Who First Described the Phenomenon of Resonance?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lilcupcake
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Harmonic Resonance
AI Thread Summary
Resonance is a phenomenon in physics where a system absorbs more energy at its natural frequency of vibration. The discussion seeks to identify who first described resonance and when it was advocated, but it is clarified that resonance is an observable phenomenon rather than a concept that requires advocacy. The term "harmonic resonance" is mentioned, prompting inquiries about its specific meaning and context. Participants express confusion about the relevance of the topic to the Metaphysics and Epistemology Forum. The conversation emphasizes the need for clarity and specificity in discussing resonance and its implications.
lilcupcake
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I'm researching theory, resonance.
All I found was resonance as the name of phenomena although I need to figure out who and when it was advocated. Does anyone know when resonance was advocated by whom?
I found the term harmonic resonance. Can anyone help me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Please be more specific about what you're looking for.
 
lilcupcake said:
I'm researching theory, resonance.

From the Wikipedia entry on Resonance:

"In physics, resonance is the tendency of a system to absorb more energy when the frequency of the oscillations matches the system's natural frequency of vibration (its resonant frequency) than it does at other frequencies."

All I found was resonance as the name of phenomena although I need to figure out who and when it was advocated. Does anyone know when resonance was advocated by whom?

I'm not sure of what you are looking for. Resonance isn't something that is advocated, it is something that is observed to happen. Asking who advocated resonance is like asking who advocated gravity. Both phenomena exist whether anyone agrees with them or not.

I found the term harmonic resonance. Can anyone help me?

I had not heard of harmonic resonance before, so I Googled it. I found several different types of websites, some of which were pure quackery. Can you be specific about what it is that you found?

Also, was there any special reason you posted this thread in the Metaphysics and Epistemology Forum?
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top