Your quote from Ted's article is clear, using "the closest equivalent" and "crude means of amplification." Whether or not the amplification used power or was increased by focusing sound waves is immaterial to the fact that that the megaphone does amplify (per the primary definition of the word) sound. You want to define the word amplific…
Your quote from Ted's article is clear, using "the closest equivalent" and "crude means of amplification." Whether or not the amplification used power or was increased by focusing sound waves is immaterial to the fact that that the megaphone does amplify (per the primary definition of the word) sound. You want to define the word amplification in a specific instance, but the root word doesn't limit the meaning to only an electronic increase in amplitude. On that note I think we'll part friends. Have a good rest of your day, I will.
"Amplification" is a technical term. How such terms wind up being misused in ordinary parlance has nothing to do with my comments. I'm certain Newton will have a good rest of his day . . .
Your quote from Ted's article is clear, using "the closest equivalent" and "crude means of amplification." Whether or not the amplification used power or was increased by focusing sound waves is immaterial to the fact that that the megaphone does amplify (per the primary definition of the word) sound. You want to define the word amplification in a specific instance, but the root word doesn't limit the meaning to only an electronic increase in amplitude. On that note I think we'll part friends. Have a good rest of your day, I will.
"Amplification" is a technical term. How such terms wind up being misused in ordinary parlance has nothing to do with my comments. I'm certain Newton will have a good rest of his day . . .