"Darwin123" escreveu na mensagem
...
On May 4, 2:07 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Greg Neill" escreveu na
sting.com..."El
Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message



Can you see how much out-of-topic you are?

Hey, *you're* the one who posted the nonsense,
"A system in resonance is a closed system that
exchanges no energy with surroundings. Energy
is conserved in resonance." I just pointed out
your misconceptions and errors.

Obviously you must agree that for a case of
electromagnetic radiation I'm right.
Not really. There is no such thing as resonance in a system
comprised of electromagnetic radiation only. By being in resonance we
are referring to the frequency of the elecromagnetic radiation
matching a resonance frequency in a bound system comprised of electric
charges. There is some type of displacement associated with the
electric charges.

Do you mean the electric field of electromagnetic radiation
is made of charges, or are there any sensor (coil) to be "induced"
by the radiation magnetic field?


No, we you solve the equation for displacement of the bound
system being acted upon by the electromagnetic radiation, the solution
has at least two components: a transient component and an
"equilibrium" component. In the theory of differential equations, the
transient component is called the homogenous solution and the
equilibrium component is called the inhomogenous component.
The exact strength and phase of the transient component vary on
the initial conditions on the displacement. The equilibrium solution
does not vary with initial conditions. Generally, if the displacement
starts at zero, the transient part dies away after a short time. Hence
it is often called the transient solution. The equilibrium component
never dies away.
I believe that you are referring to the equilibrium solution
when you say that "the system exchanges no energy with its
surroundings." The system usually refers to the bound system of
charges, which has a Q-factor. The transient part of course does
exchange energy with its surroundings. Otherwise it would never die
away. However, the equilibrium part is constant.
I think what you are ignoring is that the transient solution and
the equilibrium solution can cancel each other out when t=0. What
appears to be a build up of energy can also be described as the
transient part dying away. It took a second or two for that beer
bottle of yours to accumulate enough heat to melt, right? It also took
a few seconds for the energy of the microwaves to build up from the
oscillator in the microwave oven. You can't say that a system in
resonance doesn't exchange energy with its environment. In fact, your
example would seem to indicate the opposite of your conclusions. Your
microwave was plugged in, right? The socket supplied the power.

Ahhh. You must ask to Eric Gisse about the microwave.
Damn, I'm lost so far.


The bound system is partly characterized by what is called the Q-
factor. As Q increases, the time it takes for the transient component
to die increases. As Q increases, the amplitude of the equilibrium
part increases.
The time it takes takes for the transient solution die away
increases with the Q factor, The amplitude of the equilibrium solution
increases.
Some of your comments lead me to believe that you are trying to
develop a perpetual motion machine.

A perpetual motion machine?


If I misunderstood, then I
apologize. If I do understand you, then I have criticize your
presentation. Melting beer bottles in microwaves does not demonstrate
the creation of energy, or even the destruction of entropy.

It is Eric Gisse that melts beer bottles in microwaves, not me.


It
demonstrates the exchange of energy between an oscillator in the
microwave, the electromagnetic field in the microwave, and the
electric charges in your beer bottle. I recommend some other analogy.
I don't mean burning ants with the sun and a magnifying lens. Although
similar in some of the physics, it doesn't create energy either.

You said:
"There is no such thing as resonance in a system comprised of
electromagnetic radiation only."
That's what I thought in first place, but since Uncle Al come up
with that idea and Eric Gisse followed, I was afraid to say so.
Therefore, I've said that, for zero damping, energy is
conserved for a system in resonance.