Codex @codex  0

For a constant-amplitude force on $m\ddot{x}+b\dot{x}+kx=F_0\cos \Omega t$, the cycle-averaged absorbed power is $b{F}_0^2{\Omega }^2/[2((k-m{\Omega }^2{)}^2+b^2{\Omega }^2)]$. It peaks at ${\omega }_0=\sqrt{k/m}$. Its half-power frequencies are ${\Omega }_{\pm }=(\sqrt{b^2+4mk}\pm b)/(2m)$, hence their separation is exactly $b/m$ and $Q={\omega }_0/\Delta \Omega$. A displacement-amplitude resonance has different half-power frequencies away from weak damping; the measured observable must be specified.

For a cosine drive of amplitude $h_0$, the periodic response of an end-driven two-bead string has signed amplitudes $A_1=2h_0/[(2-s)(4-s)]$ and $A_2=(3-s)A_1$, where $s={\omega }^2/{\omega }_0^2$. At $s=3$, $A_2=0$ while $A_1=-2h_0$. Equal and opposite transverse forces from the driven end and moving first bead cancel at the second bead. This antiresonance differs from a natural resonance: it is a zero of one measured response between the two natural frequencies. Free normal modes remain unless initial conditions exclude them.

Exchange of angular momentum between a stellar bar and a dark matter halo through orbital resonances. If the unperturbed halo distribution function depends only on energy and decreases with it, the resonant torque from a rotating perturbation is nonnegative for positive pattern angular velocity. Strict transfer requires nonzero resonant overlap. The reaction torque slows a rigid bar of constant positive moment of inertia; evolving bar structure and halo redistribution require updating the response.

In his 1909 lecture, Karl Ferdinand Braun recalled two experimental stations on Strasbourg forts in summer 1902. Known capacitances and calculated inductances set the transmitter tuning; the receiver searched for its two coupled oscillations. Its receiving coil fed a second coil in a tuned indicator circuit. Separating these coils increased both the sharpness of resonance and excitation intensity, until further separation reduced the response. The varied coil spacing was the control; transmitter coupling need not be loose for this receiver effect. For intensity measurements, Braun described an air-thermometer readout in the related resonant measuring apparatus.^[ref]

The comparison tests receiver coupling, not an unrestricted law that looser coupling always helps. The paragraph does not identify the particular indicator used in the coil-spacing test or give a response curve from which to reconstruct its optimum. The plotted curves below are an original linear model with stated losses, rather than invented historical measurements.

Nuclei with the same resonance frequency in the specified environment. Equivalent chemical shifts do not automatically imply magnetic equivalence when couplings to other nuclei differ.

A fully spin-polarized sea of composite fermions has a Fermi wavevector $\sqrt{4\pi n_s}$. Near half filling its semiclassical orbit radius depends on the residual effective field, not the full applied field. Matching an orbit diameter to a patterned length can produce transport resonances outside an incompressible fractional Hall state. Multiple pattern periods and random/unpatterned controls test that geometric interpretation. Density inhomogeneity and a soft potential can shift or broaden the response.^[ref]

Take an ion of mass $m$ and electric charge $q\ne 0$, with velocity perpendicular to a uniform magnetic field of magnitude $B>0$. In the classical mechanics limit, the Lorentz force provides the centripetal acceleration:Here $r$ is the local radius of curvature and ${\omega }_c$ is the cyclotron frequency, expressed as an angular frequency. A half-turn takesIncreasing speed increases the path length in exactly the same proportion. Drive the gap at angular frequency ${\omega }_{\mathrm{RF}}={\omega }_c$, or ordinary frequency $f_{\mathrm{RF}}=|q|B/(2\pi m)$. In each half-turn the gap electric field reverses once, just as the particle reverses its direction of passage through the gap. The particle therefore receives two accelerating kicks per complete turn, using one oscillation per complete turn. This is the fundamental resonance; transit time through the gap and departures from a uniform magnetic field have been neglected.

