"resonance" hype on BBC news / General Science and Electronics / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Science and Electronics

« Previous topic | Next topic »

"resonance" hype on BBC news

1 2 next

Move Thread

LAN_403

ragnar

Wed Nov 15 2006, 11:57AM

Registered Member #63 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 06:18AM
Location:
Posts: 1425

I consider BBC full of crap, but this article caught my eye:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6129460.stm

wrote ...
The answer the team came up with was "resonance", a phenomenon that causes an object to vibrate when energy of a certain frequency is applied.

"When you have two resonant objects of the same frequency they tend to couple very strongly," Professor Soljacic told the BBC News website.

Blah. =)

Steve Conner

Wed Nov 15 2006, 01:08PM

Registered Member #30 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706

These guys always seem to forget that "long-lived resonance" means high Q and therefore inefficient energy transfer.

Sulaiman

Wed Nov 15 2006, 06:05PM

Registered Member #162 Joined: Mon Feb 13 2006, 10:25AM
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3141

Why do you say that high Q = low efficiency?

Bored Chemist

Wed Nov 15 2006, 06:35PM

Registered Member #193 Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 07:04AM
Location: sheffield
Posts: 1022

I just wonder if, when they wrote
"Although the team has not built and tested a system, computer models and mathematics suggest it will work. " they realised that the weather forecast is also based on computer modeling and that maths sugests it should work.
I'd also like to know what power density/ wavelength of em radiation they are thinking about and how well people (who already worry about cellphones) will react to it.

Conundrum

Wed Nov 15 2006, 07:35PM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4062

Interesting. The physics involved might just work- the frequencies used may just be low enough that it is possible to build a hybrid antenna to efficiently couple energy.

Presumably the idea of using 6.4 MHz is that it is otherwise unused and its harmonics are not anywhere important.

I was about to post this link but someone beat me to it

-A

Bjørn

Wed Nov 15 2006, 11:00PM

Registered Member #27 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 02:20AM
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 2058

I fail to see the science in this thread. The article mentions a device that does not exist with no detailed explanations to question.

Read this:

Understand it, test it, then comment on it.

benbradley

Wed Nov 15 2006, 11:03PM

Registered Member #312 Joined: Mon Mar 13 2006, 01:50AM
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 27

I consider BBC full of crap

Actually, I've had more respect for BBC than other news agencies, until I read this article...

Typically, systems that use electromagnetic radiation, such as radio antennas, are not suitable for the efficient transfer of energy because they scatter energy in all directions, wasting large amounts of it into free space.

Okay, I'll agree this much is true, that's what antennas do and what they're for, but:

To overcome this problem, the team investigated a special class of "non-radiative" objects with so-called "long-lived resonances".

This statement pegs my BS meter.

I already saw the story on slashdot, here's that discussion:

I'd also like to know what power density/ wavelength of em radiation they are thinking about and how well people (who already worry about cellphones) will react to it.

I haven't heard any stories relating to alleged cellphone problems in recent years. An early story over a decade ago said a businessman who used his cellphone all the time died of a brain tumor. If it were because of the phone, I'd think these days there would be hundreds of teens falling over with brain tumors.

I wonder if that could create the opposite problem, making everyone believe new electronic devices must be safe when something might not be. Presuming this technology works, it would be "interesting" if it becomes increasingly more widespread, with many of the newest devices that could ONLY be powered wirelessly, and THEN they find significant health problems at this frequency and power level.

Bjørn

Thu Nov 16 2006, 12:18AM

Registered Member #27 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 02:20AM
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 2058

Do you have any science to back up your BS meter or can I safely delete your post?

Bored Chemist

Thu Nov 16 2006, 06:47AM

Registered Member #193 Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 07:04AM
Location: sheffield
Posts: 1022

If you do, please leave the link to slashdot.

Bjørn

Thu Nov 16 2006, 08:13AM

Registered Member #27 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 02:20AM
Location: Hyperborea
Posts: 2058

You know I would never delete a slashdot link on the General Science and Electronics forum.

I am serious about reading the arxiv document before commenting. Commenting on the BBC article is pointless since it does not contain enough detail to understand the proposed process.

1 2 next

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob