Scientific Debate with MileHigh - participants and moderator only

[ltseung888]

This is the thread for the scientific debate with MileHigh.  It is for invited participants and modertor only.  All others will be moved to the "Public Thread."

The subject of the debate is:

Lawrence Tseung (LT) claims that he can use pure Newtonian Mechanics to conclusively demonstrate that the kinetic energy of air molecules can be brought-in at sound resonance in air.  In other words, the random motion of the air molecules can be changed into a pulsed order.  That pulsed order can do work.  The energy used to do work comes from the kinetic energy of the air molecules.  MileHigh (MH) proposes that such is impossible.

We shall invite actual Physics Professors, Mathematicians etc. to validate every equation used.

Implication of the debate

If what is claimed by Lawrence Tseung is true, kinetic energy of air molecules can be brought-in at sound resonance, then:
1.   We may be able to bring-in the almost inexhaustible air energy without wind anywhere on Earth.
2.   There will be a new understanding of resonance – external energy is brought-in at sound resonance.  Can external energy (electron motion energy) be brought-in via electrical (LCR) resonance?
3.   Is the tuning fork setup an OPEN system?  Are many of the claimed OU devices OPEN systems?  If so, energy can flow in and out.  The common objection that such claims violate the Law of Conservation of Energy cannot apply.

I shall let MH start first.

[MileHigh]

Hi Lawrence,

1.  No energy can be gained from the Brownian motion of air molecules.  The movement is random and therefore self-canceling in nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

2.  Resonance is fully understood already.  LCR resonance cannot "bring in" external energy.  It's just a fantasy on your part with no theoretical basis and no experimental evidence.

3.  The terms "open system" and "closed system" are almost meaningless concepts that are often mentioned on the free energy forums.  "Open system" implies that energy can mysteriously come from "somewhere else" without ever defining the form of the energy or where it is supposed to come from.  Therefore, no, energy cannot "flow in and out."  One more time, that is a meaningless concept.  Energy in from where?  Energy out to where?  What form of energy?  These questions are never answered.

To answer your question about the tuning fork using your questionable terminology, a tuning fork is a closed system.  It doesn't being in any energy from "elsewhere," you have to strike it to make it start vibrating.

The truth is that you can look at a system and deduce how energy flows through the system and how it gets transformed.  Then you can make measurements to confirm your deductions.  This has nothing to do with "open vs. closed" but rather it has everything to do with the reality of how the world actually works.

MileHigh

[ltseung888]

Hi Lawrence,

1.  No energy can be gained from the Brownian motion of air molecules.  The movement is random and therefore self-canceling in nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

2.  Resonance is fully understood already.  LCR resonance cannot "bring in" external energy.  It's just a fantasy on your part with no theoretical basis and no experimental evidence.

3.  The terms "open system" and "closed system" are almost meaningless concepts that are often mentioned on the free energy forums.  "Open system" implies that energy can mysteriously come from "somewhere else" without ever defining the form of the energy or where it is supposed to come from.  Therefore, no, energy cannot "flow in and out."  One more time, that is a meaningless concept.  Energy in from where?  Energy out to where?  What form of energy?  These questions are never answered.

To answer your question about the tuning fork using your questionable terminology, a tuning fork is a closed system.  It doesn't being in any energy from "elsewhere," you have to strike it to make it start vibrating.

The truth is that you can look at a system and deduce how energy flows through the system and how it gets transformed.  Then you can make measurements to confirm your deductions.  This has nothing to do with "open vs. closed" but rather it has everything to do with the reality of how the world actually works.

MileHigh

Dear MH,

Since this is a focused debate, we do not need to address all issues in a single reply.  I shall focus on the first point – motion of air molecules in this reply.

You quoted the term – "Brownian motion" – to show that air molecules do move and hence possess kinetic energy.  Your reference – Brownian motion (named after Robert Brown, who first observed the motion in 1827, when he examined pollen grains in water) stated that the air molecules move with random motion. I fully agree with that.

