"Mark Simonetti"

Surely, as the lower frequency moves the cone back and
forth, which at the same time is vibrating to create the higher
frequency, that is IDENTICAL to moving a single vibrating source back
and forth, like the train analogy (except the train doesn't move back
and forth unless the driver is very confused). Therefore, the doppler
effect surely DOES occur.

It just seems really obvious, so I must be missing the whole point of
this, I'm no physics scientist !



** The matter is intuitive to many - but forever obscure to those with
no mental capacity to imagine the situation in their heads. It pretty much
divides up between the science types ( using mental, physical models ) and
the arts subject types ( using only grammar and phrase matching).

The fact that cones have **vastly greater** excursions at low frequencies
than at high ones - even for the same SPL - is at the heart of the matter
and clearly bamboozles as well.

The fact that those large low frequency excursions have the greatest
velocity also confounds the easily confoundable.





.............. Phil

Phil Allison wrote:
no mental capacity to imagine the situation in their heads. It pretty much
divides up between the science types ( using mental, physical models ) and
the arts subject types ( using only grammar and phrase matching).

I often find this. When designing and writing software for instance at
work, I can see it all in my head, the mechanisms, how things interact
and such like. As soon as I try and explain it verbally to someone, I
find it difficult to transfer to language. I'm okay if I have time to
produce a document though, because then I have time to translate the
visualisation into words, and I can use diagrams.

In my original post about this, I had the same problem, I wanted to draw
diagrams showing the waves being summed, and the speaker in its
different position, etc.

--
Mark Simonetti.
Freelance Software Engineer.

"Mark Simonetti"

no mental capacity to imagine the situation in their heads. It pretty
much
divides up between the science types ( using mental, physical models )
and
the arts subject types ( using only grammar and phrase matching).

I often find this. When designing and writing software for instance at
work, I can see it all in my head, the mechanisms, how things interact
and such like. As soon as I try and explain it verbally to someone, I
find it difficult to transfer to language. I'm okay if I have time to
produce a document though, because then I have time to translate the
visualisation into words, and I can use diagrams.

In my original post about this, I had the same problem, I wanted to draw
diagrams showing the waves being summed, and the speaker in its
different position, etc.



** The lack of the facility to post sketches and diagrams on usenet is a
*real* drawback. When I need to explain stuff to non-technical folk ( and
some technical ones too) I often reach for my pen and paper !!!!

Then, on second thoughts, the sketches that might appear most often could
be kinda pornographic in nature ;-)



........... Phil

Phil Allison wrote:
Then, on second thoughts, the sketches that might appear most often could
be kinda pornographic in nature ;-)

That might not be a bad thing, I mean if it helps get the point across,
right? All in the aid of science and all that ;-)

--
Mark Simonetti.
Freelance Software Engineer.

In alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.tech,rec.audio.pro, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

** The lack of the facility to post sketches and diagrams on usenet is a
*real* drawback. When I need to explain stuff to non-technical folk ( and
some technical ones too) I often reach for my pen and paper !!!!

Draw the pics on paper, scan them in, put the files (reasonably
compressed .jpg, please) on a website, and post the URL's in your
message.

Then, on second thoughts, the sketches that might appear most often could
be kinda pornographic in nature ;-)

Use Geocities, they're slow to clean up smut on their server.




.......... Phil




-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley