Brad:

Resonance guru MH--do you not understand this,as it seems very straight forward to me.
If our child on the swing has a resonant frequency,can that frequency be maintained if we only give him a push every 3rd swing,or 4th swing,or 5th swing?,while adding the needed energy to maintain the amplitude of each swing.

But we are not pushing on a swing anymore now are we?  We are talking about the frequency content in an excitation signal trying to excite a core at its resonant frequency or a possibly at a harmonic of its resonant frequency.  Things don't resonate at a frequency that is lower than the fundamental frequency.  The core is acting as a filter with its own frequency response and it will not respond to any excitation that is below the fundamental frequency.

I am pretty sure that Smoky2's logic is wrong on this one, but I don't want to get into it beyond that and I am truly not interested.  I am not holding my breath expecting anything to come from the resonance guru working with you and Magluvin.  I won't be surprised if he flies by night if all you guys come up with is resonant goose eggs.

MileHigh

 author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg476814#msg476814 date=1457533651]



   

MileHigh

Shocking eh?  You have been told that you are wrong

By who?-->you? lol.

and all that you can do is whine and complain and stomp your feet and insist that you are right.

I cant stomp to much MH,as you know,i am nursing a broken foot.
Im not complaining much,other than your idiotic 4 to 8 weeks for an answer bullshit.

You tried a few times and you were wrong

Havnt been proven wrong yet--where did you come up with that?.

and then you Google searched and did a few mini copy-paste-a-gasms.

There googlegasms MH-get it right.
But yes i did--to back up my answers i gave you in my own words. They are here on this thread to repost when you dump your load in 4 to 7 weeks.

Why don't you try to answer the questions in your own words, four sentences or less for each question.  Demonstrate that you know what you are talking about.  Go ahead, you have nothing to lose.

Already done--see reply above.

For the ICE issue, initially you made a typical "Brad statement," something like "An ICE is in resonance."

Nooo-go back and reread-then come back and correct your self!once again!

Only later when you were pushed to put you brain and mouth in gear did you try to offer up any specifics.

You mean i had to waste more of my time educating you.

I have stated to you repeatedly that we are talking about the standard engineering and scientific definition for resonance, not motor shop talk or motor marketing talk for "resonance."

All data supplied fits well within the standard scientific definition of resonance.

Nonetheless, I am open to understanding exactly what you mean by "resonance" in this case and have asked you and Johan for motor schematic diagrams of any supposed resonant system along with an explanation and a timing diagram and so far I have seen nothing.  Pointing to a clip of a guy revving a two-stroke engine is meaningless.

I provided you with all the information required to explain the resonant systems in an ICE,along with a complete explanation of the timing involved--along with the relevant links to back up my claim's. MH just did a post skip reading session-as you often do.

The car speed analogy was done for one purpose only:  To prove to you that you can indeed answer a question on a conceptual level without having to give specific measurement numbers or solve for a specific configuration.

What you did end up doing,was show how your conceptual level explanation was flawed right from the word go. It was incomplete,and never had a chance in hell of being able to determine the top speed of a car--that is fact.

Just the fact that I had to do that because you would not accept that line of reasoning to answer a conceptual question with a conceptual answer is absolutely mind boggling.

Here is exactly what your example showed.
It showed us the very reason we should stick to what we believe in,and not what others think we should believe in. The very moment i read that post of yours,regarding the top speed of the car,i picked it apart in no time flat--and your wheels fell off MH.
What you ended up doing,is showing us all here,that you have no idea what the hell you are doing.
You also showed why it is very important not to take the word of one person over reality.
You failed badly in that one MH,and only re-enforces my disbelief in what you are trying to peddle.
!!!Have you worked out what you missed in that top speed of a car!! analogy yet?.

It's the equivalent of taking your hands and showing you how to tie your own shoes.  It's so ridiculous but I did it anyway so you would stop whining and complaining about the question about determining the resonance frequency of the wine glass.

And there is the idiotic post for today.
The man that cant tie his own shoes,is showing us all how it should be done.


Brad

So you guys think that for the sake of a wine glass and a furty little car speed all this junk being thrown around is fully warranted. This is indeed a sad day to be an OUer when you have to vent so high to protect what - some dreamstate resonance crap and a car whizzer. hahahahaha

Bad boys.

@MH

Nice try but your answer to my question failed miserably showing that you cannot comprehend what is at stake here, which is understandable since your internal drive for OU devices is set to "totally impartial". So we will just wait before we can talk about resonance. Anyone talk before my question is answered is just blowing in the wind.

@tinman

Just get back on your bench already where it counts. Why the hell are you talking to @MH about anything OU anyways. You cannot get water from a rock. Get it though your heads already. These EEers are stuck even worst then you guys. Great for textbook Standard EE questions but never never discuss or ask their opinion on anything OU.

@all

I don't know. I think you guys are totally lost in space. No map, no plan, no possible light at the end of the tunnel, just lost in a black hole called Standard EE where all your questions will never be answered, no possibility  for true growth and destined to repeat the same old same old. So good luck with that. I asked one little itty bitty question promising to then tell you guys what resonance is and not a twich, not a sign, OK, so advance on your own. hehehe

wattsup

Oh bugga.

I am going to have to agree with you MH on this one.
Sound needs a medium to travel in,as it is a mechanical wave,and as a vacuum is void of any medium,then the sound wave cannot propagate.

Sound can be transmitted across a vacuum,but that is via way of electromagnetic field's,and not sound waves them self.

I also see no reason a wine glass will not resonate in a vacuum,we just wont hear it do so.


Brad.

In space....


          No one can hear you scream.




Now we know why.


Bill

In space....


          No one can hear you scream.




Now we know why.


Bill

"sound" doesn't pass through space, rather the wave that was created by the sound propagates.
just as radio frequency waves propagate through space in the audible spectrum can be picked up by a microphone.
"sound" doesn't pass through the air.
rather, the disturbance that caused the audible frequency range vibrations, interacted with the air to cause the sound. Whether it be a radio wave, or the vocal chords of a chickadee.

sound is just the experience of vibration, change in pressure caused by the wavefront, as it propagates.
what is required to change between the two, "physical sound" and its' radio frequency equivalent:
is a solid but movable interface.
we do this with speakers and microphones all the time. it's nothing new or strange.
we already knew that soundwaves pass through space, we just had not proven it in a laboratory setting until 2009.

the physical interface incurs a moment of inertia, as the wave energy is transferred into momentum, applying pressure against the atmosphere. This process slows the wave down.
Once "sound" is traveling through the air, and is once again removed from the medium, it does NOT instantly start traveling at the speed of light again. It travels at a speed slightly above that at which it was already propagating.

pesky little "massless" particles.... when you slow them down, you need energy to speed them up again....

Oeps: Sure?

Than why is this 2-stroke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zDmlOYiaTI

 Running with only a pre-ignition from only 1.2mm this rev/min, while a 4-stroke in the same tuning ignite over 30-48 degrees before TDC?

All that I see is a video clip of a guy revving a two-stroke engine.  That means nothing.  Can you provide a detailed description of the process, a mechanical schematic, and an annotated timing diagram?  How is the engine "resonating" and what is your definition of "resonance" for the engine?

If you are going to claim that the engine has "resonance" for better performance then please explain exactly how the process works.

MileHigh

MH when you call people liars out of your own personal ignorance
You must surely have proof??

Put the horse back in front of the cart and back up your claim or retract it !
Or admit your ignorance in the field ?
Your double standard does not quite reach that far!

Show me what you are talking about and I will respond.