A *theoretical* speaker:

1. Uses electricity for power
2. Converts any generated heat back to electricity at the quantum
level. Due to this, no parts of the speaker can overheat.
3. The mechanical parts of the speaker are strong enough to withstand
up to 350 dB at any given frequency of sound without any injury,
distortion, or clipping.
4. As already said, cannot overheat becuase any heat is converted back
to electricity to energize the speaker.
5. Its non-acoustic electric parts can suffer non-thermal,
non-mechanical electrical injuries, though.
6. Its diaphragm is 40 feet wide, 40 feet long, 40 feet high, 40 feet
deep

What will happen if the electrical equivalent of a 10^500 gigaBel,
10^500 gigahertz, pure sine-wave is forced through the electric parts
of this speaker's diaphragm

Radium wrote:

A *theoretical* speaker:

1. Uses electricity for power
2. Converts any generated heat back to electricity at the quantum
level. Due to this, no parts of the speaker can overheat.
3. The mechanical parts of the speaker are strong enough to withstand
up to 350 dB at any given frequency of sound without any injury,
distortion, or clipping.
4. As already said, cannot overheat becuase any heat is converted back
to electricity to energize the speaker.
5. Its non-acoustic electric parts can suffer non-thermal,
non-mechanical electrical injuries, though.
6. Its diaphragm is 40 feet wide, 40 feet long, 40 feet high, 40 feet
deep

What will happen if the electrical equivalent of a 10^500 gigaBel,
10^500 gigahertz, pure sine-wave is forced through the electric parts
of this speaker's diaphragm

Is this homework?


--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie

Radium wrote:

A *theoretical* speaker:

1. Uses electricity for power
2. Converts any generated heat back to electricity at the quantum
level. Due to this, no parts of the speaker can overheat.
3. The mechanical parts of the speaker are strong enough to withstand
up to 350 dB at any given frequency of sound without any injury,
distortion, or clipping.
4. As already said, cannot overheat becuase any heat is converted back
to electricity to energize the speaker.
5. Its non-acoustic electric parts can suffer non-thermal,
non-mechanical electrical injuries, though.
6. Its diaphragm is 40 feet wide, 40 feet long, 40 feet high, 40 feet
deep

What will happen if the electrical equivalent of a 10^500 gigaBel,
10^500 gigahertz, pure sine-wave is forced through the electric parts
of this speaker's diaphragm

Is this homework?


--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie

(Radium) wrote in
om:

[snip]
2. Converts any generated heat back to electricity at the quantum
level. Due to this, no parts of the speaker can overheat.

Do a google search for "perpetual motion machine" -- that's what you are
proposing. Quick hint -- it's not possible.

(Radium) wrote in
om:

[snip]
2. Converts any generated heat back to electricity at the quantum
level. Due to this, no parts of the speaker can overheat.

Do a google search for "perpetual motion machine" -- that's what you are
proposing. Quick hint -- it's not possible.

In article ,
(Radium) wrote:

A *theoretical* speaker:

1. Uses electricity for power

OK

2. Converts any generated heat back to electricity at the quantum
level. Due to this, no parts of the speaker can overheat.

Nope. You can't convert energy in that direction without using up a lot
of it up in the process. We wouldn't be driving internal combustion
engines if it was possible.

3. The mechanical parts of the speaker are strong enough to withstand
up to 350 dB at any given frequency of sound without any injury,
distortion, or clipping.

Under water? There's only 14 PSI to work with in air.

4. As already said, cannot overheat becuase any heat is converted back
to electricity to energize the speaker.
5. Its non-acoustic electric parts can suffer non-thermal,
non-mechanical electrical injuries, though.
6. Its diaphragm is 40 feet wide, 40 feet long, 40 feet high, 40 feet
deep

Ah, four dimensional speakers. Now you're talkin!



What will happen if the electrical equivalent of a 10^500 gigaBel,
10^500 gigahertz, pure sine-wave is forced through the electric parts
of this speaker's diaphragm

10^500 GHz? Well, that's way currently beyond the theoritical maximum
frquency of an EM wave. It would rather be something else at that point.

In article ,
(Radium) wrote:

A *theoretical* speaker:

1. Uses electricity for power

OK

2. Converts any generated heat back to electricity at the quantum
level. Due to this, no parts of the speaker can overheat.

