RE: (Fwd) RE: Longitudinal Waves

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Malcolm Watts by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <m.j.watts-at-massey.ac.nz>

Hi Dave,
         The answer to your question below is quite simple, but first:

On 15 Feb 2002, at 18:41, Tesla list wrote:

> Original poster: "David Thomson by way of Terry Fritz
<twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <dave-at-volantis-dot-org>
> 
> Hi Pete,
> 
> Your explanation is helpful.  At what point of the cycle is new energy
> added?  We know there are losses in the system, so at some point the energy
> has to be replaced, correct?
> 
> I'm going to jump ahead of your answer, because I can't see how energy would
> be efficiently added gradually through the entire cycle, it must be added as
> a pulse at a given time.

The fact that you don't see how does not mean that it doesn't happen. 
In fact the energy exchange is a continuous process with the tiniest 
of time delays between the pusher and pushed.
 
> Most likely, just a guess, this energy will be added shortly after the
> magnetic field begins to collapse in either one or both places in the cycle.
> 
> If the energy is added in just one point of the cycle, then due to the
> gradual decay in the sine wave (resistance) there will be a slightly higher
> voltage in the cycle just after the added pulse than just before the added
> pulse.
> 
> Am I correct?
> 
> Whether my assumption is correct or not, that is what I had intended to
> convey the first time.
> 
> Now when I see a perfect sine wave floating across the screen, and I know
> due to the laws of nature that there must be resistance in the circuit, I
> should be seeing a slight bump somewhere in the sine wave.  But I don't see
> it.  Was it smoothed out by the oscilloscope?

The answer to that last question is as I've said previously; your 
suspicions about the oscilloscope are wrong. 
     
    Are the "laws" established laws, verified and agreed as having 
been verified by the scientific community? If not and they do not 
agree with observation (or vice versa), which would you be the first 
to suspect?

Regards,
Malcolm
><snip>