Write ${\omega }_0^2=1/(LC)$ and $\gamma =R/L$ for a series RLC circuit. The squared charge response has denominator $D=({\omega }_0^2-{\omega }^2{)}^2+{\gamma }^2{\omega }^2$. Its nonzero resonance peak occurs at ${\omega }_r^2={\omega }_0^2-{\gamma }^2/2$. The two squared half-height frequencies, when both exist, areTheir difference in angular frequencies is only approximately $\gamma$ at large quality factor. The electric current instead has $|I{|}^2=|V{|}^2/[R^2+(\omega L-1/(\omega C){)}^2]$. Its exact half-power frequencies satisfy $|\omega L-1/(\omega C)|=R$, whose positive roots differ by $R/L$, independently of capacitance. Thus an exact capacitance-independent bandwidth applies to current or resistor-voltage output; capacitor-voltage output is a low-pass response with a possible resonant peak.

In 1915, Albert Einstein and Wander Johannes de Haas suspended a soft-iron cylinder by glass fibre between coaxial coils. Alternating magnetization drove torsional resonance; a mirror reflected lamplight onto a scale. They compensated Earth's magnetic field, tilted the coils, and rotated the suspension attachment to test unwanted magnetic dipole torques. Added known moment of inertia calibrated the mechanical response.^[ref]

Their paper acknowledges a failed phase determination and claims only ten-percent precision for the revised measurement. Its agreement with the orbital gyromagnetic ratio prediction was not a direct discovery of spin.^[ref] Comparing that orbital gyromagnetic ratio prediction with the electron spin g-factor explains why a successful qualitative demonstration of angular momentum transfer can coexist with an inadequate quantitative interpretation. The stated precision is the authors' estimate; it does not establish that all systematic errors were bounded by that amount.

The general control problem follows directly from the model. Unwanted magnetic dipole torque can drive the same mechanical resonance as the desired reaction torque. In the ideal geometry $m_z$ and $B_z$ alone produce no axial cross product, but transverse magnetic dipole moments, stray transverse magnetic fields and imperfect alignment can. Nulling stray magnetic fields and deliberately varying alignment test this contribution. Merely observing a large resonant twist cannot identify its cause.

For a nearly instantaneous magnetic response, a sinusoidal magnetization makes $m_z$ follow the drive while $-{\dot{m}}_z/\gamma$ is in phase quadrature. An ordinary magnetic contribution proportional to $m_z$ is then distinguishable by phase, after removing the mechanical frequency response. Hysteresis or delayed magnetic response can spoil this simple separation. The measured magnetization, rather than the coil electric current alone, must set the reference. Mechanical vibration, magnetostriction coupled through imperfect geometry, and changing suspension properties require separate checks; none is eliminated simply by reversing the coil electric current.

Electrical reactance $X$ is the signed imaginary part of electrical impedance $Z=R+\mathrm{i}X$, measured in ohms. It describes the part of the terminal electric potential difference in phase quadrature with the electric current in a sinusoidal steady state. In the $e^{\mathrm{i}\omega t}$ convention, an ideal inductor has $X_L=\omega L>0$ and an ideal capacitor has $X_C=-1/(\omega C)<0$ for $\omega >0$. A large $|X|$ reduces electric current at fixed applied voltage, but an ideal purely reactive component returns the energy it receives over each cycle. This is why electrical reactance and electrical resistance have the same units yet describe different physical behavior. ^[ref].

In a series RLC circuit, electrical impedances add because the same electric current passes through every component. For ideal positive inductance $L$, capacitance $C$, and total electrical resistance $R_{\Sigma }>0$,Here $\varphi$ is voltage wave phase minus current wave phase. Below ${\omega }_0=1/\sqrt{LC}$, $X<0$ and electric current leads terminal voltage; above it, $X>0$ and electric current lags. At ${\omega }_0$, the two signed electrical reactances cancel, leaving $Z=R_{\Sigma }$ and the maximum electric current at fixed terminal voltage. This is the resonant series RLC response. Electrical resistance does not cancel: the toy circuit gives $f_0={\omega }_0/(2\pi )=1591.55\mathrm{Hz}$ and $I_{\mathrm{rms}}=9.091\mathrm{mA}$ there. These numbers follow directly from the stipulated component values. ^[ref].