The more in depth theory dealing with molecular motion is the Kinetic Theory of Gases as taught in Physics or Chemistry classes in High School.  A simple reference is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory

Now I shall address the key substance of our debate – can a vibrating tuning fork change the random motion of the molecules into a pulsing order?  Can that pulsing order do work?  If so, can I conclusively prove mathematically that the energy to do work comes from the kinetic energy of the air molecules?

If I start with the trillions of randomly moving molecules in my head, I would be totally confused.  Thus I start with the very simple model (and improve later) with the following assumptions:

1.   Only one ball (representing a molecule) is involved in the collision with the oscillating piston (vibrating tuning fork).

2.   The ball B1 is moving in the +X direction with velocity Ms.  The mass of the ball is Mb.

3.   The piston is moving in the –X direction with velocity Ps.  The mass of the piston is Mp.

4.   The collision is elastic – meaning that no energy is changed into heat, sound or deformation.

5.   The motion is restricted to the X axis only. 

6.   After collision, the ball B1 will move in the –X direction with velocity M1s.  The piston will still move in the –X direction with velocity P1s.

7.   The ratio of mass of piston to ball is Y.

Once I use the above assumptions, the problem is greatly simplified.  There are two Laws that must be obeyed – namely the Law of Conservation of Momentum and the Law of Conservation of Energy.  Momentum is the product of mass time velocity and is a vector quantity (meaning direction must be taken into account).  Energy in this case is the kinetic energy = 0.5*m*v*v.  (I use the symbol * as the multiplication sign and v*v as the square of v).

With the above assumption, the Law of Conservation of Momentum states that the momentum before collision must be equal to the momentum after collision.  Thus we have equation (1)

Mb*Ms – Mp*Ps = -Mb*M1s – Mp*P1s    (the +ve and –ve signs are very important)

The Law of Conservation of Energy states that the kinetic energy before collision must be equal to the kinetic energy after collision.  Thus we have equation (2)

0.5*Mb*Ms*Ms + 0.5*Mp*Ps*Ps = 0.5*Mb*M1s*M1s + 0.5*Mp*P1s*P1s

I shall pause here so that our moderator(s) can check and confirm the correctness of these two equations.  In here, we are dealing strictly with Newtonian Mechanics.  The equations cannot be wrong.  (If they are wrong, Newtonian Mechanics is wrong!)

@MH, I hope that you follow the physics and mathematics so far.  You are welcome to comment.  (With Physics and Mathematics, once lost, the remaining discussion would be meaningless.)

God provides the Divine Revelations.  Physicists interpret them for the masses.  It can be compared to Jesus turned water into wine.  The Physicists tasted the wine and poured them out to the masses.  Amen.

[MileHigh]

Lawrence:

You are basically repeating what I said the other day and it looks fine.  You have two unknowns and two equations so it should be solvable.

Let's talk about some simplified results.

1) If the ball and the piston are of equal mass then they will act like billiard balls on a frictionless surface and bounce off of each other.

2) If the piston is of infinite mass then the ball will bounce off if it and gain an increase in velocity if the piston is moving.

3) If the ball is a small mass and the piston is a large mass then the ball will still bounce off of the piston.  However, some of the energy in the ball will be transferred into the piston.  This means the ball will reverse direction but with slightly less velocity as in case 2 above.  By the same token the piston will have slowed down very slightly.

Certainly a formula could be derived for case 3.  In all three cases energy is conserved and nothing special is going on.

MileHigh

[ltseung888]

Lawrence:

You are basically repeating what I said the other day and it looks fine.  You have two unknowns and two equations so it should be solvable.

Let's talk about some simplified results.

1) If the ball and the piston are of equal mass then they will act like billiard balls on a frictionless surface and bounce off of each other.

2) If the piston is of infinite mass then the ball will bounce off if it and gain an increase in velocity if the piston is moving.