Nope. You can't convert energy in that direction without using up a lot
of it up in the process. We wouldn't be driving internal combustion
engines if it was possible.

3. The mechanical parts of the speaker are strong enough to withstand
up to 350 dB at any given frequency of sound without any injury,
distortion, or clipping.

Under water? There's only 14 PSI to work with in air.

4. As already said, cannot overheat becuase any heat is converted back
to electricity to energize the speaker.
5. Its non-acoustic electric parts can suffer non-thermal,
non-mechanical electrical injuries, though.
6. Its diaphragm is 40 feet wide, 40 feet long, 40 feet high, 40 feet
deep

Ah, four dimensional speakers. Now you're talkin!



What will happen if the electrical equivalent of a 10^500 gigaBel,
10^500 gigahertz, pure sine-wave is forced through the electric parts
of this speaker's diaphragm

10^500 GHz? Well, that's way currently beyond the theoritical maximum
frquency of an EM wave. It would rather be something else at that point.

"CJT" wrote in message
...


Radium wrote:

A *theoretical* speaker:

1. Uses electricity for power
2. Converts any generated heat back to electricity at the quantum
level. Due to this, no parts of the speaker can overheat.

Violates third law of thermodynamics.

3. The mechanical parts of the speaker are strong enough to withstand
up to 350 dB at any given frequency of sound without any injury,
distortion, or clipping.

The maximum SPL possible at 14 psi is about 185 dB.

4. As already said, cannot overheat becuase any heat is converted back
to electricity to energize the speaker.

Violates the second law of thermodynamics.

5. Its non-acoustic electric parts can suffer non-thermal,
non-mechanical electrical injuries, though.

What kind of non-thermal, non-mechanical electrical injuries? Headache?

6. Its diaphragm is 40 feet wide, 40 feet long, 40 feet high, 40 feet
deep

What will happen if the electrical equivalent of a 10^500 gigaBel,
10^500 gigahertz, pure sine-wave is forced through the electric parts
of this speaker's diaphragm

Nuclear fusion of heavy elements.

"CJT" wrote in message
...


Radium wrote:

A *theoretical* speaker:

1. Uses electricity for power
2. Converts any generated heat back to electricity at the quantum
level. Due to this, no parts of the speaker can overheat.

Violates third law of thermodynamics.

3. The mechanical parts of the speaker are strong enough to withstand
up to 350 dB at any given frequency of sound without any injury,
distortion, or clipping.

The maximum SPL possible at 14 psi is about 185 dB.

4. As already said, cannot overheat becuase any heat is converted back
to electricity to energize the speaker.

Violates the second law of thermodynamics.

5. Its non-acoustic electric parts can suffer non-thermal,
non-mechanical electrical injuries, though.

What kind of non-thermal, non-mechanical electrical injuries? Headache?

6. Its diaphragm is 40 feet wide, 40 feet long, 40 feet high, 40 feet
deep

What will happen if the electrical equivalent of a 10^500 gigaBel,
10^500 gigahertz, pure sine-wave is forced through the electric parts
of this speaker's diaphragm

Nuclear fusion of heavy elements.

(Radium) wrote in message . com...
A *theoretical* speaker:

1. Uses electricity for power

Practical speakers do tha as well.

2. Converts any generated heat back to electricity at the quantum
level. Due to this, no parts of the speaker can overheat.

Do you mean the speaker has 100% efficiency? Well, one can explore
that theoretically, but forget the "converts heat back to electricity
at the quantum level."

3. The mechanical parts of the speaker are strong enough to withstand
up to 350 dB at any given frequency of sound without any injury,
distortion, or clipping.

350 dB relative to WHAT? Do you mean 350 dB SPL?

4. As already said, cannot overheat becuase any heat is converted back
to electricity to energize the speaker.

Geez, forget this nonsense, just say the speaker has 100% efficiency
and be done with it.

5. Its non-acoustic electric parts can suffer non-thermal,
non-mechanical electrical injuries, though.

Huh?

6. Its diaphragm is 40 feet wide, 40 feet long, 40 feet high, 40 feet
deep

What will happen if the electrical equivalent of a 10^500 gigaBel,

What do you mean by this? Do you understand what a Bel is?