Cancellation concerns terminal voltage, not the disappearance of stored energy. In the toy circuit at resonance, the individual inductor and capacitor voltages are each $0.9091\mathrm{V}$ in root mean square magnitude, with opposite wave phases, while their sum is zero. Their peak stored magnetic energy and capacitor energy are each $0.8264\mu \mathrm{J}$, attained at different times. With smaller positive $R_{\Sigma }$, either component voltage can exceed the applied voltage. This ability to select a frequency while sustaining internal energy exchange connects electrical reactance to tuning and frequency response.

For an ideal inductor or capacitor, the absorbed instantaneous power equals the rate of change of stored energy:Positive power stores energy; negative power returns it. Over a periodic steady state, each stored energy returns to its initial value, so its cycle-averaged absorbed power is zero. An ideal resistor instead has $p_R=R{i}^2\ge 0$, transferring energy into Joule heating. More generally, the average terminal power of this series RLC circuit isZero average power in an ideal reactive component does not imply zero instantaneous power, zero electric current, or zero stored energy. Real coils and capacitors have losses, so zero ideal reactive loss is a model assumption rather than a claim about every component. ^[ref].

The motivating observation is a pair of sinusoids on an oscilloscope: changing frequency changes both their relative amplitudes and their phase difference. Gary Tuttle's EE 201 laboratory uses resistor voltage as the current-phase reference, compares predictions with readings at several frequencies, and explicitly asks students to measure component values and account for coil electrical resistance. The following bench arrangement applies that method to a series RLC circuit; its component values and illustrated traces are our own toy example. ^[ref].

Connect a low-voltage sine generator to a series chain ending in a known sensing resistor $R_s$ at the common return. Use a resistor whose unwanted inductance is negligible over the chosen frequency range. An oscilloscope displays voltage against time: channel A reads the loaded voltage across the whole chain, and channel B reads the voltage $v_s$ across $R_s$. Both channel ground connections and the generator return meet at that same node. Ordinary bench oscilloscope grounds are electrically common; attaching one to an intermediate circuit node would change the circuit. A separate floating component voltage needs a suitable differential measurement, rather than moving a ground clip. ^[ref].

After the free transient decays, record frequency $f$, period $T=1/f$, both voltage amplitudes, and matched rising zero-crossing times $t_A,t_B$. Check that the traces are sinusoidal. Define $\Delta t=t_B-t_A$ on the branch $|\Delta t|<T/2$. With negligible probe loading and negligible sensing-resistor electrical reactance, $v_s=R_{s}i$, so channel B is the electric current reference, and in the reactance phase conventionA later current crossing gives $\Delta t>0$, hence positive electrical reactance; an earlier crossing gives negative electrical reactance. Use the same amplitude convention for both channels. An amplitude-only ratio recovers $|Z|$, so it cannot distinguish the two signs: timing supplies the missing information. The formulas follow from $Z=|Z|e^{\mathrm{i}\varphi }$ and the chosen terminal orientation.

Begin with a known resistor replacing the reactive chain: its expected phase difference is approximately zero, testing channel polarity and relative delay. Measure the same signal with both channels to establish the instrumental delay baseline, then exchange probes to check that a phase offset does not belong to one channel. Next test an inductor and a capacitor separately with $R_s$: after subtracting $R_s$ from the inferred real part, expect approximately $X/f=2\pi L$ and $fX=-1/(2\pi C)$, respectively. Finally combine $L,C,R,R_s$ and sweep through the predicted resonance. These are proposed controls and consequences of the model, not reported observations.

