This is not a semantic difference. The physics of this is relatively simple, and it is glib and facile simply to cast it as semantic. It is a matter of some responsibility that we take as "technicians" to accept known physics and use it to understand what is happening in the vibratory system. Ron's phrase "at a net loss" is critical to understanding what is going on. P In a message dated 5/7/2009 11:41:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time, tannertuner at bellsouth.net writes: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Nossaman" <rnossaman at cox.net> > No, it doesn't. It transduces, at a net loss. The energy output is less > than the input, the difference being absorbed by the system. If there were > such a thing as a free amplifier, you could daisy chain the things and run > the world on a flashlight battery. Look up James Maxwell. > Ron N You knew what I meant. Since I'm not a physicist, I consider this a semantics difference. What I meant by amplify is some device that increases volume of sound. I can do the same thing with my voice. Same energy on the vocal chords, but properly placed in the resonance, the volume and projection are increased. (which would mean a lower energy requirement to produce the same volume?) Jeff **************Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000006) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090508/a96cac4d/attachment.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC