Amp load...

CrBoy
CrBoy Posts: 580
edited August 2005 in Car Audio & Electronics
My brother has 2 subs (8 Ohm each) powered by a 4ch amp bridged to 2 ch.

Amp Specifications:
RMS Power measured at 12.5 Volts DC:
50 watts x 4 into a 2 ohm load with less than 0.3% THD+N
100 watts bridged x 2 into a 4 ohm load with less than 0.3% THD+N

How many wrms is each sub getting if they're 8 Ohm instead of 4...?

I guess less than 100 wrms right?
<|>
Post edited by CrBoy on
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • MacLeod
    MacLeod Posts: 14,358
    edited July 2005
    About 50 watts each.

    The only time youd use an 8 ohm sub is if you were going to use 2 of them bridged to a a 2 channel amp which would be a 4 ohm mono load.

    Right now he's running a 8 ohm mono load which is half the power of the 4 ohm mono which is 50 watts which aint much.
    polkaudio sound quality competitor since 2005
    MECA SQ Rookie of the Year 06 ~ MECA State Champ 06,07,08,11 ~ MECA World Finals 2nd place 06,07,08,09
    08 Car Audio Nationals 1st ~ 07 N Georgia Nationals 1st ~ 06 Carl Casper Nationals 1st ~ USACi 05 Southeast AutumnFest 1st

    polkaudio SR6500 --- polkaudio MM1040 x2 -- Pioneer P99 -- Rockford Fosgate P1000X5D
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CrBoy
    CrBoy Posts: 580
    edited July 2005
    But let me tell ya those subs hit really hard
    I don't know why... :eek:
    <|>
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PoweredByDodge
    PoweredByDodge Posts: 4,185
    edited August 2005
    i politely refuse to comment.

    splendid day all...
    The Artist formerly known as PoweredByDodge
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • neomagus00
    neomagus00 Posts: 3,899
    edited August 2005
    ah, but isn't that like choosing to make no decision? - you've still decided, after all, even if you've decided to do nothing... in the same way, you commented that you refuse to comment...

    and yes, i'm incredibly bored - for example, i got my pencil and calculator and discovered that the sun exerts 2.19 times the force of gravity on the moon than the earth does, so technically, you could call the moon a planet and have the earth-moon system be a binary planet system... woooh...
    It's not good, very fundamentally simply not good. - geolemon

    "Its not good enough until we have real-time fearmongering. I want my fear mongered as it happens." - Shizelbs
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PoweredByDodge
    PoweredByDodge Posts: 4,185
    edited August 2005
    the earth is a "satellite" of the sun, exactly in the same manner than the moon is a "satellite" of the earth.

    however, calling the moon a planet will not worth... it's not the right "tier".

    there has to be some reference point, something to start from.

    if you go to the "biggest thing around" - that's the sun. moving outward... anything orbiting it of substantial mass and who's orbit is almost solely determined by the aforementioned sun would be considered a "planet". anything orbiting a planet of substantial mass would be considered a "satellite" or moon.

    Now if you wanted to view the earth as an absolute reference point, then the earth would be a "sun" (neglecting the fact that it does not give off the heat of a galactic furnace, nor provide a true source of light energy), the moon would be a planet, and any garbage floating around the moon would be a satellite/moon.

    i gotta quit smoking, i'm hackin up a lung. soon particles of my lung will be launched into orbit as little moons.
    The Artist formerly known as PoweredByDodge
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • neomagus00
    neomagus00 Posts: 3,899
    edited August 2005
    true... i read an article linked off of slashdot (http://chamary.blogspot.com/2005/08/putative-planets.html) and decided to check out its claims... my results showed that the force of gravity between the earth and moon (at their mean separation) is roughly 1.99 x 10^20 Newtons. The force of gravity between the sun and moon (at their mean separation) is roughly 4.35 x 10^20 N... that puts the sun's force at about 2.19 times the earth's...

    if you were to classify a 'planet' (a term which does not currently have a scientific definition) as a body that is affected more by the sun than by any nearby body, then the moon would qualify as a planet.

    repeat the calculation for jupiter and its satellite io, and you find that jupiter exerts a force 3000 times greater than the sun - this leaves io as a moon of jupiter, so the definition is at least feasible and consistent...

    like i said, i'm quite bored today... oh, and yes, you do need to quit smoking, it's terribly bad for you, and while i don't know this from experience, both my parents are ex-smokers, so i know from watching them how difficult it is to do, but that it can be done, so if you work at it, you can do it... good luck, if you do make that choice...
    It's not good, very fundamentally simply not good. - geolemon

    "Its not good enough until we have real-time fearmongering. I want my fear mongered as it happens." - Shizelbs
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PoweredByDodge
    PoweredByDodge Posts: 4,185
    edited August 2005
    well a good friend of mine just got out of the hospital for heart surgery and he has to quit, so i might as well quit along with him...

    argh...

    far as the planet thing ... u have a good point. i think celestial bodies need to stop worrying about who's cooler to hang around with based solely on their mass and relative density. stupid planets, trix are for kids. they shoudl just pick a celestial body with "good character" and "charming wit" and hang around that one.
    The Artist formerly known as PoweredByDodge
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter