Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="IgnoreMe" data-source="post: 4108272" data-attributes="member: 551352">sounds like you need to do some research on flared ports...1) a 6&quot; flared aero port is ~28^2 of port. the flare on these ports allows for a reduction in vent velocity of over 50%. using a REAL aero port with a good flare will allow you to use roughly 50% the port area, with the same efficiency.2) i said 53^2 of slot port is too small. if you actually read my post you would see where i said i use roughly 60^2 of port per 15&quot; driver, but i use drivers that usually have 30mm or so of linear excursion and 3kw for each driver. i didnt know what kind of power he was gonna use, or how much those l5&#039;s can move. after reassessing and assuming that the l5&#039;s arent going to give him some crazy excursion, i said it should work fine.3) i suggested aero ports for the simple fact thata) they are more efficient and allow you to use less port areab) take up less space</blockquote>

[QUOTE="IgnoreMe, post: 4108272, member: 551352"] sounds like you need to do some research on flared ports... 1) a 6" flared aero port is ~28^2 of port. the flare on these ports allows for a reduction in vent velocity of over 50%. using a REAL aero port with a good flare will allow you to use roughly 50% the port area, with the same efficiency. 2) i said 53^2 of slot port is too small. if you actually read my post you would see where i said i use roughly 60^2 of port per 15" driver, but i use drivers that usually have 30mm or so of linear excursion and 3kw for each driver. i didnt know what kind of power he was gonna use, or how much those l5's can move. after reassessing and assuming that the l5's arent going to give him some crazy excursion, i said it should work fine. 3) i suggested aero ports for the simple fact that a) they are more efficient and allow you to use less port area b) take up less space [/QUOTE]

Verification