pinestone
- 140
- 3
I'm not quite sure if this thread belongs here, but what would you call one wave that has no frequency. Zero Hz? A mobius ?
The discussion revolves around the concept of a wave with no frequency, exploring theoretical implications and interpretations. Participants consider various types of waves, including standing waves and static fields, and engage in a debate about the nature of frequency in wave phenomena.
Participants do not reach a consensus on the nature of a wave with no frequency. Multiple competing views are presented, with ongoing debate about the definitions and implications of frequency in wave theory.
Some participants express uncertainty regarding the implications of zero frequency and its relation to established physical principles, such as the uncertainty principle. There are also references to the limitations of the original question due to the lack of a clear mathematical framework or visual representation.
Yes, I see- a wave that does not have an iteration (due to reflection) appears to be motionless within a frame of time.Pengwuino said:... standing wave. It has a frequency but the frequency and motion of the wave are such that the wave does appear to move.
Is there a specific static field that can be described as having a moebius form?Tide said:How about calling it a "static field?"
pinestone said:Is there a specific static field that can be described as having a moebius form?
Before we can answer the question, we need to see the equation for this "wave" amplitude vs. time. Can you post what you mean?pinestone said:I'm not quite sure if this thread belongs here, but what would you call one wave that has no frequency. Zero Hz? A mobius ?![]()
I'm not using an equation. It is a visible image.berkeman said:Before we can answer the question, we need to see the equation for this "wave" amplitude vs. time. Can you post what you mean?
Well, can you write an equation for it so we can "see" it too? Or else attach a JPG picture of it?pinestone said:I'm not using an equation. It is a visible image.
I can't tell you much without making my patent lawyer upset. I will have plenty of images and a great description of my invention on my website within a couple of weeks.berkeman said:Well, can you write an equation for it so we can "see" it too? Or else attach a JPG picture of it?
I guess we will all have to wait...chroot said:You're not going to get meaningful answers with a meaningless question and a meaningless picture, pinestone.
- Warren
Some things you just can't rush intochroot said:If your patent lawyer knew what he was doing, he could file a provisional patent application for you in a matter of hours. This would establish a first filing date and immeditely begin providing legal protection. Then you could share your project's details without fear of legal problems.
Otherwise, I'm afraid your questions and picture are entirely non-sensical.
- Warren
I do know how the process works, that is why we are doing it right the first time. My last patent cost me a small fortune because the patent office wasn't satisfied the first couple of times around. It must be nice using someone elses lab and resources. Kinda like living at home with momchroot said:I take it you don't know how to the patent process works, then. Patents are all about rushing.
- Warren
Because I tried to rush it through and there were some questionable items. ($2000.00 extra, each time).chroot said:And why wasn't the patent office satisfied with your previous applications?
- Warren
It won't be a secret much longer. Thanks for the advice.chroot said:We have people like you on here pretty frequently, pinestone... the sort who don't seem to know even basic physics or mathematics, yet have some incredible new secret invention in the works, patent pending, with which they need help. My advice: pick up a copy of Resnick and Halliday.
- Warren
pinestone said:It won't be a secret much longer. Thanks for the advice.
No, really- thanks for the advice. I found the entire book on-line. It's quite comprehensive and will be quite helpful to me.chroot said:I wait with bated breath.
- Warren
A stationary wave would be traveling at the speed of light.pallidin said:Zero Hz directly implies "no frequency" of polarity change. This is called DC, or "direct current"
Wait...what?pinestone said:A stationary wave would be traveling at the speed of light.
Yes. Very well, indeed.Manchot said:Here's a question for you, Pinestone. Does your invention actually work?