3) If the ball is a small mass and the piston is a large mass then the ball will still bounce off of the piston.  However, some of the energy in the ball will be transferred into the piston.  This means the ball will reverse direction but with slightly less velocity as in case 2 above.  By the same token the piston will have slowed down very slightly.

Certainly a formula could be derived for case 3.  In all three cases energy is conserved and nothing special is going on.

MileHigh

Dear MH,

I assume that you do not challenge the validity of the two equations.  We can have PhysicsProf and others to verify them later. 

Once we have the two equations, we can then use them to examine the various cases scientifically. 

You raised three special cases. 
In case 1, the ball and the piston are of equal mass.  Let us assume that the ball is moving and the piston is stationary initially.  The two equations then predict:

Mb*Ms – Mp*Ps = -Mb*M1s – Mp*P1s    .......(1)
Mb*Ms – Mb* 0 = -Mb*M1s –Mb*P1s
Ms = -M1s –P1s                                           .......(1a)   

0.5*Mb*Ms*Ms + 0.5*Mp*Ps*Ps = 0.5*Mb*M1s*M1s + 0.5*Mp*P1s*P1s......(2)
0.5*Mb*Ms*Ms + 0 = 0.5*Mb*M1s*M1s + 0.5*Mb*P1s*P1s
Ms*Ms = M1s*M1s + P1s*P1s                                                                          .....(2a)

The value of M1s and P1s that satisfy both equations are
M1s = 0 and P1s = -Ms

Noting that P1s was assumed to be in the –X direction, if P1s is negative, the direction will then be in the +X direction.

*** Thus the equations predict that after an elastic collision, the ball will be stationary and the piston will acquire the velocity of the ball and move in the +X direction.  Is this the result of a direct hit on a billiard ball with no spin?

*** In other words, the ball and the piston will NOT bounce off each other.  The ball will be stationary and the piston will travel with the original velocity of the ball!

Please digest the above result carefully.  I shall discuss case 2 and case 3 in separate posts.  You will find many surprises!

The human mind is limited.  It cannot imagine and achieve the correct result every time.  We must rely on the vigorous Physics and Mathematics.  So please do not make wild statements based on your 'logical mind'.  Whenever possible, use vigorous Physics and Mathematics.

God provided the Divine Revelations.  Men must be trained to tell the difference between water and wine (bad wine and good wine).  They can then inform the general public and serve the wine to them.

[ltseung888]

Lawrence:

You are basically repeating what I said the other day and it looks fine.  You have two unknowns and two equations so it should be solvable.

Let's talk about some simplified results.

1) If the ball and the piston are of equal mass then they will act like billiard balls on a frictionless surface and bounce off of each other.

2) If the piston is of infinite mass then the ball will bounce off if it and gain an increase in velocity if the piston is moving.

3) If the ball is a small mass and the piston is a large mass then the ball will still bounce off of the piston.  However, some of the energy in the ball will be transferred into the piston.  This means the ball will reverse direction but with slightly less velocity as in case 2 above.  By the same token the piston will have slowed down very slightly.

Certainly a formula could be derived for case 3.  In all three cases energy is conserved and nothing special is going on.

MileHigh

Dear MH,

Let us focus your case (2) – you assumed that the piston is of infinite mass ...and that it is moving.  This assumption is faulty in the following sense.

1.   If the mass of the piston is infinite and moving, the momentum and the energy of the piston must also be infinite.  This is physically impossible.
2.   Mathematically, once an infinite term (or a divide by zero term) appears, that equation is considered indeterminate.  (Not possible to determine the result).

Thus I do not even need to consider this case.
However, I can consider the case when the piston is NOT moving before and after the collision.  In this particular case, the ball will bounce back with same speed but in opposite direction.  Mathematically, we have momentum for the piston equal to
= infinite mass * zero velocity = 0.  The same applies to kinetic energy of the piston.  Thus the only equation for the ball to obey is the Law of Conservation of energy.
0.5*Mb*Ms*Ms = 0.5*Mb*(-Ms)*(-Ms)

Hope you can follow the physics and mathematics of this case.  An impossible assumption can be detected from the vigorous scientific equations.

