wrote:
wrote:
Scott "big ego, small intellect" Wheeler wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:
MINe 109 wrote:
"Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more
Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion?
Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it moves
back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any
better dispersion than what we would get with a flat
diaphragm.
Guess again dimbulb.
YOU guess again, dimmestbulb: the radius of the outer (front)
grid
is
larger than the radius of the inner (rear) grid. Howard is
absolutely
correct: the diaphragm *must* be "changing size" in order for
there
to
be an increase in the horizontal dispersion (without an
increase
in
distortions). This would require "perfect elasticity" of the
diaphragm
material over it's excursion.
Wheeler, without addressing the issue, scrawls:
OK you are as dumb as Ferstler. Congradulations.
BTW, do tell *where* Ferstler is wrong about the dispersion
issue.
And
save the insults for when you are standing in front of a mirror.
Not very bright are you? Go back and reread what Ferstler said and
then
figure out why he was being an idiot.
Why don't you reread what Ferstler said. Howard is correct: in order
for there to be an effect on dispersion, the diaphragm must "change
size as it moves back and forth". I know it's difficult for you, but
think about it for a bit. Keep in mind that the front (outer) grid is a
larger radius than the rear (inner) grid. The diaphragm must move
between these grids in order to produce sound. Go get a paper and
pencil and draw it out if you must. Keep at it, eventually, you'll "get
it".
Do you always agree with idiots?
I almost never agree with you. Does that answer your question, idiot?