Hi,
I've found plenty of information on this topic but as I'm not in this field I perhaps don't know the search terms to use to find the specifics. What I'm trying to find out should be, I would have though, pretty simple.
If you're going to answer this post then you no doubt need to know I've got a basic understanding of the fundamentals here, so there is no need to reference and/or explain at length about materials and frequencies unless absolutely necessary.
I know that when a tuning fork is struck and resonates that an additional tuning fork will also begin to resonate sympathetically.
So, here's what I'm trying to puzzle out in my head, I can't and Google's not being very helpful.
-----
Test 1 ) I get someone to hold a tuning fork in their left hand while I strike a tuning fork, my fork resonates because I struck it and theirs then resonates sympathetically.
Test 2 ) I pass them another fork to hold in their right hand and, for arguments sake, their distance from the fork that I strike and the force which I strike the force with are identical as in Test 1. Both forks now resonate sympathetically.
Question ) Is the resonance occurring in the two forks in Test 2 roughly equal to the resonance occurring in the single fork in Test 1 ?
-----
That's what I'm puzzling and it's bugging me... Any takers ?
resonance , coherence and other
Nobel Prize Lecture, December 12, 1973 by LEO ESAKI.... NEGATIVE RESISTANCE DUE TO RESONANT TRANSMISSION:
nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1973/esaki-lecture.pdf
"coherence domain" and cold fusion Giuliano Preparata:
http://www.newenergytimes.com/v2/views/Group1/Preparata.shtml
Resonance and Bioresonance Interactions in Homeopathic Solutions
Homeopathy â€" How It Works and How It Is Done â€" 6
http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-scientific-research/homeopathy-%E2%80%93-how-it-works-and-how-it-is-done-6/
water crystal
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/water4.php
.....
http://www.tiller.org/
Your question is somewhat ambiguous . Do you mean is the resonance the same in frequency , or the same in amplitude?
Quote from: neptune on March 30, 2011, 07:20:17 AM
Your question is somewhat ambiguous . Do you mean is the resonance the same in frequency , or the same in amplitude?
Yeah, my terminology isn't very good... Sorry. ;)
I know that they'll only resonate in sympathy because the frequency matches and if they didn't match they wouldn't respond.
What I was trying to ask was this, hopefully better explained now.
We have three tuning forks and they are all, for example, 440 Hz.
When two tuning forks are present and one of them is struck the other tuning fork will sympathetically resonate at a given amplitude.
When three tuning forks are present and one of them is struck with exactly the same amount of force will the amplitude of the sympathetic resonance in each of the two other tuning forks be roughly equal to or less than the amplitude of the sympathetic resonance in one additional fork ?
*sigh* Hmmm... Still sounds a bit crap, I'll try a quick summary.
Basically, if you have three forks A, B and C and you strike A will the amplitude of the sympathetic resonance in B & C be roughly equal to each other ? I'm assuming it would.
Remove fork C and strike fork A again with the same amount of force, would the amplitude of the resonance in the remaining fork B be the same as when both B & C were present ?
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.
Originally Posted:
http://thetechjournal.com/science/mit-witricity-team-powers-two-devices-with-wireless-electricity.xhtml
Quote from: wings on March 30, 2011, 07:52:59 AM
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.
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 :)
Quote from: MrMag on March 30, 2011, 08:59:58 AM
Thanks, now I am totally confused :)
Welcome to my world! :D
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.
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 .
Quote from: neptune on March 30, 2011, 01:22:52 PM
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. :)
Quote from: Mr. M on March 30, 2011, 05:48:50 AM
Question) Is the resonance occurring in the two forks in Test 2
roughly equal to the resonance occurring in the single fork in Test 1 ?
That's what I'm puzzling and it's bugging me... Any takers ?
All forks in any test are all interactive to each other in total.
Not only is the #1 tuning fork sympathetic to your inducer tuning fork,
the #2 fork is also sympathetic to the inducer tuning fork,
and #1 and #2 are interactively sympathetic to each other too.
