Originally Posted by Jady Jenkins
While you continue in your handwaving and pontifications as to entertain and distract us away from errors that Bill has put forth, to which you have very creatively strived to uphold
Really? Very early in this thread, I included this:
Originally Posted by Bigus
I'm not making any argument against the math presented.
Ohm's law isn't that complicated. The relationship of current to voltage through impedance is well known. I haven't tried to "uphold" anything but what I've said. But I'm glad my posts at least entertained. You can have kids with fries not eating, but you can't have kids eating fries without fries!
the time has also come for you to clearly state whether or not you still actually believe that it's voltage and not current, is the prime contributor to a speakers excursion, and therefore the prime mover itself. To put it another way, do you still hold your position that voltage is the prime mover, and as such is what cause speaker excursion?
The term "prime mover" is superfluous IMO. Again, the relationship of current to voltage through impedance is well known. I have absolutely no problem
with referencing cone excursion to current as the simplest mathematical way of describing the relationship. There is no reason to make the math any more complex than necessary.
The time for double speak and spin to subside has arrived.
I don't care much for spin in technical discussions. Fries maybe, not spin. I like precise accepted definitions and consistency, so that we are all on the same page when discussing technical matters.
Speaker excursion is proportional to the total, useable current (AKA electrical Charge)...
Current is NOT "also known as" charge. Current is known as current. Charge is known as charge.
It is very suspicious that in and amongst all of your pontifications that you haven't directly drawn our attention to these summaries. It actually appears that you are hand waving us away, if you will.
No, just addressing the statements I personally felt needed correcting for others reading.
The reality is that if you cannot find and prove there to be any errors within that the post as it stands, represents irrefutable proof that current passing through the VC and not voltage over it, is what causes driver excursion, making current, and not voltage, also the prime mover.
Nonsequitor statements like this can't be agreed with or disagreed with in entirety. Your math, pictures, and actual measurements can all be "correct" and still not support your unnecessary hard stance that current is this fundamental "prime mover." Because it isn't. Even though the math and pictures are correct. It isn't hand waiving, its just the way the world works.
The time has come for the gamesmanship to be reduced to zero, and a serious, mature, objective discussion to take place.
(Bigus - all gamesmanship aside, I truely hope that you come to realize that voltage and wattage are products and that it's the electrons within current (C/s) that does the work, within either, making current prime. But lets not digress, but rather get focused on the report below.
OK, fine. I see you softening slowly, as current has started giving way to charge as the underlying fundamental property of matter, through you still insist on equating the two, and insist that current is more fundamental than voltage (because it 'contains the charge'?), and comes first, and creates voltage. You probably believe that, as you can simplistically reverse Faraday's law of induction and it appears to start with current if you ignore the big picture.
Worth noting in this relationship there is only charge which, if elevated to a state of potential energy by a field, becomes voltage (EMF). No current. Current is the product if allowed to flow in a closed circuit. Current follows voltage.
That's the simplified form for an infinitely thin wire. The generalized Maxwell-Faraday equation breaks this down further.
E, electric field is related to B, magnetic field. Time varying magnetic field creates spatially varying electric field. Or vice versa.
Starting with the magnetic field, the electric field is created. Voltage results proportional to its distance a charge is from the field. V = E*d (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ic/elewor.html
If a closed loop is present, that voltage creates a current.
Magnetic field --> electric field --> voltage (if charges present in a conductor) --> current (if closed loop present). You have stated fairly emphatically that current is always first, voltage is always the product. This clearly lays out the error of that reasoning. Voltage can exist without current. Current cannot exist without voltage.
But in the case of a dynamic loudspeaker speaker, taking a limited view in the case of a closed circuit where current is already
present, you are just reversing this relationship: Current "prime mover" --> voltage --> electric field --> magnetic field --> movement. Right?
But the current is only present in a voicecoil because it was created elsewhere, always, ALWAYS
subsequent to the presence of a voltage. Current is only
present in the voicecoil because it was created by a voltage upstream. And even within a voicecoil, it is the voltage present that physically creates an electric field, which if varying creates a magnetic field, which can react with another magnetic field (motor structure) to produce motion. Even here, voltage is the constant. It is the literal amount of energy per charge available, the reflection of work able to be performed.
Current is a just a mathematically useful way of counting the stuff that really matters. Depending on what units you use, and it certainly is the case with SI units, it may be more mathematically concise to use current rather than relate via impedance to voltage. That's fine, I have no problem with that. But voltage is what produces the force that moves the speaker. Voltage carries energy, voltage gets charge into the voicecoil, voltage creates the electric field, voltage moves the diaphragm.