God provides the Divine Revelations.  Men must use intelligence, physics and mathematics to understand them.  Amen

[ltseung888]

Lawrence:

You are basically repeating what I said the other day and it looks fine.  You have two unknowns and two equations so it should be solvable.

Let's talk about some simplified results.

1) If the ball and the piston are of equal mass then they will act like billiard balls on a frictionless surface and bounce off of each other.

2) If the piston is of infinite mass then the ball will bounce off if it and gain an increase in velocity if the piston is moving.

3) If the ball is a small mass and the piston is a large mass then the ball will still bounce off of the piston.  However, some of the energy in the ball will be transferred into the piston.  This means the ball will reverse direction but with slightly less velocity as in case 2 above.  By the same token the piston will have slowed down very slightly.

Certainly a formula could be derived for case 3.  In all three cases energy is conserved and nothing special is going on.

MileHigh

Dear MH,

I shall now focus on the interesting case (3).  I shall separate case (3) into two parts.  The first part is that the ball moves in the +X direction and that the piston moves in the –X direction.  In other words, they are moving towards each other.

In the attached spreadsheet titled – Simplified Model 1 – the two equations are incorporated and solved in the computer modeling format.  

The initial assumptions are:
1.  Molecule velocity before collision      =1000      In +X direction
2.  Piston velocity before collision      =100      In -X direction
3. Ratio of Piston mass/molecule mass   =1000000      
4. Piston velocity after collision      =99.9978   to be varied in -X direction

The technique used is to vary 4 until the velocity of the Ball as calculated by the two equations are equal.  
5. Molecule velocity after collision      =1200    from conservation of momentum
6. Molecule velocity after collision       =1199.997983     from conservation of energy

The correct answer from the two equations using the initial assumptions is that:
 The velocity of the Piston is slightly slowed down to 99.9978 in –X direction
 The velocity of the Ball is increase to 1200 units in the –X direction.

In other words, the Ball bounces with a higher velocity (1200 compared with 1000) after collision with a heavy Piston moving towards it.  The Piston slows down slightly (99.9978 as compared with 100).

This means that some energy from the Piston is transferred to the Ball so that the Ball bounces back faster.  This contradicts your statement that the ball will bounce back with slightly less velocity.  

If you play tennis or watch tennis, you will find that you can return the ball faster if the opponent hits a faster ball towards you.  You are using some of the kinetic energy supplied by your opponent!

I shall discuss the second part in the next post.

Do not be upset when your statements are overturned by vigorous physics and mathematics.  It is a good learning process.  The World will benefit together.  Amen

[ltseung888]

Lawrence:

You are basically repeating what I said the other day and it looks fine.  You have two unknowns and two equations so it should be solvable.

Let's talk about some simplified results.

1) If the ball and the piston are of equal mass then they will act like billiard balls on a frictionless surface and bounce off of each other.

2) If the piston is of infinite mass then the ball will bounce off if it and gain an increase in velocity if the piston is moving.

3) If the ball is a small mass and the piston is a large mass then the ball will still bounce off of the piston.  However, some of the energy in the ball will be transferred into the piston.  This means the ball will reverse direction but with slightly less velocity as in case 2 above.  By the same token the piston will have slowed down very slightly.

Certainly a formula could be derived for case 3.  In all three cases energy is conserved and nothing special is going on.

MileHigh

Dear MH,

I shall now focus on the second part of case 3.  The ball moves in the +X direction and that the piston also moves in the+X direction.  In other words, the Piston is moving away from the Ball at the time of collision.

In the attached spreadsheet titled – Simplified Model 2 – the two equations are incorporated and solved in the computer modeling format. 

