[EM] Explaining resonance to Richard

[Michael Ossipoff]

Richard says:

Michael Ossipoff, you don't seem to take the time to carefully read the
 messages posted here.

In this case it appears that you failed to notice my use of the word
 "component.

[endquote]

Ok, here is what you said:

"Such over-runs are a component of the concept of "resonance" in Physics.
 This over-extended "state" quickly lead to an ever-increasing push
back to center.

[endquote]

You're using the word "resonance" to mean "oscillation". You're
confused about the difference between what resonance is, and what
oscillation is.

As I've already explained to you, "resonance" is about a frequency.
Your "over-runs", displacements opposed by a restoring-force, can
result in oscillation, and are a necessary condition for it.  ...a
"component" of it, if you want to say it that way.

But resonance is a frequency-match between a system's natural
frequency (which I defined for you in a previous post) and the
frequency of an oscillatory driving force.

A system's natural frequency, the frequency at which it would
oscillate without external influence, is sometimes referred to as its
"resonant frequency", for that reason.

If you don't want to admit that you were confused, then suit yourself.

You'd continued:

Yet, overall, the result is an oscillation that
averages out to be centered.

[endquote]

Poorly and confusedly worded.

What you're trying to say is that the average position of an object
that is in harmonic oscillation is at the "center" of the oscillation,
the point toward which the restoring-force acts.


...harmonic oscillation, or any oscillatory motion resulting from a
restoring force whose variation with respect to displacement is
symmetrical about the "center" defined above.


[endquote]

Richard continued;

I have a degree in Physics

[endquote]

That's fine, if true. I was merely commenting about your confusion
regarding the difference between resonance and oscillation.

Mike Ossipoff