ENERGY AMPLIFICATION

[Floor]

To magnify an object through a glass lens, does not increase the size
of that object. It creates an image of that object on a larger scale.

Amplifying a sound by means of an electronic amplifier does not increase the
loudness of the input sound. Not even a tiny little bit.

The electronics create an image (a copy) of the input sound and broad casts
that REPLICA at a louder volume than was input.

Amplification of that sound requires additional energy input.  In this case, one definitly
does not get more out than one has put in.

It seem apparent that amplification is not what many people think it is.

Others on this topic have as much as said these same things.
                            see post @
https://overunity.com/6763/energy-amplification/msg558155/#msg558155

                          In fact the phrase "energy amplification"  its self
                                         doesn't make sense.

What would be the benefit of expending energy to make an image of some form of
energy and how would that be possible any way. Its silly.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
                           I repeat my questions.
1. Do you really think that two waves from opposite ends of  a jump rope, constructively meeting
at is center contains more than the sum of the energy of the two waves separately ?

2. If not, what is your point here ?

3. I'll stand by every thing I have said here. Will you?

4.  I did not say that kinetic energy is the same as wave superposition.
                           But you said I did.
                              Did you not ?

[nix85]

Everyone here understands the meaning of signal amplification, active amplification as with audio amp or passive as with a cone focusing energy in one direction.

Everyone also understands we are not talking about that kind of amplification but amplification of energy, creating a sink for the ambient energy which is perceived as overunity but is not much different than a solar panel or a wind generator just working with subtler energy forms.

So energy amplification is not 'silly', you are just misinterpreting things, pushing the false idea that you can't get more energy from the ambient than you put in.

To answer your questions.

1) I don't claim anything black and white, i discuss, as others discussed this topic here (linked on previous page). Vajda clearly says in his paper both energy gain and loss may be achieved. Formula for wave energy says double the amplitude quadrupole the energy. Vajda claims to have confirmed this, Don Smith and others too. So, it is not a question if it is possible, but rather a question of how to explain it. And i prefer to explain it in terms of creating a sink (term Tesla used) for the ambient energy.

2) I just stated it.

3) I stand by every thing I said here and elsewhere. You stick to silly you can't get more out idea. If you were right Don Smith's devices, TPU and all other similar devices would not work. But they do. Will you stick with your claim despite all these devices that prove you wrong? Maybe you claim all these people are hoaxers. I wonder what are you even doing on overunity forum then.

4) You said "similar set of physical relationships" for kinetic energy and superposition of waves, how is it similar if there is no predicted gain of energy. It's not similar. Adding two waves together does not require additional energy but increasing the velocity (squared factor in kinetic energy formula) does. Apples and oranges.

All this being said, have you even opened and studied Vajda's paper? I doubt you did. You just stick to your skeptical view instead of digging into it. But reality of things is not on your side.

Don Smith's demonstration 1996

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSU5_E1V0f4

[onepower]

Floor

In fact the phrase "energy amplification"  its self doesn't make sense.

I would agree, amplification means to amplify ie. the act of expanding or increasing something.

However energy is not "something" only a measure of the "quantity of something". For example electrical power is measured in watts but energy in watt-seconds. We cannot "amplify" a watt-second otherwise it wouldn't be a watt-second because it would have more energy.

Unfortunately the majority of people may understand power but the concept of energy completely baffles them. I have a friend who is an electrical engineer who couldn't even give me a coherent explanation for what energy is. However it's not anyone's fault but more so a flawed educational system which describes things so poorly they make no sense.

The key thing to remember is that a measure like force, distance, time, power or energy is not something in itself only a measure of something.

Here is a good way to look at energy...
Energy is a measure of the capacity of something to perform work, work is the measure of a force acting on something causing it to move a distance, thus energy is a measure of the motion of something on some level.

So when we add energy to something what were really saying is that we have added more motion to something on some level. This is also why we can use Joules as a measure for many different things. There is an equivalent between heat(molecular motion), watts (electron-proton motion) and work(physical motion). It is the "measure of the motion of something" as energy which ties everything together. 

In short physicists just say "the universe is energy" because everything in it is already in motion on some level. There could be countless forms of motion on an unknown number of levels however the measure of the motion of something is always referred to as energy.

Regards
AC

[Floor]

@nix85

                                                 I don't object at all....
                            to the exploration of alternative energy devices,
                       energy from the ambient, zero point energy, magnets, gravity,
                                                what ever, you name it.

Problem is you put words in my mouth.
Problem is, you called me "dog".
Problem is you insinuate and / or out right accuse me of pushing false ideas and so on.

Problem is now, for you, to decide if you want to do some thing more constructive.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

@ All readers

In quotation marks are nix85 comments (through out this post).

"Everyone here understands the meaning signal of amplification,"

                          First off, YOU don't speak for every one here.
                                                         You got that ?
                                         But also. no, they don't ALL understand.
                                        Apparently you don't understand either.