All resonant objects are interactive to each other.
Any one of the three can be the one that's struck,
the other two will follow suit and will resonate too.
It is the #1 verses #2 distance from the prime mover,
hence the resultant phasing that complicates it a lot.
Oddly, you can have two forks or two hundred forks,
the loading does not increase upon the prime mover.
That is where an unanswered question seems to occur...
I hate that this answer seems so obvious,
is there a hidden element to your question ?
Sounds like your trying to study SVP perhaps ?
(Sympathetic Vibratory Physics)
http://www.frankgermano.net/svp.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9125003792513982191
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5430570751600484561
Quote from: CompuTutor on April 01, 2011, 01:53:30 AM
I hate that this answer seems so obvious,
is there a hidden element to your question ?
Sounds like your trying to study SVP perhaps ?
(Sympathetic Vibratory Physics)
http://www.frankgermano.net/svp.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9125003792513982191
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5430570751600484561
Thanks for the links, I'll read through those and the others mentioned previously over the weekend.
Yeah, there are hidden elements to what I'm asking and so far I've just been asking about a few things that I thought were correct and suspected I had got right... Which it looks like I have, so far anyway.
I know a bit about constructive and destructive interference, as well as phase shifting, but I don't know enough about that to ask questions without sounding like a complete idiot... So more reading is required.
I'm not so much thinking about striking the fork once, as I alluded to above. I suppose the long and short of what I'm wondering and the most complicated answer I'm looking for so far is this :
Q : As resonance can be built up over time would striking the prime mover repeatedly while it is resonating, granted this would need to be perfectly timed which is why I mentioned an actuator, increase the amplitude of the resonance occurring in the other forks until they reached roughly the same amplitude as the prime mover or would the amplitude in the other forks never exceed that which occurred from the initial strike ?
EG: Strike a 30hz tuning fork and make it resonate, the amplitude in another tuning fork of the same frequency is less than the amplitude in the first fork. Strike the fork again while it is resonating without damping the resonance, does the amplitude of the resonance in the second fork increase past that which was induced from the initial strike ?
A : ?So, that's it really... If the answer is "Yes, it would increase over time" then... Well... I think that's pretty cool.
Mr M,
I believe you are starting down the path I did a couple years back.
As did Tesla, Stan Meyer and other brilliants.
Tuning forks demonstrate clearly the effect that Sympathetic Vibrations can lead out molecular motion energy.
In short the definition of Sound Resonance is as follows.
The Intensification and Prolongation of Sound Waves due to Sympathetic Vibration, exspecially Musical Tone.
So you end up with more energy in 2 ways...
1. A more intense sound wave has more energy.
2. A longer sound wave has more energy.
Where does it (the extra energy) come from?
It comes from the molecular motion that was random..
which becomes ordered (at just one frequency, like finding a needle in a haystack)
...which then bleeds out energy into the external environment.
Another example is an Acoustic Guitar which is 1000 times louder than an Electric Guitar and rings longer to boot !
I admire you for considering this.
Best Regards,
The Observer.
Mr. M,
You may want to read the debate thread I have with MileHigh at overunityreseach.com.
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=771.0
Mathematically, I proved that the kinetic energy of air molecules can be brought-in via the tuning forks in resonance. I simplified the picture with balls and pistons.
The brief summary is:
1. Ball B1 at velocity 1000 units is travelling in the +X direction and collides with a Piston moving at 100 units in the â€"X direction. The Piston is 1 million times heavier than the Ball B1.
2. From the Laws of Conservation of Momentum and Energy, we can find out the resulting velocities of the Ball and the Piston. In this case, Ball B1 will bounce back and travel at 1200 units in the â€"X direction while the Piston will be slowed down to 99.9978 units in the â€"X direction.
