Obviously the current demand for each of the different drivers (motors) is different, but the full spectrum of RF energy would be present on each leg, there is no intelligent valve that tells each leg of a biwire to only carry certain frequencies.
Edit: I suppose you could use a lighter gauge conductor for the tweeter and a larger one for the woofer but I would leave that to experts like audiojest 
Yes. The intelligent valve is (again) Ohms Law. The tweeter leg capacitor is a short at high frequencies and an open to low frequencies. So only high frequency current flows in the tweeter leg.
The woofer leg inductor is a short to low frequencies an an open to high frequencies. So only low frequency current flows in the woofer leg.
Easy Peasy. 
I’m missing where ohms law refers to frequency, but I’ve only worked on radar and microwave transmitters and hold radio licenses. I’ll have to let this discussion go for now, carry on.
No, this is a fundamental misunderstanding perpetuated by some speaker cable manufacturers and audiophiles. Cables are linear devices, therefore incapable of producing IMD products.
Have a read of this:
The uninitiated think there’s some kind of magical cut off between bass and tweeter, however, nothing could be further from the truth. There’s a very gradual transfer from one driver to the other which depends on the drivers themselves and the crossover slopes. In practice, though, it’s all irrelevant where bi-wiring is concerned when you properly examine the physics…
Also, have a look at Jim Lesurf’s broader articles on hi-fi:
Here’s the crossover for my previous standmount speaker. Electrically 2nd order on the woofer and 3rd order on the tweeter, but functionally a 4th order Linkwitz-Riley:
Things in reality are considerably more complex than simplistic bi-wiring thinking assumes.
Here’s the transfer functions of the crossover:
See how much overlap there is between drivers?
Yes and solid brass jumpers that short, are of excessively suitable gauge to be of zero influence to the signal.
Yup, and then you introduce a frequency dependent voltage divider between the cable and the tweeter circuit as the skinny cable becomes less trivial from an impedance perspective.
I like the audiojest moniker. Perhaps a little less inflammatory to our subjective brethren than my oft-used (and occasionally moderated) fraudioquest version…
But dahling, brass sounds simply awful…
Kidding. Brass doesn’t sound different than any other metal once you’ve compensated for resistivity by adjusting cross sectional area.
Dare you to say that to Herb Alpert
How about “fraudiojest”? Laughing in your face whilst emptying your pockets.
Shhh, I think I hear flags being unfurled 
This entire thread is a waste of time/effort/bandwidth.
The entier thread, maybe so. I thouht the first post was OK.
It would be good to know what the general intention is from a speaker manufacturer’s perspective. Is it perhaps bi-amping, rather than bi-wiring? My opnion is that it is a colossal waste of money. Even if a difference is observed, which I doubt, its money down the drain.
Here’s one manufacturer’s opinion:
At Cambridge Audio all of our modern speakers do not have the capacity to be bi-wired. We always want to offer our customers the best possible components in our products, rather than adding an extra set of terminals to the speakers we would rather invest in a better crossover.
https://www.cambridgeaudio.com/row/en/blog/should-you-bi-wire-your-speakers
Exactly my sentiment
A tad unfair I think. You’re (and others) adherence to scientific truth laudable, and the threads zealous moderation has been informative. So, I think deffo things to take from it. Onwards, and all that.
Really says nothing other than marketing speak.
A nothing burger article from Audioholics.
Did you read the full article?
You made some false statements regarding bi-wiring based on misunderstanding and I tried to help you understand what’s really goinng on. Your flippant reply clearly shows I’m wasting my time.
We’re done here.