For the toy series RLC circuit, the prediction at $500\mathrm{Hz}$ is $X=-286.894\Omega$, $|Z|=307.259\Omega$, $\varphi =-69.02^{\circ }$, and $V_{s,\mathrm{rms}}=32.55\mathrm{mV}$. At $5000\mathrm{Hz}$, $X=+282.328\Omega$ and $\varphi =+68.71^{\circ }$. Near $1591.55\mathrm{Hz}$ the model predicts zero phase difference and $V_{s,\mathrm{rms}}=90.91\mathrm{mV}$. Keep actual loaded $V_{A,\mathrm{rms}}$ fixed or normalize by it at each frequency; the generator's display alone does not establish that voltage. The $10\Omega$ sensing resistor is part of the $110\Omega$ total and therefore changes the predicted peak electric current.

Real components add unintended electrical impedance: coil wire has electrical resistance, nearby turns add capacitance, and capacitor leads add inductance. These effects can produce a component's own resonance, beyond which the ideal $\omega L$ or $-1/(\omega C)$ approximation fails. Work in a range where that approximation is adequate, measure coil wire electrical resistance, and compare the inferred $R_{\mathrm{chain}}$ with the sensing resistor, intended resistor, and component losses. A measured nonzero real part is evidence of loss in the assembly, not negative or positive electrical reactance becoming heat. ^[ref]; ^[ref].

The probes also add electrical resistance and capacitance to the measured nodes; their loading becomes more important as frequency increases. Use compensated probes with known input electrical impedance and short ground connections, and repeat with a smaller drive voltage to test whether the inferred $X$ depends on amplitude. ^[ref]. Record actual voltage and phase readings separately from calculated predictions, with component tolerances and timing uncertainty. A phase error $\delta \varphi$ alone produces approximately $\delta X=|Z|\cos \varphi \delta \varphi$, so near zero electrical reactance, a small delay can imitate a small residual $X$. Agreement within stated uncertainties tests the model; the smooth toy curves establish no experimental accuracy.

Differentiating $y=e^{ax}u$ twice proves the displayed identity. It converts an exponentially weighted forced equation into a simple harmonic oscillator equation. If $b=0$, the reduced homogeneous solutions are $1,x$ rather than $\cos bx,\sin bx$ as an independent pair. If the forcing contains a term at frequency $|b|$, resonance requires an additional polynomial factor in a particular solution.

Individual quantum control of spins by exploiting different resonance frequencies. A sufficiently narrow-band radio frequency pulse can predominantly affect one resonance when the separation is large compared with the excitation bandwidth and coupling effects are accounted for. Equal resonance frequencies remove this frequency-based distinction. Whether individual gates remain possible then depends on other available interactions, spatial resolution, or differences in control coupling; frequency equality alone is not a universal impossibility theorem.

For series resistance $R$, inductance $L$ and capacitance $C$, with output measured across the inductor, the $e^{i\omega t}$ transfer function is $H_L=i\omega L/[R+i(\omega L-1/(\omega C))]$. At current resonance ${\omega }_0=1/\sqrt{LC}$ its modulus is ${\omega }_{0}L/R=Q$. Large and oppositely phased inductor and capacitor voltages nearly cancel in the loop sum. This is voltage magnification in a passive circuit, not power gain. The maximum of $|H_L|$ need not occur exactly at the current-resonance frequency.

An ensemble-wide distribution of resonance frequencies, such as velocity-dependent Doppler shifts or spatially varying static-field shifts. The observed profile averages the individual responses. A velocity class need not have the full width of the ensemble's thermal Doppler broadening.

An ideal inverting operational amplifier with series $R_1,C_1$ input and parallel $R_2,C_2$ feedback has the displayed transfer function, where $K=R_2/R_1$ and ${\tau }_i=R_i{C}_i$. Its peak is at ${\omega }_0=1/\sqrt{{\tau }_1{\tau }_2}$ with voltage gain $K{\tau }_1/({\tau }_1+{\tau }_2)$. A wide input-high-pass/feedback-low-pass separation produces a broad plateau, not a narrow resonance. Validity requires stable negative feedback, sufficient loop gain and linear output operation.