"be it active amplification as with audio amp or passive as with a cone focusing energy in one direction."

                                   Using a cone to focus energy in one direction
                                                is not amplification, period.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
"Everyone also understands we are not talking about that kind of amplification but amplification of energy,"

                                     Again you think you speak for everyone, do you?

                                    "That kind" of amplification is called... amplification.
                 There is no such, other kind, of amplification, as energy amplification or other wise.
                           The only kind of amplification there is...  is active amplification.
                             Use of the phrase by you is an oxmoron, a contradiction in terms.

"Everyone also understands we are not talking about that kind of amplification but amplification of energy, creating a sink for the ambient energy which is perceived as overunity but is not much different than a solar panel or a wind generator just working with subtler energy forms."

                                                                   So ...
                                                     "we are talking about"  we ? 
                                      No. You are talking about "a kind of amplification".
                              A kind of amplification that doesn't exist, and its application
                                               in  "creating a sink for ambient energy".

                           By the way and again, I have no problem with people exploring
                                     ambient, alternative or "overunity" energy sources
                                      despite the things you have said and implied of me.
.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
"So energy amplification is not 'silly', you are just misinterpreting things, pushing the false idea that you can't get more energy from the ambient than you put in."

                                               "So energy amplification is not 'silly"
                                                                     Disagree.
"you are just misinterpreting things, pushing the false idea that you can't get more energy from the ambient than you put in."
                                     
                                                          There you go...
                                        accusing some one of wrong doing
                                      putting words into an others mouth again.
.. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
                                  I repeated my questions.
1. Do you really think that two waves from opposite ends of  a jump rope, constructively meeting
at is center contains more than the sum of the energy of the two waves separately ?

                                          your response

"1) I don't claim anything black and white, i discuss, as others discussed this topic here (linked on previous page). Vajda clearly says in his paper both energy gain and loss may be achieved. Formula for wave energy says double the amplitude quadrupole the energy. Vajda claims to have confirmed this, Don Smith and others too. So, it is not a question if it is possible, but rather a question of how to explain it. And i prefer to explain it in terms of creating a sink (term Tesla used) for the ambient energy."

        nix85 quote
  "I don't claim anything black and white"
         nix85 quote

                                     Simple direct question but no answer from you,
                        and then you try to hide behind something "Vajda clearly says"
                                   and "Vajda claims" and the reputations of  Tesla and DonSmith.

            floor

[nix85]

I don't put words in your mouth, you did compare apples and oranges.

I did not call you a dog, i wrote "like a dog". Learn the difference.

Yea you push false ideas, you took a clear side that superposition of waves cannot give energy gain.

If i want to do something constructive? Oh the irony. Unlike you, i share valuable info pretty much all the time. What did you share except useless dramas and skepticism.

Of course i speak for everyone. Everyone knows what amplification is in conventional sense and the difference from energy amplification in OU sense.

"Apparently you don't understand either."

Ha! We can talk ABCD classes of amps, or common emitter/collector/base conf., or difference in gain bypass cap makes... or can you.

"Using a cone to focus energy in one direction is not amplification, period."

"Amplify" does NOT have to mean that output energy has increased. It can and does mean energy has increased in particular direction.

Focusing energy in one direction is amplifying it for that direction at the expense of all others. And it's not just focusing, it is also matching impedance improving transfer of energy.

(Not even gonna get into possible overunity effects of soundwave superposition).

"Acoustic horns are found in nature in the form of the burrows constructed by male mole crickets to amplify their song."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_(acoustic)

A megaphone, speaking-trumpet, bullhorn, blowhorn, or loudhailer is usually a portable or hand-held, cone-shaped acoustic horn used to amplify a person's voice or other sounds and direct it in a given direction.

[...]

There have been references to speakers in Ancient Greece (5th Century B.C.) wearing masks with cones protruding from the mouth in order to amplify their voices in theatres.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphone

Again you think you speak for everyone, do you?

You think there is a person on this forum who doesn't understand the difference between an audio amplifier and overunity device.

Energy amplification is a perfectly valid term making a distinction between conventional amplification and amplification using ambient as a battery. There is no oxymoron or contradiction of any kind, you are creating them by useless semantic disputes.

 

accusing some one of wrong doing
                                      putting words into an others mouth again.

Oh what a drama queen you are. I am not accusing nor putting anything. Again, you claim there is no energy gain in superposition of waves. You don't know this so don't push false claims.

Simple direct question but no answer from you,
                        and then you try to hide behind something "Vajda clearly says"
                                   and "Vajda claims" and the reputations of  Tesla and DonSmith.

More silliness. I am not "trying to hide" behind anyone. The debate on this topic has been open on this forum since 2007 and no one conclusively proved or disproved it. So of course i don't claim anything 100% regarding this particular idea by itself. However when superposition of waves, that is, resonance is used in systems ala Don Smith where induction is done lenzlessly, then all limits are off.