10^500 gigahertz, pure sine-wave is forced through the electric parts
of this speaker's diaphragm

The speaker will effectively radiate nothing into the far field for
a variety of reasons.

First, lets presume that whatever is moving the diaphragm could
move at such a preposterous frequency (it can't, we'll see below
why). The diaphragm is SO large compared to the "wavelength" that
effectively every part of the diaphragm is going to be out of
phase with every other part.

Second, acoustical waves simply cannot happen at this frequency.

Third, at the "freqencies" you're talking about, there's nothing
"electrical" that can happen. Visible light has a frequency in the
realm of a million gigahertz, 10^500 GHz is FAR above the realm
of gamma radiation. At these frerquencies and energies, you're
probably at and far above grand unification energies.

Fourth, acoustical phenonenon is a set of behaviors occuring at
the macro/bulk layer, i.e., in our case assumes the existance
of a gas. The frequencies and energies that this implies has left
the bulk behavior of gaseous matter in the dust and you are in
the realm of the pure quanta down below the level of quarks and
gluons.

In otherwords, your questions are at their root physically absurd.
This is not intended as an insult, rather, "absurd" is an objective
consequence the conditions you propose.

Let's ask your question in a slightly different form: what's
the point of your question? What are you trying to learn?

(Radium) wrote in message . com...
A *theoretical* speaker:

1. Uses electricity for power

Practical speakers do tha as well.

2. Converts any generated heat back to electricity at the quantum
level. Due to this, no parts of the speaker can overheat.

Do you mean the speaker has 100% efficiency? Well, one can explore
that theoretically, but forget the "converts heat back to electricity
at the quantum level."

3. The mechanical parts of the speaker are strong enough to withstand
up to 350 dB at any given frequency of sound without any injury,
distortion, or clipping.

350 dB relative to WHAT? Do you mean 350 dB SPL?

4. As already said, cannot overheat becuase any heat is converted back
to electricity to energize the speaker.

Geez, forget this nonsense, just say the speaker has 100% efficiency
and be done with it.

5. Its non-acoustic electric parts can suffer non-thermal,
non-mechanical electrical injuries, though.

Huh?

6. Its diaphragm is 40 feet wide, 40 feet long, 40 feet high, 40 feet
deep

What will happen if the electrical equivalent of a 10^500 gigaBel,

What do you mean by this? Do you understand what a Bel is?

10^500 gigahertz, pure sine-wave is forced through the electric parts
of this speaker's diaphragm

The speaker will effectively radiate nothing into the far field for
a variety of reasons.

First, lets presume that whatever is moving the diaphragm could
move at such a preposterous frequency (it can't, we'll see below
why). The diaphragm is SO large compared to the "wavelength" that
effectively every part of the diaphragm is going to be out of
phase with every other part.

Second, acoustical waves simply cannot happen at this frequency.

Third, at the "freqencies" you're talking about, there's nothing
"electrical" that can happen. Visible light has a frequency in the
realm of a million gigahertz, 10^500 GHz is FAR above the realm
of gamma radiation. At these frerquencies and energies, you're
probably at and far above grand unification energies.

Fourth, acoustical phenonenon is a set of behaviors occuring at
the macro/bulk layer, i.e., in our case assumes the existance
of a gas. The frequencies and energies that this implies has left
the bulk behavior of gaseous matter in the dust and you are in
the realm of the pure quanta down below the level of quarks and
gluons.

In otherwords, your questions are at their root physically absurd.
This is not intended as an insult, rather, "absurd" is an objective
consequence the conditions you propose.

Let's ask your question in a slightly different form: what's
the point of your question? What are you trying to learn?

"Radium" wrote

A *theoretical* speaker:
-------------8 snip impossible nonsense )--------------------------
What will happen if the electrical equivalent of a 10^500 gigaBel,
10^500 gigahertz, pure sine-wave is forced through the electric parts
of this speaker's diaphragm

Radium appears (on searching back through the group for only a couple of
months) to keep posting silly questions - perhaps he heard someone
trip-trapping across his bridge? ;o) Please don't feed him!

