And where are the equations that show that inductance is required to transfer EM energy?
Waving statements about the permittivity and permeability of free space doesn't prove you need inductance to transfer energy in a magnetic field.
An ideal antenna has no inductance, only radiation resistance.
How does it do that?

Your thinking on this subject is too constrained. I'm not here to teach you, only tell you so take it as you please.

You can compute approximated answers of the device from the Circuit Analysis simplification where 'artifacts' of lumped components are used to correct for EM field/physical interactions and also know that CA doesn't actually describe the physical device electromagnetically.

 

I'm not here to teach you

You have taught me that you are good at obfuscation when you can't answer a question directly.
You last sentence is a good example of that.

 

Conclusion: An amplifier driving an ideal loudspeaker doesn't need a zobel network. For all non-ideal loudspeakers, make sure you include one.

I can agree with that for a typical magnetic speaker.

 

I can agree with that for a typical magnetic speaker.

I suppose a piezo and its series resistor might do the job for you.

 

You have taught me that you are good at obfuscation when you can't answer a question directly.
You last sentence is a good example of that.

As has happened many times before, it's a waste of time to explain it to you. You either see it or you don't, there is no obfuscation, only a lack of understanding on your part IMO.

 

it's a waste of time to explain it to you.

Spook, It's a waste of time because you don't answer my questions directly and I understand that perfectly.
You should have been a politician since you are the best at spinning answers I've seen.

 

Spook, It's a waste of time because you don't answer my questions directly and I understand that perfectly.
You should have been a politician since you are the best at spinning answers I've seen.

When you get statements that are obviously incomplete and IMO intentionally so, repeated again and again it is a waste of time to respond.
For instance: An ideal antenna has no inductance, only radiation resistance.

An antenna ideally appears as a resistor to the transmitter, this obviously doesn't mean an antenna is a resistor,

The ideal conductor antenna always has a reactive energy near field surrounding it because there is a current distribution on it from the EM field. This current distribution has the property of self inductance. Solving the field equations around the classic dipole shows that there are both reactive fields and radiation fields generated. Radiation fields are the ones that carry power off into the distance as real power.

Radiation resistance is an effective (dispersive not dissipative) resistance of a device with reactive components moving power though it.

https://www.tutorialspoint.com/antenna_theory/antenna_theory_near_and_far_fields.htm

 

When you get statements that are obviously incomplete and IMO intentionally so

And IMHO you intentionally throw out peripheral technical statements to show that your are never wrong, but that obfuscates and skirts the issue.
For example, I have seen nothing from you that directly verifies your statement below (which is how this interchange started), as to how inductance is required to transfer magnetic energy.

the speaker inductance is the energy conduit for sound energy that must be there

You threw out comments about permeability and permittivity of space, but that does not answer the question.
It does require a magnetic field for energy transfer but I know of no direct relation between the value of any inductance for that field and energy transferred, which there should be if that inductance is the energy conduit.
It's certainly not true for a transformer.
There is no inductance that appears between the input of a transformer and the output load due to the magnetic field that transfers the energy (air core transformers are near ideal in this respect).

 

I didn't think that this thread was about antennae.

 

I'm not here to teach you, only tell you so take it as you please.

By telling someone something who apparently doesn't know that something, you are teaching. As goes the expression: 'I can teach you but I can't make you understand.'

 

I didn't think that this thread was about antennae.

That post of mine was about how potentially misleading statements of how real/physical reactive electromagnetic effects that require things like zobel networks are artifact components used to make simulations accurate. That not true in an antenna or true with a electrodynamic speaker. These EM effects are the reasons compensation networks are required when at first glance they can seem unnecessary.