The initial assumptions are:
1.  Molecule velocity before collision      =1000      In +X direction
2.  Piston velocity before collision      =100      In +X direction
3. Ratio of Piston mass/molecule mass   =1000000      
4. Piston velocity after collision      =100.0018   to be varied in +X direction

The technique used is to vary 4 until the velocity of the Ball as calculated by the two equations are equal. 
5. Molecule velocity after collision      =800    from conservation of momentum
6. Molecule velocity after collision       =799.998     from conservation of energy

The correct answer from the two equations using the initial assumptions is that:
  The velocity of the Piston is increased slightly to 100.0018 in the +X direction
  The velocity of the Ball is decreased to 800 units in the –X direction.

In other words, the Ball bounces with a lower velocity (800 compared with 1000) after collision with a heavy Piston moving away from it.  The Piston speeds up slightly (100.0018 as compared with 100).

This means that some energy from the Ball is transferred to the Piston! 

These results have extremely important implications.  I shall pause and discuss the implications in later posts.

God wants us to work hard and pay attention in Physics and Mathematics Lectures.    Amen

[ltseung888]

Dear MH,

I shall now focus on the extremely important implications of the equations and their results.


I shall use the Two Balls picture.  That combines the result of a Ball B1 moving towards the approaching Piston and another Ball B2 moving towards the receding Piston.

1.   With Ball B1, after the collision, it bounces back in the –X direction with a higher velocity (1200 units).  There is a gain in kinetic energy.  The energy comes from the Piston.  This is a Newtonian result from the two equations in the simplified model 1. 

2.   With Ball B2, after the collision, it bounces back in the +X direction with a lower velocity (800 units).  There is a loss of kinetic energy.  Where does this kinetic energy go?  It goes to the Piston!

3.   In other words, the Piston uses some of its energy to move Ball B1 faster.  It gains back most of that energy from the Ball B2 that "hits it at the back".

4.   I shall go into the mathematics in the next post.  Now, the equations when applied to the two balls picture tell us the secret behind the Revelation.  The Piston uses some of its energy to move B1 faster.  That should not be a surprise.  The big surprise is that it gains most of that energy back from the Ball B2 that "hits it from behind".

5.   The random Brownian motion theory says that – on average, the effect cancels out.  There is the same likelihood of a molecule hitting the tuning fork from the +X direction as one hitting it from the –X direction.  In this simplified model, I let Ball B1 hit the Piston from the LHS  and the Ball B2 hit the Piston from the RHS.

6.   This is the mathematics and Physics behind the Lead-out or Bring-in Energy theory.  Energy is applied to move the Piston.  That will move Ball B1 faster.  The pulsing order is produced (with a faster group of molecules moving in the –X direction).  Energy is brought-in from Ball B2 (with a slower group of molecules bouncing off in the +X direction).

7.   When the tuning fork vibrates, a group of molecules move faster in the –X direction.  At the same time, a group of molecules will move slower in the +X direction.  When the vibration changes direction, the reverse happens.

8.   The energy used to produce this pulse order comes both from the tuning fork and from the kinetic energy of the air molecules.  (I shall mathematically calculate their values in the next post).  This pulse order of molecular motion can easily excite other identical tuning forks (or do useful work).

The secret of tuning forks in sympathetic vibration is revealed.  Every detail is shown and mathematically proven.  Resonance is the Key to demonstrating and extracting the Lead-out or Bring-in energy.

God's Divine Revelation may need Physicists and Mathematicians to interpret for the General Public. The Holy Wine needed someone to taste first and then pour out to the Guests.  Amen

[ltseung888]

Dear MH,

Now, I shall discuss the energy supplied verses the energy bring-in mathematics.