Dave H.
(The engineer formerly known as Homeless)

"Radium" wrote

A *theoretical* speaker:
-------------8 snip impossible nonsense )--------------------------
What will happen if the electrical equivalent of a 10^500 gigaBel,
10^500 gigahertz, pure sine-wave is forced through the electric parts
of this speaker's diaphragm

Radium appears (on searching back through the group for only a couple of
months) to keep posting silly questions - perhaps he heard someone
trip-trapping across his bridge? ;o) Please don't feed him!

Dave H.
(The engineer formerly known as Homeless)

If electricity did not generate heat, what would happen in a grossly
overloaded circuit?


(Dick Pierce) wrote in message . com...
What are you trying to learn?

If electricity did not generate heat, what would happen in a grossly
overloaded circuit?


(Dick Pierce) wrote in message . com...
What are you trying to learn?

At that frequency, coherent mechanical motion does not occur. As Mr. Pierce
points out, the time and distance scales are not addressed by classical
physics.

It would appear that you're thinking is bound by classical physics. It might
be a good idea to read one of the popular books on modern physics. The
question you ask has no answer, because the universe in which it could occur
does not exist -- not here, anyway.


"Radium" wrote in message
om...
If electricity did not generate heat, what would happen in a grossly
overloaded circuit?


(Dick Pierce) wrote in message
. com...
What are you trying to learn?

At that frequency, coherent mechanical motion does not occur. As Mr. Pierce
points out, the time and distance scales are not addressed by classical
physics.

It would appear that you're thinking is bound by classical physics. It might
be a good idea to read one of the popular books on modern physics. The
question you ask has no answer, because the universe in which it could occur
does not exist -- not here, anyway.


"Radium" wrote in message
om...
If electricity did not generate heat, what would happen in a grossly
overloaded circuit?


(Dick Pierce) wrote in message
. com...
What are you trying to learn?

(Radium) wrote in message . com...
(Dick Pierce) wrote in message e.com...
What are you trying to learn?
If electricity did not generate heat, what would happen in a grossly
overloaded circuit?

Huh?

You need to go back and form all of this into a coherent line of
inquiry. The question makes no sense. What does heat have to do
with overload? What does ANY of this have to do with the absurd
"experiment" you described?

(Radium) wrote in message . com...
(Dick Pierce) wrote in message e.com...
What are you trying to learn?
If electricity did not generate heat, what would happen in a grossly
overloaded circuit?

Huh?

You need to go back and form all of this into a coherent line of
inquiry. The question makes no sense. What does heat have to do
with overload? What does ANY of this have to do with the absurd
"experiment" you described?

A *theoretical* speaker:

1. Uses electricity for power
2. Converts any generated heat back to electricity at the quantum
level. Due to this, no parts of the speaker can overheat.
3. The mechanical parts of the speaker are strong enough to withstand
up to 350 dB at any given frequency of sound without any injury,
distortion, or clipping.

350 dB cannot be produced by anything including 10 sticks of dynamite.

The lmit of the atmosphere is about 194dBSPL.

If you want to see a speaker that is practically running off the wall current,
the Carver Sunfire comes pretty close.


Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

A *theoretical* speaker:

1. Uses electricity for power
2. Converts any generated heat back to electricity at the quantum
level. Due to this, no parts of the speaker can overheat.
3. The mechanical parts of the speaker are strong enough to withstand
up to 350 dB at any given frequency of sound without any injury,
distortion, or clipping.

350 dB cannot be produced by anything including 10 sticks of dynamite.

The lmit of the atmosphere is about 194dBSPL.

If you want to see a speaker that is practically running off the wall current,
the Carver Sunfire comes pretty close.


Richard H. Kuschel
"I canna change the law of physics."-----Scotty

(Richard Kuschel) wrote in message ...

A *theoretical* speaker:

1. Uses electricity for power
2. Converts any generated heat back to electricity at the quantum
level. Due to this, no parts of the speaker can overheat.
3. The mechanical parts of the speaker are strong enough to withstand
up to 350 dB at any given frequency of sound without any injury,
distortion, or clipping.

350 dB cannot be produced by anything including 10 sticks of dynamite.

The lmit of the atmosphere is about 194dBSPL.

No, it's not. This is a common myth. It's based on the false assumption
that one is limited to changes of +-1 atmosphere. It's possible to generate
overpressures well in excess of one atmosphere.

