I replied "Freudian slip, imo.", and you didn't follow up. One generally reaps what one sows. I see your modus operandi so: Rather than admit an error, you first throw out a barrage of generally accurate but unrelated equations, etc as distraction. When that is ignored, you then take the insult route.
The Thiele-Small parameters from the 1961-1972 era tied together the former work of Raliegh, Morse, Olson, Beranek, Kinsler, and others. This was over 30 years ago, and they are the standard reference works. Yet you have not apprised yourself of them, and continue to espouse your ignorance. This in spite of their common usage and ready access. Had you done so, you would know that using only E^2/Re as the applied electrical power to a loudspeaker gives the correct electrical to acoustic efficiency. This is made clear from Smalls eq.2 along with eq.31, otherwise from the basic efficiency expression power out/power in and Beraneks and Morses work. Had you been open-minded rather than obstinate in your ignorance, you might have learned something. Accordingly, you give the impression of an internet grandstander.
So where to now? I realize that my knowledge is limited, that I shall never live long enough to learn even 0.01 % of the knowledge available in the world today. This grieves me, but does serve to remind me to be more open-minded. The downside is that when I encounter someone of your apparent ability, but who is close-minded, it dissapoints me. I came here with hopes of finding intelligent and open-minded discussion, but then nothing gained-nothing lost, I suppose.
BTW, I said "since you would find other peoples mistakes amusing, is that why you're here, to amuse yourself with the mistake of some poor soul less informed than yourself?" That you did not respond perhaps explains the situation.
I'll note here your last error (likely a wasted effort), where you said your equation was correct and I was the one in error:
You stated " U= (BlE/Re)/(Zm +(Bl^2)/Re) "
Beranek gives velocity in his eq.7.1 as
. Bl E U = -------------------- (Rg+Re) (Rm+jXm)
which in your form above is
BLE/(Rg+Re) U = ------------------ (Rm+jXm)
where U=velocity, BLE/(Rg+Re)=force, (Rm+jXm)=mech impedance Zm
you have ignored Rg, which is OK as modern-day amplifiers have negligible source resistance Rg. However, Beranek defines resistance Rm in the next eq.7.2 as
Rm = (Bl)^2/(Rg+Re) + Rms + 2 Rmr
This means (Bl)^2/(Rg+Re) is already *included* in mechanical impedance Zm, so you cannot add it to Zm again. Hooting about phasors as you did doesn't cut it. Phase enters the picture in adding Rm and jXm, not in the addition of resistances. This is sophomoric at best, or conniving at worst. Only you know, and I no longer give a crap.
Northstar firstname.lastname@example.org drop the high card to reply