3. In other words, the Ball B1 gains kinetic energy from the Piston and moves faster in the â€"X direction. This is simple Physics and the mathematics in that thread clearly demonstrated the absolute truth.
4. Now we have another Ball B2 travelling on the other side of the Piston. It travels at 1000 units in the-X direction and collides with the Piston at 100 units in the â€"X direction. In other words, this Ball B2 hits the Piston from behind.
5. Again, we apply the Laws of Conservation of Momentum and Energy, we can find out the resulting velocities of the Ball B2 and the Piston. In this case, Ball B2 will bounce back and travel at 800 units in the +X direction while the Piston will gain velocity to 100.0018 units in the â€"X direction.
6. Now consider the net result of these two collisions. Ball B1 will travel with velocity 1200 units in the â€"X direction. It has gained kinetic energy from the Piston equal to (1200*1200 â€" 1000*1000) or 440000 units. Ball B2 will travel with velocity 800 units in the +X direction. It has given some of its energy to the Piston equal to (1000*1000 â€" 800*800) or 360000 units.
7. The Piston lost 440000 units to Ball B1 but gained back 360000 units from Ball B2. If left alone, the Piston will slowly lose its energy to Balls like B1 and cannot gain all that energy back from Balls like B2. It will slow down and eventually stop.
8. Now if there is another identical tuning fork nearby and at the right distance, this tuning fork will receive a pulsed order of molecules (velocity at 1200 and then 800 and then 1200 etc.). This tuning fork will be pulse-pushed into sympathetic vibration. It will send back a pulsed order of molecules back to the first tuning fork. If the positions are correct, the first tuning fork will gain more energy than it loses! This is true if we place a third, fourth….nth tuning fork. The resulting sound will be louder and last longer.
9. If we place the tuning forks in a resonance chamber, the molecules similar to Balls B1 will be bounced back by the walls. The resulting sound can be even louder and last even longer. (This experiment can be done in multiple universities with echo chambers now. The two tuning fork experiment has been done thousands of times as it is the standard experiment in High School Physics.)
10. In other words, the tuning forks are OPEN Systems. Energy can flow out (carried away by B1 type Balls). Energy can flow in (brought-in by B2 type Balls). The vibration actually changed the random molecular motion into a pulsed ordered. (As pointed out by Observer). This pulsed ordered of molecular motion can do work (e.g. excite other tuning forks). The energy comes from the kinetic energy of the molecules!
11. Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy are obeyed. But the key point is that the tuning fork setup is an OPEN system. Energy can flow in and out. Thus we cannot draw a closed box around the tuning fork systems and say that all interactions occur there. Sound can theoretically travel to huge distances.
12. If you want, you can join the debate as a General Public. http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=772.0
Once you understood and checked out the mathematics, you can proclaim that you can use Newtonian Physics to verify and confirm that kinetic energy of gas molecules can be brought-in at resonance. Two or more identical tuning forks placed appropriately can indeed sound louder and longer. The extra sound intensity and duration represent more energy. That energy is not just from striking the first tuning fork. That extra energy is also from the kinetic energy of the air molecules.
I treat this as Divine Revelation. I did not invent the tuning fork or any of the musical instruments with resonance chambers. This can be compared with Jesus turning water into wine. I just taste and serve the wine (do the mathematics and post on Internet). The Miracle of solving the World Energy Crisis is being done by the Almighty. Amen.
Hi,
The synchronicity of this posting along with my own mention of sympathetic vibrations yesterday caught my eye.
When I think of tuning forks I think fluid dynamics. The initiating fork or prime mover fork will propagate sound waves in all directions in a spherical system because a sphere is the most energy efficient shape.
The medium of transmission of the propagating energy is also important and contributes to the dampening effect of the vibrations.
Tuning forks are a solid with a low vibrational rate, the transmission medium of the vibratory waves is air which is a mixture of gases, and has a higher vibratory rate compared to a solid.
The tuning forks will have wave amplitudes that will either cancel or reinforce each other to varying degrees.
The problem with getting many tuning forks to reinforce there amplitudes is that they are all part of the same system, and so one will affect the others vibrations.
Without being able to “see†the energy waves geometric shape it is very difficult to tune the system.
One way that we can see sound waves is like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf0t4qIVWF4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwMq8mmqgQ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI6S5CS-6JI&feature=related
My favourite of those 3 videos is the first one as it shows how you can take a 2D slice through the event and “see†clearly the geometric shapes formed at specific frequencies.
The liquids videos are also good as the surface of the water allows you to see amplitude spikes.
So, If you can imagine those waves propagating out at 360 degrees in 3D then the problem with “tuning†a multiple tuning forks system becomes apparent. Even minor frequency differences between forks will create interference patterns that will dampen the oscillation, as the natural tendency of any system in motion is to trend to Zero unless acted on by an outside force.
The other problem with tuning forks is that the fork shape itself is not optimal for creating a stable wavefront, that will propagate energy waves equally, adding to the tuning problems.
There may be some other options for pursuing this phenomenon though.
In the 2D slice video we see a solid board sitting on top of a speaker cone, which allows us to see the waveforms at changing frequencies.
Now, if you were to mount a thick walled acrylic tube on top of the speaker cone then you could enhance the guiding of the sound wave down the inside of the tube.
Multiple resonating boards mounted inside the tube and taking a resonant 2D slice would show you the frequency of oscillation at different time components of the wave propagation through the tube, this would be because you could control the linear distance one board was from the next.
In this way you would be able to visually see a waveform in harmonic balance and tune the boards relatively easily considering the nature of the feedback.
Once you had all the boards tuned you could change the frequency and see how that affects all the boards as a unit. The other option is of course liquid, which will not show you the geometric shape of the waveform, but will show you amplitude.
So, if you had say 4 liquid dishes in the tube, and you found the correct linear spacing so that the sound waves were reinforcing through linear time then you would see an increase in amplitude of the spikes.
I guess the goal would be to create as violent a reaction as possible at the end of the tube, and then tap that violent oscillating torque motion.
The examples of the bridges that distort along longitudinal length until the stress exceeds the mechanical abilities of the materials and the bridge shakes itself apart.
There are different ways to induce this, the millennium bridge in the UK had this problem when they built it. It was violently twisting when lots of people walked on it, and the small impulses of their foot falls were being absorbed into one large standing wave that was reinforcing itself and creating the oscillation.
They solved the problem by placing a dampening load on the oscillation. They used huge “spoons†in a bath of highly viscous oil in a tank at either end of the bridge. This absorbed the energy and transferred it to the oil.
So if we can find a way to artificially induce an oscillation in a mechanical system, that creates phase and anti-phase torque ripples, then that torque can be tapped. However there may be a limit to the amount of energy that can be extracted, due to an excessive dampening effect killing the oscillation.
So I guess we are trying to set a system in violent self sustaining motion, increase the violence of the motion by tuning the waveforms to reinforce, then use a dampening effect to tap that energy, but without killing the resonant harmonics. Quite a tricky balancing act.
Good Luck, it is a very interesting subject! :)
RM :)
My primary studies have been pyramid research where sympathetic resonance is intensely debated.
In pyramid research, several studies suggest that the angle of phi whether expressed geometrically or as an acoustic frequency appears to produce an intensified response in the aetheric field. The angle of phi relative to a horizontal maximum is 51.287 degrees and responds to 51 hertz, while the angle of phi relative to a vertical maximum is 72.5 degrees and responds to 72 hertz. Theoretically, either phi resonant frequency may result in an intensified resonant field.
My guess is if you could oscillate your tuning forks to either 51 hertz or 72 hertz, the resonant response in the tuning forks would eventually intensify simply because the aetheric field appears to intensify in sympathy to the resonance of phi. Ultimately, the aether is the carrier by which resonant fields travel.