On May 11, 7:57 pm, "El Enrrabadore-mor"
wrote:
"Darwin123" escreveu na ...



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?
The resonance exists between a system of electric charges and
the electromagentic field. For instance, consider an antennae attached
to a coil of wire. The antenae is designed to collect energy from the
electormagnetic field. The antennae and coil system has a resonance
frequency mostly determined by the length of the antennae, and a Q
factor mostly determined by the impedances in the coil.The antennae
and coil are comprised of atoms, which are themselves comprised of
nucleii and electrons. The nucleii are positively charged, the
electrons are negatively charged. Thus, the antennae and coil are not
considered as having been made out of photons. They are a system made
of electrically charged particles.
The term resonance refers to the coincidence in value between the
resonance frequency of the electric charges (antenaae and coil) and
the frequency of the electromagnetic field (let us say the frequency
of part of the electromagnetic field).
I was not at all referring to the electromagnetic field being
comprised of electric charges. I was merely referring to the Maxwell
equation - classical particle model of an antennae.
Your statement was that, "A system in resonance is a closed
system that exchanges no energy with surroundings. Energy is conserved
in resonance." It obviously makes no sense in terms of an antennae,
since by definition the antennae exchanges energy with the
electromagnetic field.
Your statement that "obviously you must agree that for a case o
electromagnetic radiation I'm right." has even less meaning. It sounds
like you are referring to electromagnetic field with no antennae.
There is no resonance without an antennae or something like an
antennae. Resonance is a relationship BETWEEN a system of electric
charges (e.g., antennae) and a background of electromagnetic radiation
(e.g., radio wave radiation).
A less patient person (or me in a less mellow mood) could take
your statements as displaying minimum comprehension and maximum
hostility. Some of your comments about the Euler equations seem to
make a little bit of sense to me, but when you start talking about the
electromagnetic field you seem to lose it.



Ahhh. You must ask to Eric Gisse about the microwave.
Damn, I'm lost so far.
Then you never solved a differential equation for a forced
harmonic oscillator. That is all the word "resonance" refers to. A
system that is like a forced harmonic oscillator. All the other stuff
you are referring to can be interpreted as a type of mysticism, not
science. The two solutions come out of the analysis of any system
that is analogous to a forced harmonic oscillator. The microwave
cavity, as most physicists and engineers see it, is a forced harmonic
oscillator.
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.
Oh, sorry, that makes more sense. Yes, energy is exchanged
between the microwaves and the bottle. That is how the bottle got
melted. This is a resonant system. How can you claim that there is no
energy exchanged in a resonance? The bottle melted, so obviously
energy was exchanged. The bottle is acting like an antennae. The
bottle contains electric charges (even if it is an insulator). So how
can this system NOT exchange energy, even if it is "in resonance."



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.
Then what you came up with is much worse.
A system of electric charges that is in resonance with an
electromagnetic field CAN exchange energy with the electromagnetic
field. You said originally the system CAN'T exchange energy with an
electromagnetic field.
Therefore, I've said that, for zero damping, energy is
conserved for a system in resonance.
OOOOOYYYYY!!!!!!!
A system (of electric charges always) in resonance with a
component of the electromagnetic field CANNOT ever come to equilibrium
with an electromagnetic field UNLESS there is nonzero damping. In the
hypothetical case that that antennae and coil have zero impedance, and
they are bombarded with EM radiation at their resonant frequency, they
will keep on absorbing energy with no limit until they reach whatever
energy level will make the system come apart. Without damping, the
resonant system ALWAYS takes or gives energy to the electromagnetic
field. There is never a balance between taking and giving energy in
the case of zero damping.
Your statement says quite the opposite. I am at this moment in
full sympathy with Eric Gisse. No wonder he yells at you.
It sounds like you are confusing the words "resonance" with
"balance." A resonant system is not a balanced system.If an opera
singer hits a high note, and a wine glass breaks, it is not because
the wine glass system is in balance with the acoustic field. The wine
glass system is in resonance with the acoustic field.
In the case of his beer bottle system, it kept on taking energy
from the electromagnetic radiation until it melted. It came apart. It
never reached a balance until it was destroyed. I suspect the melted
bottle was still absorbing energy after it melted. Without damping,
the system is always pulling energy from the field (or pushing it, in
the time reversed situation).