Let us focus on the two ball example again. The increase in kinetic energy of ball B1 = 0.5*Mb*1200*1200 – 0.5*Mb*1000*1000
= 0.5*Mb*1440000 – 0.5*Mb*1000000
= 0.5*Mb*440000

The decrease in kinetic energy of ball B2
= 0.5*Mb*800*800 – 0.5*Mb*1000*1000
= 0.5*Mb*640000 – 0.5*Mb*1000000
= -0.5*Mb*360000

The net energy change in the two balls together is
= 0.5*Mb*440000 – 0.5*Mb*360000
= 0.5*Mb*80000

Since Energy is conserved as a whole, the Piston must have a loss of energy
= - 0.5*Mb*80000

Let us simplify the discussion and drop the 0.5*Mb. The Piston must supply
80,000 units of energy (or energy required to produce pulse order).

Ball B1 gained 440000 units of energy – that gained energy allowed the Ball B1 to move faster and thus do work against another unchanged Ball (at speed 1000 units and kinetic energy at 1000000 units).

Ball B2 lost 360000 units of energy – that lost energy allowed another unchanged Ball (at speed 1000 units and kinetic energy at 100000 units) to do work against it.

Thus the available energy to do work by the two balls together
= 440000 + 360000
= 800,000 units

This means I spent one part energy on the Piston to bring-in ten parts of kinetic energy of the Balls. (Or I spent one part of energy on the tuning fork to bring-in ten parts of kinetic energy of the molecules.) If another tuning fork is placed close by, the reflected (or sympathetic) vibration may act as feedback to the first one. Thus the sound can be much louder and lasts longer.

If there was only one tuning fork, it would slowly use up the striking energy.  If there were two or more tuning forks, the bring-in kinetic energy of the air molecules could be used as feedback to "re-excite" the tuning forks.  This conclusively explains that two or more tuning forks can sound louder and longer than a single tuning fork.

@MH, please raise your questions if you have any doubts on the mathematics and/or the explanations.

@All, please raise your questions and doubts in the thread for the General Public.  Understanding of this first Divine Revelation will help you understand almost all the claimed OU devices.

God provides the Divine Revelation. Physicists and Mathematicians interpret it for the masses. It can be compared to Jesus turned water to wine. The Physicists poured the wine to the masses.  You can be one of those to serve the wine.  Or you can be one to enjoy it.  Knowledge will not diminish with sharing.  Amen.

[ltseung888]

@ltseung888,

How can you or any scientist absolutely confirm that your equations and results are correct?

The easiest way to check whether the solution to an equation is correct is to substitute the results back into the equation.

For example, in equation (1) discussed in reply 4
Mb*Ms – Mp*Ps = -Mb*M1s – Mp*P1s   

Let us substitute the numbers on the LHS (momentum before collision)
Mb*1000 – 1000000Mb*100
= - 99999000*Mb

On the RHS (momentum after collision)
-MB*1200 – 1000000*Mb*99.9978
= - 99999000*Mb

The LHS = RHS (Exactly)

In equation (2)
0.5*Mb*Ms*Ms + 0.5*Mp*Ps*Ps = 0.5*Mb*M1s*M1s + 0.5*Mp*P1s*P1s

On the LHS (Energy before collision)
0.5*Mb*Ms*Ms + 0.5*Mp*Ps*Ps
= 0.5*Mb*1000*1000 + 0.5*1000000*Mb*100*100
= 0.5*Mb* (1000000 + 1000000*100*100)
= 0.5*Mb*10,001,000,000

On the RHS (Energy after collision)
0.5*Mb*M1s*M1s + 0.5*Mp*P1s*P1s
= 0.5*Mb*1200*1200 + 0.5*1000000*Mb*99.9978*99.9978
=0.5*Mb*(1440000 + 9999560005)
= 0.5*Mb*10,001,000,005

The LHS = RHS (with a tiny error due to spreadsheet rounding at 99.9978)

Thus I (or any mathematician) can claim that the solutions to the equations are correct beyond any reasonable doubt.  The results can appear in any top peer-review scientific journal.