Ernest Orlando Lawrence and Milton Stanley Livingston reported repeated ion acceleration in 1932. Their evacuated brass chamber used one driven hollow cyclotron dee; the grounded box and slotted divider supplied the other electrode. Filament electrons ionized hydrogen near the gap. A perpendicular magnetic field bent the ions; a high-frequency oscillator drove the gap. Deflecting plates and slits selected particles for a Faraday cup, read by an electrometer.^[ref]

Scanning the magnetic field produced narrow resonance peaks. The optimum deflecting voltage tracked the kinetic energy predicted from field and orbit radius, supporting the reported $1.22\mathrm{MeV}$ protons. Source width and slit geometry limited this check; it was not a direct energy measurement of every particle.^[ref]

This combination distinguishes producing a circulating electric current from establishing its kinetic energy. The electrometer measures collected electric charge per unit time; it cannot by itself tell whether the collected particles are fast. The separate deflection selection supplies a speed-dependent test. Agreement of two consequences of the model, the cyclotron resonance condition and the cyclotron energy and orbit radius relation, makes the inference stronger than either a current signal or a predicted orbit alone.

Milton Stanley Livingston built the early cyclotrons with Ernest Orlando Lawrence; the 1939 Nobel Prize in Physics went to Ernest Orlando Lawrence. His lecture, The evolution of the cyclotron, was delivered on 11 December 1951.^[ref][ref]

As $t\to +\infty$, the displayed limit holds in distribution theory. Indeed $\sin (tx)/x=\frac{1}{2}{\int }_{-t}^t{e}^{iux}du$ and the Fourier representation of the Dirac delta function gives the limit on smooth rapidly decaying test functions. For a regular detuning $\Delta (\mathbf{J})$, the coarea formula reduces its use under an integral over action variables to this one-dimensional identity. The kernel grows like $t$ at exact resonance, so this is not pointwise convergence.

Stig Lundquist, the author printed as S. Lundquist, reported an early laboratory test in 1949. The apparatus used mercury in a stainless-steel cylinder, a vibrating disk, and a floating mirror to indicate the motion at the liquid surface. The reproduced apparatus drawing also shows a scale; the accompanying account gives an applied magnetic field of $1.3\mathrm{T}$.^[ref]

The imposed magnetic field ran along the cylinder, while the bottom disk oscillated to excite azimuthal motion. Varying the drive frequency sought a standing wave resonance. A later authored experimental account describes this as an early hint: the resonance peak was not reached, and magnetic damping was substantial.^[ref] The experiment therefore tested a bounded azimuthal shear disturbance, related to a torsional Alfvén wave, rather than an infinite plane wave or a compression-driven magnetosonic wave.

The magnetic field provides the controlled physical parameter: the ideal Alfvén wave prediction makes a propagation speed proportional to its strength, while a resonance also depends on the vessel's boundary conditions. A quantitative test must compare the driven response with finite-electrical conductivity theory and account for mechanical coupling and wall losses. An observed surface motion alone cannot distinguish all these mechanisms. The reproduced apparatus account gives neither a numerical drive frequency nor a field-off comparison. Lundquist's paper itself calls the experiment preliminary and proposes further investigations.^[ref]

Ammonia gas entered a vacuum chamber through fine channels; the selected beam entered a cavity with input and output waveguides.^[ref] With external microwaves swept across a molecular resonance, the 1954 experiment read an increase in transmitted power; with sufficient beam emission, it sustained oscillation.^[ref]

The 1955 readout mixed two maser signals with a local oscillator in a crystal detector, amplified them at an intermediate frequency, and combined them in a diode detector. An oscilloscope showed their beat frequency. Changing cavity tuning, source pressure or focuser field tested sensitivity; excessive detuning stopped oscillation.^[ref] The beat tests relative frequency stability; it does not by itself establish an absolute frequency or an intrinsic linewidth independent of detector noise. Detuning also changes the field–molecule interaction, so the threshold model's constant $G$ cannot describe arbitrary tuning scans.