Timeline for Amplification before tubes and transistors were invented
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 7, 2017 at 0:35 | comment | added | Anthony X | Strictly speaking, this isn't amplification; the output signal is no more powerful than the input signal. The only thing going on here is better coupling of the mechanical vibration of the needle to the surrounding air (as you said, impedance matching and directing), | |
| Oct 6, 2017 at 19:59 | comment | added | andre314 | Done. Thanks ! (please don't remove your answer, it's a opportunity to clarify this point) | |
| Oct 6, 2017 at 19:49 | comment | added | Ale..chenski | @andre, then you probably need to clarify your question. | |
| Oct 6, 2017 at 19:38 | comment | added | andre314 | ... a impedance adaptation that minimize the power loss between the source and the load, but don't create power. | |
| Oct 6, 2017 at 19:27 | comment | added | andre314 | In other words : there should amplification of a quantity expressed as Watts (Not Volt, Ampere, Pascal, Bar,meters (for Displacement) ... any quantity that can be added when at a same frequency). Our ear is sensible to displacement (of a internal membrane in the ear), so we feel an amplification but it's not really one (it's a impedance adaptation) | |
| Oct 6, 2017 at 19:11 | comment | added | andre314 | Yes, but the horn is a passive device (since it is not powered). It helps to solve the problem of lack of power in the signal, but the point of my question is where were are the elements (if any) that afford power amplification (these elements absolutly needs a power source, otherwise we have invented the perpetual movement) | |
| Oct 6, 2017 at 19:00 | history | answered | Ale..chenski | CC BY-SA 3.0 |