Lawrence Tseung
Director
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited (Hong Kong)

[ltseung888]

@ltseung888,

What happens if the velocity of the ball is increased by 50%(from 1000 to 1500)?
What happens if the velocity of the piston is increased by 50%(from 100 to 150)?

Spreadsheets are great in the ease of modification of initial values.  See the two attached modified spreadsheets.  You are encouraged to modify the various values to get a correct "vigorous physics and mathematics feel".  You will then be able to avoid making wrong "logical" statements that violate the Laws of Physics.

When the water has been turned into wine, the server is not important.  All Physicists and Mathematicians will serve the same fine wine (agree on the same result).  Amen.

[ltseung888]

Hi Lawrence,

1.  No energy can be gained from the Brownian motion of air molecules.  The movement is random and therefore self-canceling in nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion

2.  Resonance is fully understood already.  LCR resonance cannot "bring in" external energy.  It's just a fantasy on your part with no theoretical basis and no experimental evidence.

3.  The terms "open system" and "closed system" are almost meaningless concepts that are often mentioned on the free energy forums.  "Open system" implies that energy can mysteriously come from "somewhere else" without ever defining the form of the energy or where it is supposed to come from.  Therefore, no, energy cannot "flow in and out."  One more time, that is a meaningless concept.  Energy in from where?  Energy out to where?  What form of energy?  These questions are never answered.

To answer your question about the tuning fork using your questionable terminology, a tuning fork is a closed system.  It doesn't being in any energy from "elsewhere," you have to strike it to make it start vibrating.

The truth is that you can look at a system and deduce how energy flows through the system and how it gets transformed.  Then you can make measurements to confirm your deductions.  This has nothing to do with "open vs. closed" but rather it has everything to do with the reality of how the world actually works.

MileHigh

Dear MH,

I am now ready to answer your other questions in reply 1.

1.   I think I have addressed your point (1) related to Brownian motion of air molecules.  The two equations from the simplified Balls and Piston model clearly showed that the Kinetic Energy of Air Molecules can be brought-in.  A pulsed ordered motion of air molecules can be produced by the vibrating tuning fork.  Most of the energy comes from the kinetic energy of the air molecules.

2.   "Resonance is fully understood already".  If you check all available references on resonance, you will find that no scientists ever documented that – kinetic energy of air molecules are brought-in at sound resonance.  The theoretical explanation is now covered fully in point (1).  The experimental evidence of two tuning forks sound louder and last long than one is NOT disputed.  (I hope not, as it is a standard Physics Experiment in all Schools and Universities.)

3.   In the case of the tuning fork systems, air molecules move freely in and out around the tuning fork.  One cannot draw a closed box that contains all the possible interactions.  Sound can theoretically travel many miles.  Its effect may be diluted due to the ripple effect.  Thus, our tuning fork setup  is an OPEN system. 

Hopefully, you can follow the Physics and Mathematics of my posts.  Please feel free to fire your next round of questions and assumptions.

Scientific debate has no losers.  All, including the non-believers, will benefit.  Amen.

[ltseung888]

Dear MH,

We can now focus on the following cases:

1.   Two or more identical tuning forks in sympathetic vibration (covered).
2.   A tuning fork and an air column in resonance – standing waves
3.   Breaking wine glasses with sound
4.   Musical Instruments with sound chambers (e.g. Guitar)
5.   Ringing Transformer as pointed out by Observer
6.   LCR circuits that can produce sound frequencies and thus use energy from air molecules.
7.   Other techniques of bringing-in energy from Still Air.  (No wind.)

We can also re-examine the whole concept of resonance scientifically.  At or near resonance, the amplitude (of oscillation, vibration, voltage etc) will tend to rise exponentially.  (Or a very rapid increase)  Can this be explained by energy brought-in from the surrounding?

Once the door is open, things will come out from the closet!  One scientific breakthrough will lead to many discoveries and applications.