

Helmholtz Resonance as I said.

and in turn the frame would
resonate sympathetically

Chladni patterns as I said.

and the two together as a system would
vibrate or resonate. What we end up with is the fact that resonance is
exhibited by mediums such as air and objects such as wood and metal
contrary to Davids belief that gas air etc and water cannot resonate
Finally we have no conclusive proof that a vacuum be it aether or QT
does or does not resonate in this above situation .Its just we have
yet to measure it.
In the violin, the vibration of the string is coupled to the body
where there are further quite separate resonances in the panels
as you described earlier. (See "Chladni patterns" he
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/strings.html )

Those patterns move the air and that can excite a further resonance
formed by the air inside the body. That is called a Helmholtz Resonance
and is again defined by the cavity. 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.



You certainly eliminate the Helmholtz resonance but the others are
still present though they are now damped. This reduces the Q in
contrast to operation in a vacuum which increases the Q.

And because the air
doesnt resonate their are less sympathetic resonations in the wood
casing of the instrument. If you ever get the opportunity, try this
experiment with a stringed instrument. I have.
In other words David is completely wrong in saying that a single
particle or object vibrating is the only manifestation of resonance.

If that is what he said, he is wrong (e.g. plantary orbital resonances).
If you said you can get resonance with waves in a medium but nothing
else then you are also wrong.

Is this an agreement that a medium can resonate and do you agree that
a medium can resonate in an open system. as I have shown above?

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 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.
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."...
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. 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..


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)

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)

(sean) wrote in message . com...
(Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message om...
(sean) wrote in message . com...

[snip]


Hi Sergey

Regarding a description and maths of how the photoelectric effect can
be described as a wave try clicking on my name above then go to page 2
and look at postings between 161 and 183 of `what evidence
photons`thread from months back. Any further questions just post here
or email me at the above address although with these viruses going
around I dont get on the net as often now.
Refarding the resonance point I just did a google search on
`resonance` and the few things I found were all describing resonace as
a function of waves overlapping. thats why I couldnt understand dlzs
claim that resonance couldnt be described as waves
I also have a related website showing how gammaraybursts can be
explained as waves only and many of my predictions have been confirmed
at www.gammarayburst.com
Sean


Dear Jay,

Thank you for sending me your explanations, and accept my apology that
I still was unable to open your web site. Either it's too hard (this
is why I divide our papers into pages no more than 100 kb each) or bad
connection here, but still we saw only your wallpaper. I will try
again and hope to succeed. ;-)

Meanwhile I can analyse only your letter; if I misunderstood
something, please correct me.

We all know biased criticism of your 'referees' as to all non-photon
conceptions - this is their usual. But what you are writing about
Craig's and David's opinions, here we have what to think about. Let us
think together. For example, you are saying,

[Jay]
Remember this is not an explanation of how
a wave only atom is constructed and critism that it does not describe
the
atomic structure I think is irrelevent . After all Einsteins
photoelectric
theory does not explain how the atom is constructed either.

[Sergey]
Indeed, it does not, but this is not the reason to ignore the
statement of problem in classical physics, is it? I understand,
photoeffect is a very complicated problem, and to describe it
correctly, we need a well-developed tool of wave mechanics. I
understand also that, trying to represent the emission of electrons by
analogy with discharge of some imaginary bank of capacitors with some
statistic charge, you are trying, so to say, to 'touch a cow at the
udder'. You, of course, understand, this analogy is quite artificial.
First, judging by how you explain it, the real bank of capacitors will
not work. Capacitors will either all gradually fill up to full voltage
(if leakage of current is absent) or they will not discharge
discretely. For it you need a special circuit which would
statistically fill each capacitor individually, then some controlling
devices of the degree of filling and discharge devices for each
capacitor separately. But even if you provide this all, your analogy
will remain incomplete.

Second, when you have your capacitors filled, you are dealing with the
source of direct current. In this case the energy accumulation is
clear. In your atom capacitor the electrons are affected by the
alternating EM field. To accumulate the energy of this field is a
problem, and I truly don't see a clear mechanism of such accumulation
under present conditions.

Third, atom, of course, cannot be presented by the model of the kind
you describe:

[Jay]
Essentially I say that each atom in the detector acts seperately and
absorbs incoming wave radiation . When the atom reaches a full
capacity of a
certain energy level it triggers the release of this energy as a
photoelectron , resets at 0 capacity and fills again .