As a separate issue, and one that speaks directly to the common myth,
a "vacuum" does not set the limit. Consider, for example, producing
sound by moving a piston back and forth. If you double the excursion
of the pistion, you double the high pressure, and halve the low pressue.
Double it again and you now quadruple the high pressure, and the low
pressure is 1/4 what it was compared to the initial excursion.

Now, how much excursion is required to produce a vacuum at the low
pressure side? Well, an infinite excursion, obviously an absurd case.

The myth comes from the fact that people assume intuitively, but quite
incorrectly, that sound pressure results from some linear action when,
in fact, it's a reciprocal action. Remember PV = nRT (gas equation),
thus P = nRT/V, where P is pressure and V is volume.

Atmospheric sound pressures well in excess of 194 dB have been
produced, with no limit in sight, save putting enough energy into
the gas to start chemical disassociation and other non-linearites
that change the value of R in the perfect gas equation.

(Richard Kuschel) wrote in message ...

A *theoretical* speaker:

1. Uses electricity for power
2. Converts any generated heat back to electricity at the quantum
level. Due to this, no parts of the speaker can overheat.
3. The mechanical parts of the speaker are strong enough to withstand
up to 350 dB at any given frequency of sound without any injury,
distortion, or clipping.

350 dB cannot be produced by anything including 10 sticks of dynamite.

The lmit of the atmosphere is about 194dBSPL.

No, it's not. This is a common myth. It's based on the false assumption
that one is limited to changes of +-1 atmosphere. It's possible to generate
overpressures well in excess of one atmosphere.

As a separate issue, and one that speaks directly to the common myth,
a "vacuum" does not set the limit. Consider, for example, producing
sound by moving a piston back and forth. If you double the excursion
of the pistion, you double the high pressure, and halve the low pressue.
Double it again and you now quadruple the high pressure, and the low
pressure is 1/4 what it was compared to the initial excursion.

Now, how much excursion is required to produce a vacuum at the low
pressure side? Well, an infinite excursion, obviously an absurd case.

The myth comes from the fact that people assume intuitively, but quite
incorrectly, that sound pressure results from some linear action when,
in fact, it's a reciprocal action. Remember PV = nRT (gas equation),
thus P = nRT/V, where P is pressure and V is volume.

Atmospheric sound pressures well in excess of 194 dB have been
produced, with no limit in sight, save putting enough energy into
the gas to start chemical disassociation and other non-linearites
that change the value of R in the perfect gas equation.

Okay. Forget about my original post. Consider the following.

What will happen (theoretically) if a 140 dB, 40 KHz sine wave tone is
forced out of:
1. A PC speaker
2. A Bose speaker
3. The speaker of a 56kbps Robotics Fax modem
4. An electrostatic speaker
5. The speaker of a Casio SA-11 100 ToneBank Keyboard

NOTE: I am just in it for the science. I have no current application
in mind.

Okay. Forget about my original post. Consider the following.

What will happen (theoretically) if a 140 dB, 40 KHz sine wave tone is
forced out of:
1. A PC speaker
2. A Bose speaker
3. The speaker of a 56kbps Robotics Fax modem
4. An electrostatic speaker
5. The speaker of a Casio SA-11 100 ToneBank Keyboard

NOTE: I am just in it for the science. I have no current application
in mind.

On 1 Nov 2003 10:43:13 -0800, (Radium) wrote:

Okay. Forget about my original post. Consider the following.

What will happen (theoretically) if a 140 dB, 40 KHz sine wave tone is
forced out of:
1. A PC speaker
2. A Bose speaker
3. The speaker of a 56kbps Robotics Fax modem
4. An electrostatic speaker
5. The speaker of a Casio SA-11 100 ToneBank Keyboard

NOTE: I am just in it for the science. I have no current application
in mind.

It's a meaningless question. By specifying actual speakers, you're
specifying their limitations.

Some Bose PA speakers might be able to output something approaching
this, measured close up. The rest would of course have burnt out
long ago.

You could ask about a theoretical ideal speaker. What would happen?
Well, if its "idealness" included 100% efficiency, or a voice-coil
that didn't suffer adverse mechanical or electrical effects when it
heated up, I guess you'd get a 140dB, 40KHz noise out of it. What
did you want me to say?

On 1 Nov 2003 10:43:13 -0800, (Radium) wrote:

Okay. Forget about my original post. Consider the following.

