Joule Thief 101

[MileHigh]

Here is a true online Big Gun for you poor misguided ones to contemplate:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/reson.html

In sound applications, a resonant frequency is a natural frequency of vibration determined by the physical parameters of the vibrating object. This same basic idea of physically determined natural frequencies applies throughout physics in mechanics, electricity and magnetism, and even throughout the realm of modern physics. Some of the implications of resonant frequencies are:

1. It is easy to get an object to vibrate at its resonant frequencies, hard to get it to vibrate at other frequencies.

2. A vibrating object will pick out its resonant frequencies from a complex excitation and vibrate at those frequencies, essentially "filtering out" other frequencies present in the excitation.

3. Most vibrating objects have multiple resonant frequencies.   

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So all of the nonsense about a "compound" definition for resonance that is tied to the energy source is just pure nonsense, a farce.  As the Hyperphysics link states (to paraphrase), "This is what resonance is, and now that we know what it is, let's examine some of the implications.  Oh, yes, one of the most basic implications is that if you excite a resonant system at it's resonant frequency you will get a good response from the system."

So you two clowns don't have the common sense to understand that it takes simple common sense to realize that if you excite a resonant system at its resonant frequency then the system will respond and start to resonate and that is just a natural attribute of any resonant system.  It's like a common sense double-cross and you yourselves are the hapless victims.

It's real life being stranger than fiction, like a Monthy Python skit for hapless resonance nerds.

[MileHigh]

Oscillation of an object at it's natural oscillating frequency is not resonance--full stop.
So your long awaited answer to your own question was wrong,as you were not describing resonance at all--you were describing the natural oscillation frequency of a wine glass.

[AlienGrey]

MH,

I think at this point in time you are fully aware of what your error was, and as such your continuing attempts to hide that error in disregard for the benefit of others that may be reading this thread is sufficient grounds to have you placed on permanent moderation.

Please pay close attention to the ACTION word in 1,,  or maybe phrase,, you highlighted it in bold,, "TO GET AN OBJECT TO VIBRATE" <=== INPUT REQUIRED,, EXTERNAL SYSTEM EMPLOYED.

The wine glass is NOT a system it is a material,, it is an oscillator,, your finger can make it oscillate which then will drive it into resonance and as long as your finger is rubbing on the glass it will stay there,, the amplitude of that oscillation being maintained by the input energy from your finger rubbing the rim of the wine glass being sufficient to overcome the internal losses as well as the losses into heat and sound waves and the friction of your finger and the dampening forces that can be introduced in the process of making the wine glass resonate.

Anymore of this nonsense from you MH and I will file a formal complaint,, but I will ask that you be banned for life for your total lack of respect for our fellow readers.

If this was just you Brad and myself I would not be so bothered,, but there are many others who read these forums actually looking for information and trying to get some education,, when they find all of this absolute dribble from you they might get very misguided,, and it is very hard to re-learn something.

I would like it if all of these incorrect posts from you were deleted so as your blatant disregard of what is right and wrong will not jeopardize those that are looking for guidance.

The best way to discribe resonance is this; not in resonance is like pissing into the wind, In resonance is so obvious ;b

[tinman]

Brad, you puffed out your chest about resonance two months ago and fell flat on your behind when you tried to answer the two simple questions.  The simple questions were posed to make you and others think, and now here you are ending it off with yet another failure of the imagination with your inability to separate resonance from a source of energy for the resonance.  Or perhaps it's a new 'hook' that you and Webby have latched onto in order to create yet another farcical spectacle.

I hope this will help you out MH,in being able to define the difference between resonance and oscillations at the items natural resonant frequency.
Resonance is the interaction of two systems MH--yes ,two-not one.

The most important video you might watch MH--it's all about wine glass resonance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPH-JoOtcUo

And some more on resonance.

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

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY3hB-yH8NU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDnNmLkQ3Bc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nblcKkX0zJo
And the list go's on.


Brad

[MileHigh]

Webby:  Your pitch is really bizarre, and you have really gone out on a limb for sure.  Take your nasty words and eat them.  It's shocking to read what you said.  It's horrible to read your hate.

Both of you:

This is an energy research forum and you are supposed to be trying to research energy and understand it at a deeper level.  The vast majority of the information on the web is a layperson's description of resonance and they never even discuss the mechanism of the resonance and how the resonant frequency is determined.  It's typically only when you look at the electrical definition of resonance will they discuss this stuff in more detail.

The "natural oscillation frequency" and the "resonant frequency" are synonymous.  The natural oscillation frequency is the resonant frequency.  When you watch a clip where they break a wine glass and say "this is resonance" they are keeping it simple for lay people, and many times they use the same language in a beginner's physics classes.  What they are really saying is "This is a demonstration of (the phenomenon of) resonance" where what is actually resonating is the wine glass itself due to external stimulation.  If you take away the external stimulation the wine glass continues to resonate.

Yes, you can extend the definition of "resonance" to one system driving another system into resonance because it is being excited at its natural frequency.  One word can have multiple meanings.  But in the context of this discussion on this forum, we are "smart enough" to understand that we can do away with the classic demonstration of resonance, and the lay person's definition of resonance, because we want to look at what resonance really is, not how you demonstrate the phenomenon to an introductory junior college science class.

You look at the vast majority of these resonance demonstration clips and they do not discuss the actual mechanism of the resonance, or how the resonant frequency (a.k.a. "natural oscillation frequency") is actually determined.  All that they do is sweep a frequency to find the resonant frequency, or show how driving a resonant system at the resonant frequency elicits a resonant response from the system.  But in this thread we took the fact that the wine glass was resonating as a given, something struck it before we started looking at it and observing it in resonance, and we are trying to understand the how and why of the resonance itself, not that you can demonstrate it by stimulating the wine glass at the right frequency or striking it.

To quote Poynt99 from posting #2009, "In fact a resonant system is resonant regardless if it is resonating or not."

So you two guys have to put your thinking caps on.  I don't have any issue with the definition of "resonance" as the lay's person's definition which is a demonstration of the phenomenon of resonance by making a wine glass shatter or even for introductory physics demonstrations where "resonance" is defined as when one tuning fork induces "natural frequency oscillations" in a second tuning fork.  But the true definition of "resonance" or a "system in resonance" is exactly like I defined it, and even my definition was only very basic and not hard-core technical with equations and all that stuff.

Now if you guys are going to disagree with all of this and stick to the layperson's definition of resonance (or you can call it another definition in the list of meanings of the word "resonance") then you are missing the boat and being willfully ignorant of another more scientific and precise definition of resonance.  And that was the whole point of this exercise, to get into a more detailed understanding of what a resonating wine glass is really doing so that you could apply that knowledge elsewhere and in your bench experiments.  If you guys continue on along these ridiculous lines are going to shout out "MileHigh is wrong!" then you are just going to continue to be foolish proverbial strutting peacocks that are morally bankrupt that can't see the true answer in front of your noses.

So true resonance has been defined and you should be able to apply that knowledge if you understand it.  You should be able to take the same two wine glass questions and apply them to the swaying skyscrapers after an earthquake or to the Tacoma Narrows bridge.  If you can't do that, then you have simply not gotten it and you should review the wine glass answers and all of the supplementary material that came up in this thread and try to do it for your own benefit.

That's it, I won't be "defending" the definition of resonance anymore or how a wine glass resonates.  You either get it or you don't or you continue with this insane line of "reasoning" and make a spectacle of yourselves.

MileHigh