[Sergey]
Niels Bohr in his paper "Quantum theory of emission" gave more precise
model:

Citation:

We will seek the cause of observed statistical conservation of
energy and pulse not in some deviation from electrodynamical theory of
light when the emission propagates in a void space, but in the
features of interaction between the virtual field of emission and
irradiated atoms. We will suppose that these atoms will act as the
sources of secondary virtual emission which interferes with the
incident emission. If the frequency of incident waves is close to the
frequency of one of virtual harmonic oscillators corresponding to
different possible transitions, then the amplitudes of secondary waves
will be especially large, and these waves, dependently on phase
relationship with the incident waves, will attenuate either amplify
the intensity of virtual field of emission and in this way decrease
either increase the probability of inducted transitions on other
atoms. If there is attenuation of intensity, the virtual harmonic
oscillator related to the incident emission will correspond to the
transition at which the atom energy increases, and vice versa.
[Item 2 "Emission and transition processes", in the end, in my reverse
translation].

Uncitation.

Concerning the electron emission, he flashed the following thought:

Citation:

As opposite to such pattern, the scattering of emission by
electrons in our description is considered as a continuous process to
which each irradiated electron contributes through emission of
coherent secondary waves. With it the incidental virtual emission
leads to such reaction of each electron which in classical theory we
would expect from electron moving with the velocity of above imaginary
source and executing forced oscillations under affection of field of
emission [Ibidem, item 4 "Quantum theory of spectra and optical
phenomena"].

Uncitation.

Bohr didn't cope with this problem, as then the necessary tool of wave
mechanics yet wasn't developed. To create such tool is a complicated
task, the more when speaking of such statistical multifactored process
as photoemission.

Why I'm saying of it? Because I know by experience, most of problems
that are thought unsolvable in physics are such only because the
problem has been stated incorrectly, incompletely or inexactly. Please
do understand me. Incomplete, partial analogy, outward similarity
don't solve the problem but only confuse the scientist. He starts
thinking in terms not of studied processes but of some virtual
reality, and at definite stage he leaves the physics. This is
unavoidable, and often he doesn't return to analyse the mistake. He
spent too much labour to build this virtual world. Such scientist
simply closes himself in his virtual world and becomes dogmatic of his
idee fixe. This is why despite all complicacy of research process, it
is much more profitable to do not lighten our task by outward
similarity. Also, it is not worthy to try solving the problem
directly. Most of problems, the more contemporary, become solvable
only after you have sequentially solved the problems of preliminary
stages and worked out the necessary mathematical tool. In case of
photoeffect it would be desirable to solve a number of important
problems of emission/absorption of energy, how the binds between atoms
and molecules are formed, and others. These all are problems of
complex resonance.

Of course, each of us has his right to go in science his own way.
Simply the problems of your theory which I briefly touched here will
sooner or later come to light and seriously distort the real pattern
and corollaries of your theory. Additionally I can say, I know,
another way exists. It's a hard way having the only and principal
advantage - here we have no need in trivial analogies.

With best wishes,

Sergey.

Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...
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

Stop there.

RC circuit has what for a frequency threshold? As frequency is increased,
what does the amplitude in an RC circuit do? What is the resonant
frequency of an RC circuit?

There is no parallel.

David A. Smith

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:z1t6b.46391$Qy4.38651@fed1read05...
Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...
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

Stop there.

RC circuit has what for a frequency threshold? As frequency is increased,
what does the amplitude in an RC circuit do? What is the resonant
frequency of an RC circuit?

What can you report us of a role a feedback in generators
of auto-oscillations?

There is no parallel.

Once again, what can you report us of a role a feedback in generators
of auto-oscillations?

Aleksandr

Dear Aleksandr Timofeev:

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:z1t6b.46391$Qy4.38651@fed1read05...
Dear Sergey Karavashkin:

"Sergey Karavashkin" wrote in message
om...
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

Stop there.

RC circuit has what for a frequency threshold? As frequency is
increased,
what does the amplitude in an RC circuit do? What is the resonant
frequency of an RC circuit?

What can you report us of a role a feedback in generators
of auto-oscillations?

There is no parallel.