What will happen (theoretically) if a 140 dB, 40 KHz sine wave tone is
forced out of:
1. A PC speaker
2. A Bose speaker
3. The speaker of a 56kbps Robotics Fax modem
4. An electrostatic speaker
5. The speaker of a Casio SA-11 100 ToneBank Keyboard

NOTE: I am just in it for the science. I have no current application
in mind.

It's a meaningless question. By specifying actual speakers, you're
specifying their limitations.

Some Bose PA speakers might be able to output something approaching
this, measured close up. The rest would of course have burnt out
long ago.

You could ask about a theoretical ideal speaker. What would happen?
Well, if its "idealness" included 100% efficiency, or a voice-coil
that didn't suffer adverse mechanical or electrical effects when it
heated up, I guess you'd get a 140dB, 40KHz noise out of it. What
did you want me to say?

Radium wrote:

Okay. Forget about my original post. Consider the following.

What will happen (theoretically) if a 140 dB, 40 KHz sine wave tone is
forced out of:
1. A PC speaker
2. A Bose speaker
3. The speaker of a 56kbps Robotics Fax modem
4. An electrostatic speaker
5. The speaker of a Casio SA-11 100 ToneBank Keyboard

NOTE: I am just in it for the science. I have no current application
in mind.

Smoke, mostly. Maybe not even that.

--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie

Radium wrote:

Okay. Forget about my original post. Consider the following.

What will happen (theoretically) if a 140 dB, 40 KHz sine wave tone is
forced out of:
1. A PC speaker
2. A Bose speaker
3. The speaker of a 56kbps Robotics Fax modem
4. An electrostatic speaker
5. The speaker of a Casio SA-11 100 ToneBank Keyboard

NOTE: I am just in it for the science. I have no current application
in mind.

Smoke, mostly. Maybe not even that.

--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie

Can electrostatic speakers "burn out"?

They generate sound by hitting the surrounding air with electrons and
thus causing those air molucules to vibrate.

Laurence Payne wrote in message . ..
The rest would of course have burnt out
long ago.

Can electrostatic speakers "burn out"?

They generate sound by hitting the surrounding air with electrons and
thus causing those air molucules to vibrate.

Laurence Payne wrote in message . ..
The rest would of course have burnt out
long ago.

On 1 Nov 2003 15:16:51 -0800, (Radium) wrote:

Can electrostatic speakers "burn out"?

They generate sound by hitting the surrounding air with electrons and
thus causing those air molucules to vibrate.

No they don't. They create sound by applying a voltage to a plastic
membrane held in tension between two highly charged plates.

There have been experiments with "plasma" speakers, which attempted
to modulate an electrical discharge. The sort of audiophile who
subscribed to: "It's kooky and VERY expensive, it must be good!" may
have even bought one :-)

On 1 Nov 2003 15:16:51 -0800, (Radium) wrote:

Can electrostatic speakers "burn out"?

They generate sound by hitting the surrounding air with electrons and
thus causing those air molucules to vibrate.

No they don't. They create sound by applying a voltage to a plastic
membrane held in tension between two highly charged plates.

There have been experiments with "plasma" speakers, which attempted
to modulate an electrical discharge. The sort of audiophile who
subscribed to: "It's kooky and VERY expensive, it must be good!" may
have even bought one :-)

(Radium) wrote in message . com...
Can electrostatic speakers "burn out"?

Yes, generally by causing excursions of the diaphragn sufficient
to cause short-circuiting of the HV power supply.

They generate sound by hitting the surrounding air with electrons and
thus causing those air molucules to vibrate.

No, they absolutely do NOT work this way. Where on earth did you come
up with this nonsense?

Electrostatics work through the attraction and repulsion of
a compliant diaphragm through the differences in electrical
charge between the diaphragm and fixed reference plates.

(Radium) wrote in message . com...
Can electrostatic speakers "burn out"?

Yes, generally by causing excursions of the diaphragn sufficient
to cause short-circuiting of the HV power supply.

They generate sound by hitting the surrounding air with electrons and
thus causing those air molucules to vibrate.

No, they absolutely do NOT work this way. Where on earth did you come
up with this nonsense?

Electrostatics work through the attraction and repulsion of
a compliant diaphragm through the differences in electrical
charge between the diaphragm and fixed reference plates.

