MH's ideal coil and voltage question

[MileHigh]

Brad:

Don't be an old dog, you can learn some new tricks.

Look at this clip, you will see an amazing ping-initiated RESONATOR in action that actually has a resonant frequency that is a function of time.  Talk about a mind blowing brain bender, eh?  A resonant frequency that changes in time?  Go check the rule books.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXxVA2idyL0

It's not a bloody "natural frequencyerator," it's a bloody RESONATOR.

MileHigh

[tinman]

Brad:



Look at this clip, you will see an amazing ping-initiated RESONATOR in action that actually has a resonant frequency that is a function of time.  Talk about a mind blowing brain bender, eh?  A resonant frequency that changes in time?  Go check the rule books.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXxVA2idyL0

It's not a bloody "natural frequencyerator," it's a bloody RESONATOR.

MileHigh

Don't be an old dog, you can learn some new tricks.

MH,i am not the one that needs to learn here,in regards to the resonant effects surrounding an ICE.

Talk about a mind blowing brain bender, eh?  A resonant frequency that changes in time?  Go check the rule books.

If you are saying that a resonant frequency cannot change in time in regards to the ICE issue we are discussing,then you had better go and do some research,and begin to understand how the resonant chamber on the exhaust of the 2 stroke ICE can indeed change with time,and why the resonance can continue over a wide range or RPM.

If you do not think that the resonant frequency of the expansion chamber can change,without physically changing the shape of the resonant chamber,then you do have much to learn.
I can tell you in one short post how this is achieved,but you need to do some learning of your own.

If you change the density of the magnetic material of the core of an inductor,while maintaining the physical size of that inductor,will the resonant frequency of that inductor change?


Brad

[tinman]

Brad:

For starters enough of the insanity about challenging me on "being a new convert" to ICE resonance.  When you showed me the right information I admitted that I was wrong right away and that was months ago.  So why are you saying ridiculous things like "First you argue with myself and others,that there is no resonance what so ever associated with an ICE,and now your trying to justify your resonance theory by saying that the resonance in the combustion chamber is the same thing as a tuning fork resonating."

Why are you ridiculously spinning like this?  I also edited my previous posting to state that it's a bit of a stretch to model the combustion chamber resonance like striking a tuning fork, that's too simple.  It's more of an anti standing wave process, which is really a three-dimensional resonant tuning cavity process.

I fully realize that you have a lifetime's worth of working with engines and you are an expert with them.  But what you don't have is a deeper and fundamental level of insight that a scientific or engineering education can give you.  For example, you could not answer the two questions about the wine glass and you were not even close.  Likewise, you were unable to come up with the simplified equivalent circuit/mathematical model for something as basic as a bell or a tuning fork.  Nor could you visualize in your mind how they resonate.

Like it or not, even though the engine has an RPM range where the resonance effects are doing their magic and giving you better performance, it is not directly related to the RPM of the engine itself.  Each of the three resonant effects are a ping-like event where the ping initiates a resonant response.  That is loosely comparable to striking a tuning fork.

Like it or not, your personal definition for resonance does not apply, because the resonance effects in the ICE are not directly tied into the engine RPM acting as a periodic stimulus resulting in an enhanced resonant response from the resonating element.

No, absolutely not.  You are back to trying to put a square peg into a round hole because you would nearly have a nervous breakdown to admit that you are wrong.  In this case I am the "little guy" and you are the "big guy" and the little guy is teaching the big guy because the big guy with all of his 35 years of mechanical experience with ICE's, still was unable to identify how a bell can resonate and visualize and create the mathematical model for it.  Like it or not, these are facts.

It's the driving force pulses themselves that elicit the resonant responses in the ICE that cause improved performance in the ICE, and NOT the correct frequency of the driving force pulses.

The resonant chamber frequency in the combustion chamber has nothing to do with the frequency of the driving force pulses due to the engine RPM, nothing.

The one-shot resonant response of the intake Helmholtz resonator will be amenable to a certain frequency range of the driving force pulses due to the engine RPM, but when you really understand what is going on, the two things are actually decoupled from each other.

The one-shot resonant response of the exhaust gas expansion chamber quasi Helmholtz resonator will be amenable to a certain frequency range of the driving force pulses due to the engine RPM, but when you really understand what is going on, the two things are decoupled from each other.

So your narrow-minded definition of resonance does not apply to the ICE, even though an ICE will operate better through some forms of resonance.

I understand that as clear as a bell.

So one more time, all of your problems will go away if you can simply admit the following is true and there are two definitions for resonance:

A tuning fork is an acoustic resonator in the form of a two-pronged fork ... It resonates at a specific constant pitch when set vibrating by striking it against a surface ...

The little guy is talking, and if you were wise you would listen.  You will not have a nervous breakdown if you admit that you were wrong with the limited definition of resonance that you are currently stuck to like a fly on flypaper.

MileHigh

MH
I am not sure how many times i have to tell you this,but the way i define resonance is exactly how the resonant systems around the ICE work--for every explosion in the cylinder at the correct frequency(correct RPM),the resonant chamber will also resonate at that same frequency. If there is no explosion in the cylinder,then the resonant chamber will not resonate. It is exactly like i have been saying it is,for resonance to exist,there needs to be an input pulse that is the same frequency,or a multiple of the actual resonant frequency of the resonant chamber. Resonance is an interaction between the two--the resonant chamber will not resonate without this continual input pulse of energy at the resonant frequency.

Brad

[MileHigh]

If you are saying that a resonant frequency cannot change in time in regards to the ICE issue we are discussing,then you had better go and do some research,and begin to understand how the resonant chamber on the exhaust of the 2 stroke ICE can indeed change with time,and why the resonance can continue over a wide range or RPM.

