Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Fitzmaurice
The reason why that scheme is less than optimal is clear: the braces themselves will flex. When the braces are perpendicular to the panels they can't flex.
Or what experience has proven to work.
The flexing of the bracing is insignificant in either case, because the difference in panel flex is very small with the two schemes. Only one scheme uses HALF the amount of material, so you can brace twice as many points on the sheets with the same amount of wood pole material. Furthermore, the bracing can be applied when the enclosure is completed, because all the parts fit through the driver hole.
Math tells us what is correct. The math says you are twice as well off by bracing diagonally, unless you wish to dispute the math then you are simply just disagreeing for the privilege to continue bracing in a less effective way. Why would you do that? I did the work because someone said to prove it and then the proof isn't enough to change existing opinion? Why do I even bother trying to improve your future?
PS: If you aren't familiar with models, the flex is exaggerated in the images or else you wouldn't be able to tell what flexed in what direction at all. its the numbers that matters.
cms, aka driver diaphragm suspension mechanical compliance: 0.000065 meter/Newton or in standard form 6.5e-05 m/N. (smaller number is better)
rms, aka driver diaphragm suspension mechanical resistance: 6.41 Newton.sec/meter. (higher number is better)
Last edited by ronny31; 07-22-2016 at 02:58 AM.