Mark Zarella wrote:

YOU SAID zero ohms!
THATS A DEAD SHORT!

By "zero ohms" he was implying that the DCR is zero ohms (impossible,
superconducting or not). He said nothing of the reactive components. In
fact, even "theoretically" you can't reduce the reactive component to
nothing. You wouldn't be able to make the cone move! His initial point
still stands.

Oh, I see what he was getting at... But still ZERO OHMS is a short.

What he is saying still doesnt prove the impedance 1/2s when
bridging though... ;-)

But were not talking about back EMF.... And back EMF doesnt
affect the SPEED of voltage anyway, only the amount of the voltage.

No, it doesn't affect the amount of voltage coming from the amplifier. It
affects the current flow from the amplifier.

The inducted voltage (EMF) does affect the total potential of the circuit.

Back EMF is an essential part
of the equation, like it or not. So it's perfectly valid to bring up in
this instance.

But it is still not proof that the impedance 1/2s
And this guy was trying to say that higher voltage travels faster than
lower voltage....



If you apply voltagoe to a circuit (like a speaker) and the motion of the
voice coil through the magnet created ITS OWN VOLTAGE, then thats
called back EMF...

Well, actually it's not. Back EMF is something completely different. What
we've all been referring to as "back emf" is generally called "motional EMF"
(eg. J. King, J.AES, 1969?). Back emf involves the storage and release of
energy by an inductor.

Thats exactly what I was saying Mark, I was refering to a Speaker motor.


But of course, nothing to do with speed...

The speed of coil motion through the field is one of the parameters that
determines the voltage amplitude.

He said SPEED is related to voltage.
your talking about something cvompletely different Mark
now your talking about frequency

Eddie