"Eddie Runner" wrote in message
...
|
|
| Gary Rodgers wrote:
|
| | Gary,
| | you recomend a decent web site to answer all the questions here.
| | but then you state exactly the opposite.... ha ha ha
|
| Where?
|
| Where? In your last messages! Thats where... you said each channel sees
half
| the impedance, and it does not! And the website you recomended says if
does not!
|
| It says the bridged amp (complete circuit) sees the load just as it
| is - 4 ohms?
|
| Sure, how can it see anything else??
|
| A load is a load...
|
| thats right!
| So why make a reference to 1/2 of that load at all????
|
| now, when you look at the circuit and the
| way it is derived (bridged), each side of the bridge is acting as it
would
| with a 2 ohm load...
|
| No it isnt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
| read it again, thats NOT what that web page says!
|
| it says there is more current (like 1/2ing the load)
| why even mention halfing the load at all though is still a moronic thing
to do
| cause
| it makes folks that dont read very well think its the same as 1/2ing the
load
| and
| it is NOT in anyway like halfing the load....
|
| I am 6ft tall and out in the wood room I have a 2x4 (piece of wood) thats
6 ft
| tall...
| telling folks that the 2x4 is just like ME is kind of missleading ....
;-)
|
| Yes, 1/2ing the impedance COULD make the current the same as when you
| bridge and amp...
| The current could also be the same if my pet dog ****es on the
| amp circuitry!
| Or if we dump semi wet concrete on the amp circuitry, or any
| number of reasons it could be the same....
|
| BUT WHY MENTION THEM IF ITS NOT THE REAL REASON we get more current???
| WHY MENTION 1/2 impedance it ITS NOT REALLY 1/2 IMPEDANCE????
|
| DUMBDUMBDUMB!!!

I stand corrected and I'm dumb dumb dumb.
But at least I'm not caught up in semantics.
Guess I better take that BSEE back to the place I got it.

I'll go back to my car and listen to music.

Gary