Sympathetic Resonance. Can you do me a favour..?

[Mr. M]

They come to the point that using magnetic induction to send electricity to devices is more efficient when more than one machine is involved. The efficiency of the energy is better for multiple machines.

OK, but that's perhaps a a bit ahead of what I'm asking. I'm taking it on board, don't worry, but I'm trying not to run before I can crawl. 

All I'm looking to understand right now, acoustically, is if the amplitude of the resonance in one fork is different to the amplitude in each of two forks.

So if you arbitrarily quantify the amplitude in fork B as X, as per the example above, would the amplitude in fork B = X and C = X, or would it be less.

[MrMag]

That's a good one. Without actually doing the test I guess it would be exactly that, a guess.

Tuning forks, A, B, C.

A is struck. I would expect that B would vibrate in intensity relative to the distance from A.
Now by throwing C into the mix, I can see where this could get a bit complex.
The same would hold true as to the distance from A but now you also have B resonating.
It would be nice if A+B=C but I don't think that is the case.
I would GUESS that they would all equalize to the same intensity over a certain amount of time but like I said, it's a guess.
But then when you look at the video of the bridge that destroys itself due to resonance, you would think that maybe they would all gain in intensity.

Thanks, now I am totally confused

[Mr. M]

Thanks, now I am totally confused

Welcome to my world! 

If you want to dive further in to my confusion/madness then give this a whirl...


It's safe to assume, obviously, that there isn't going to be any increase in the amplitude of the resonance in fork B by introducing fork C.  As the two forks are at the same frequency I would expect them to be sympathetic to each other and not have any substantial negating effect on each other or fork A as they resonate.

If it is true that introducing fork C has little or no effect on the amplitude of the resonance of fork B or A then it would be fairly safe to assume that this could be scaled up to a ring of forks all at the same distance from fork A.

Instead of striking fork A manually it would be possible to use something like a relatively small actuator and a tuning forks at about 30hz to maintain the resonance over time, I think... I say a low frequency because the actuator wouldn't need to do as much work but who knows, it might work higher, I've no idea how fast the little buggers can move.

From there I would know the input power required to drive the actuator that is in turn creating lateral movement in the tines of tuning fork A, that much is certain.

If there is little or no negative effect of adding additional forks then it is safe to say that the same amount of input energy is used to drive a single fork as it is to drive multiple forks.

This is where my ears started to bleed and I started poking around on Google, with no luck.

[neptune]

Without actual experiment , one can only theorise . Take a fork [A] and strike it . A second forkB vibrates . Energy is transmitted from A to B by sound waves , or vibrations in the air Its amplitude will be less than that of A . The energy it receives from A will be inversely proportional to the distance between them . This will be true of forks C,D etc .Think of A as a radio transmitter . You do not need to turn up  the volume on your radio because someone in the next street turns their radio on . The energy from A radiates outwards like an expanding sphere . If you covered this imaginary sphere with forks , their summed energy would equal the energy leaving A , minus losses .That is what I would expect to see .

[MrMag]

Without actual experiment , one can only theorise . Take a fork [A] and strike it . A second forkB vibrates . Energy is transmitted from A to B by sound waves , or vibrations in the air Its amplitude will be less than that of A . The energy it receives from A will be inversely proportional to the distance between them . This will be true of forks C,D etc .Think of A as a radio transmitter . You do not need to turn up  the volume on your radio because someone in the next street turns their radio on . The energy from A radiates outwards like an expanding sphere . If you covered this imaginary sphere with forks , their summed energy would equal the energy leaving A , minus losses .That is what I would expect to see .

Ahhh, but does the summed energy equal the energy leaving A. I think that depending on the amount of B and C forks, the total energy could be more.

Let me try to explain what I mean.  We have two rings of forks. The inside ring "B" has 10 forks on it's circumference. The next ring "C" has 20 forks on it's circumference. I rap fork "A" and place it in the center of ring "B". Forks in ring B and C should vibrate. I am not sure how to add the energy or amplitude but I have a  feeling the combined forks in the 2 ring would be higher. Anybody have 31 tuning forks that I can borrow?

The other thing. If we removed ring "B" wouldn't ring "C" vibrate with less amplitude then it would if "B" was present? If this is true, then ring"B" would be amplifying the signal of "A". 

Someone has got to find a program where this could be simulated. It definitely deserves some thought. Good brain exercise if nothing else.