Once again, what can you report us of a role a feedback in generators
of auto-oscillations?

One photon, one electron. What feedback is required? In the photoelectric
effect, none is required. It isn't some form of standing wave.

Resonance requires in-phase displacement and acceleration. The inductor
acts as one (di/dt), and the capacitance as the other (integral[i.dt]) in
phase space. Offloading the inductance to "the Universe" is well and good,
but leaves you with no adequate momentum storage term. The electron in the
photoelectric effect isn't really moving, unless it has been freed of the
surface, and it is then no longer feeding back.

There is no parallel.

David A. Smith

"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Aleksandr Timofeev" wrote in message
om...
By the way. What devices are indispensable for
the generator(oscillator) of auto-oscillations?

No device is indispensable. You need a power source, gain
and feedback as Bjacoby said but there are many ways to
achieve those.

You have forgotten about nonlinearity, which one in actual
devices is the transformer of energy in energy of oscillations.

I am not quite sure what you mean here Aleksandr. In
the RC oscillator we talked about before for example,
there is no non-linear element used for coupling.

You have forgotten about nonlinearity, which one in actual
devices restricts a vibration amplitude or power.

Certainly some form of ALC is important in practice
but it is not essential from a theoretical point of
view which is how I answered. If the gain is greater
than one, the oscillation amplitude will grow
exponentially.

If you want to look at these in real life, it is
also quite common to use linear elements such as the
crude example of a thermistor to stabilise the signal
level. As long as the oscillator frequency is much
higher than the thermal time constant, there is
negligible non-linearity in the electrical response
(but yes I am aware that there is always some non-
linearity).

Aleksandr, all that aside, I am trying to explain to
Sean the difference between resonance and interference,
not pass an exam in practical electronics. Do you
really think these questions are helping him?

For a resonance is indispensable:
- power source;

A pendulum is resonant but contains no power source.


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.

- nonlinear transformer of energy;

A RLC circuit is linear and resonant.

If there is an inflow of energy, then there are oscillations.
If there is no inflow of energy, then the oscillations miss.

This "RLC circuit" is linear in a narrow gamut of hooked up power.
If the hooked up power will exceed electric strength
of "linear RLC circuit",
that one will become "nonlinear RLC circuit"... ;-)

Yes, "nonlinear" in the sense of "non-functioning"! ;-)


- a source of a reference frequency;

A resonant system usually defines its own charateristic frequency
without an external reference.

" A resonant system usually defines its own charateristic
frequency " in a narrow gamut of hooked up power. ;-)

For an LC circuit, the resonant frequency is 1/sqrt(LC)
and it is passive.

- an energy absorber.

There is always loss in any real system but it is not
a needed for resonance.

THE SYSTEM ABSORBS maximum POWER AT a RESONANCE.

************************************************** ****************
THE MAXIMUM of ABSORBED POWER by system is ESSENCE of a resonance.
************************************************** ****************
The vibration amplitude has minor value.

In theory a pure LC circuit absorbs no power. However, I checked
my text book and it says "Resonance, defined here to occur at the
frequency at which forced oscillations have their maximum amplitude,
may be defined in other ways as, for example, at the frequency at
which maximum power is transferred from the driving unit to the
oscillating system or at which the speed of the oscillating mass
is a maximum."

Further we shall consider classic QUADRIPOLES from the theory
of electric circuits, then my point of view on a resonance
will become more clear to you.

Contrary to your interpretation,
the PHENOMENON of a RESONANCE is ABSORPTION of energy of oscillations
by an only PURE RESISTANCE.
That would make every resistor connected to an AC supply
a resonant system.

It is an ingenious guess.
If the wave length of hooked up alternating stress is more than
the maximum geometrical size of the resistor, then the resistor
is in "resonance".

I would have said that "in resonance" meant the power line
frequency was the same as the self-resonant frequency of the
resistor due to lead inductance and parasitic capacitance.

However, what I meant was that, for an RLC circuit, if the
Q is less than 0.5 the circuit is over-damped and will not
oscillate. I think it is stretching the definition of
resonance if you include power absorbtion by a load that
cannot oscillate. Other than that I would agree with you.

George

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?

If you put a diode between the power supply and the RC circuit, can you
still get resonant behaviour?

David A. Smith

(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.

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.

George