(Radium) wrote in message . com...
Okay. Forget about my original post. Consider the following.

What will happen (theoretically) if a 140 dB, 40 KHz sine wave tone is
forced out of:

140 dB at what distance from the speaker?

1. A PC speaker
2. A Bose speaker

Which Bose speaker?

3. The speaker of a 56kbps Robotics Fax modem
4. An electrostatic speaker
5. The speaker of a Casio SA-11 100 ToneBank Keyboard

None of these speakers could EVER produce a 140 dB SPL, 40 Hz sine
wave. In most cases they would have been forced into thermal or
mechanical failure.

NOTE: I am just in it for the science. I have no current application
in mind.

Then how about dealing with it scientifically, i.e., by not wasting
time on preposterous fantasies with ridiculous "numbers".

(Radium) wrote in message . com...
Okay. Forget about my original post. Consider the following.

What will happen (theoretically) if a 140 dB, 40 KHz sine wave tone is
forced out of:

140 dB at what distance from the speaker?

1. A PC speaker
2. A Bose speaker

Which Bose speaker?

3. The speaker of a 56kbps Robotics Fax modem
4. An electrostatic speaker
5. The speaker of a Casio SA-11 100 ToneBank Keyboard

None of these speakers could EVER produce a 140 dB SPL, 40 Hz sine
wave. In most cases they would have been forced into thermal or
mechanical failure.

NOTE: I am just in it for the science. I have no current application
in mind.

Then how about dealing with it scientifically, i.e., by not wasting
time on preposterous fantasies with ridiculous "numbers".

Dick Pierce wrote:
(Radium) wrote in message . com...

Okay. Forget about my original post. Consider the following.

What will happen (theoretically) if a 140 dB, 40 KHz sine wave tone is
forced out of:


140 dB at what distance from the speaker?


1. A PC speaker
2. A Bose speaker


Which Bose speaker?


3. The speaker of a 56kbps Robotics Fax modem
4. An electrostatic speaker
5. The speaker of a Casio SA-11 100 ToneBank Keyboard


None of these speakers could EVER produce a 140 dB SPL, 40 Hz sine

He said 40 KHz -- even further afield of reality.

wave. In most cases they would have been forced into thermal or
mechanical failure.


NOTE: I am just in it for the science. I have no current application
in mind.


Then how about dealing with it scientifically, i.e., by not wasting
time on preposterous fantasies with ridiculous "numbers".


--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie

Dick Pierce wrote:
(Radium) wrote in message . com...

Okay. Forget about my original post. Consider the following.

What will happen (theoretically) if a 140 dB, 40 KHz sine wave tone is
forced out of:


140 dB at what distance from the speaker?


1. A PC speaker
2. A Bose speaker


Which Bose speaker?


3. The speaker of a 56kbps Robotics Fax modem
4. An electrostatic speaker
5. The speaker of a Casio SA-11 100 ToneBank Keyboard


None of these speakers could EVER produce a 140 dB SPL, 40 Hz sine

He said 40 KHz -- even further afield of reality.

wave. In most cases they would have been forced into thermal or
mechanical failure.


NOTE: I am just in it for the science. I have no current application
in mind.


Then how about dealing with it scientifically, i.e., by not wasting
time on preposterous fantasies with ridiculous "numbers".


--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the "SWEN" worm, I have
concluded we must conceal our e-mail address. Our true address is the
mirror image of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame such
steps are necessary. ...Charlie

Radium wrote:

Okay. Forget about my original post. Consider the following.

What will happen (theoretically) if a 140 dB, 40 KHz sine wave tone is
forced out of:

1. A PC speaker

It isn't.

2. A Bose speaker

You send the speaker in for warranty repair.

3. The speaker of a 56kbps Robotics Fax modem

You already asked this question. The reply still is "it isn't".

4. An electrostatic speaker

You send the amplifier in for warranty repair.

5. The speaker of a Casio SA-11 100 ToneBank Keyboard

You already asked this question. The reply still is "it isn't".

NOTE: I am just in it for the science. I have no current application
in mind.

Science ... ah, you train for a degree in trolling .... O;-)


Kind regards

Peter Larsen


--
************************************************** ***********
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
************************************************** ***********