If you do not think that the resonant frequency of the expansion chamber can change,without physically changing the shape of the resonant chamber,then you do have much to learn.
I can tell you in one short post how this is achieved,but you need to do some learning of your own.

If you change the density of the magnetic material of the core of an inductor,while maintaining the physical size of that inductor,will the resonant frequency of that inductor change?

Brad

I am not going to look anything up, but I think in some engines they simply change the length of the exhaust expansion chamber to match the engine RPM.  That's to ensure a synchronicity between the piston pulse rate to empty the exhaust gasses and the tuned expansion chamber helping suck the exhaust gasses out of the cylinder, but it is not resonance.  It might be called a tuned exhaust port or a variable tuned exhaust port or something like that but it is not resonance.

If you change the density of the magnetic material of the core of an inductor,while maintaining the physical size of that inductor,will the resonant frequency of that inductor change?

I know what you are trying to say but it's still bloody annoying because we are primarily discussing electronics and inductors do not resonate all by themselves.

[MileHigh]

MH
I am not sure how many times i have to tell you this,but the way i define resonance is exactly how the resonant systems around the ICE work--for every explosion in the cylinder at the correct frequency(correct RPM),the resonant chamber will also resonate at that same frequency. If there is no explosion in the cylinder,then the resonant chamber will not resonate. It is exactly like i have been saying it is,for resonance to exist,there needs to be an input pulse that is the same frequency,or a multiple of the actual resonant frequency of the resonant chamber. Resonance is an interaction between the two--the resonant chamber will not resonate without this continual input pulse of energy at the resonant frequency.

Brad

For starters, you are going to have to have the intellectual capacity to make a distinction between "motor shop talk resonance" and the resonance we have been discussing this whole time.  So this sentence, "the way i define resonance is exactly how the resonant systems around the ICE work" is an absolute non-starter.

Like it or not, resonance is the exchange of energy back and forth in a system between two forms.  Typical examples would be between a capacitor and an an inductor, or a moving mass and a spring.  Of course, what I just said is something you are currently completely blind to for some strange and inexplicable reason.  You want to insist that resonance is just the observation of an increased response of a resonant system to an external stimulus at the resonant frequency.  That is an acceptable second definition for resonance, but to claim that it is the only definition like you are insisting is completely and totally ridiculous.

And now it would seem you want to "squeeze in" a new definition for resonance, which is some kind of "motor shop talk resonance" which has nothing to do with an energy exchange back and forth between two components like a moving mass and a spring, and that simply will not fly and is totally unacceptable.

for every explosion in the cylinder at the correct frequency(correct RPM),the resonant chamber will also resonate at that same frequency.

NO, when there is an explosion in the cylinder, that impulse of energy sets up a resonant standing wave pattern inside the cylinder cavity that is deemed undesirable, and so a secondary resonant cavity is set up in the cylinder to counteract that.  That standing wave resonance will happen at its own unique frequency.  That is in no way, shape or form, "resonating at the same frequency of the explosion."

Resonance is an interaction between the two--the resonant chamber will not resonate without this continual input pulse of energy at the resonant frequency.

No resonance is not an interaction between the two.  The explosion initiates a separate and distinct resonant standing wave in the cylinder cavity.  The resonance is the resonance in the cavity itself, and not the explosion.

Moving on to the Helmholtz resonators, they just respond to an impulse stimulus and that's it.  The frequency of the stimulus is irrelevant.  The "resonance like" effect in the Helmholtz resonator is that gasses rush into the resonator chamber, and that is a moving mass.  Then the chamber itself acts like a spring.  That is the resonance - moving air as a moving mass and air in the chamber acting like a spring.  That has nothing whatsoever to do with the impulse that initiated the event or the frequency of the impulse that initiated the event.

Note also that there is not really any cycling back and forth of the same energy as you have in true resonance.  It's a one-shot process, kinetic energy goes in, gets stored temporally as potential energy, and then the air leaves, and then new air rushes into the Helmholtz resonator chamber.  Even though the same energy and same mass is not cycling back and forth like there is in true resonance, the principles at play are essentially the same.

So when you mistakenly talk about the air inlet and the exhaust gas outlet being "in resonance" with the cylinder explosions, then what is it really?  It's certainly not resonance even if the boys in the shop call it "resonance" in their own "shop talk" language.  With respect to the cylinder explosions and the input and output ports, there is no cycling of energy back and forth between two forms so it is not resonance.

Here is what it really is: There is a nice synchronicity between the cylinder explosions and the Helmholtz resonators pushing air into the cylinder and then also sucking exhaust gasses out of the cylinder.  The fact that the cycle times for the Helmholtz resonators line up with the cylinder timing to make gas move into and out of the cylinder more efficiently is great but it is not resonance.  The resonance is in the Helmholtz resonators themselves.  What it really is is the Helmholtz resonators act as timing elements in the operation of the engine to ensure that the engine runs synchronously.

Here is the synchronous operation of the engine as a sequence of timing events one after the other:  1) push air into the cylinder, 2) explosion, 3) suck exhaust gasses out of the cylinder.  This is a nice advantageous synchronous operation facilitated by the actions of the Helmholtz resonators that makes the engine run better but it is not resonance.  There is no resonant cycling of energy back and forth in two forms in steps 1, 2, and 3 which is the true signature for resonance.

All that being said, if you would just accept that a tuning fork resonates, then you could accept that the Helmholtz resonators resonate all by themselves without having anything to do with the cylinder explosions and then you would be fine.

MileHigh