Fred Sturm wrote: > Alan was kind enough to send what I originally asked for off list: a > couple spreadsheets (in Xcel) containing all the formulae and actual > entered data for real pianos. Two different spreadsheets (ie, set up > differently with different formulae, one based on Dave Roberts done by > Doug Rhodes, the other with the name Collins attached). I ran some > sample figures, and it came out precisely as I predicted. I took sample > notes, F5, C6, F6 and lowered the string diameter for each, then raised > it. In each case, lowering the string diameter resulted in a lower > calculated tension and a lower calculated tension as per cent of > breaking point. And increasing the diameter resulted in higher > calculated tension and higher calculated tension as percent of breaking > point. Tension change, certainly, as has been indicated. What exactly is calculated tension as percent of breaking point? That isn't break%. Break% is the percent of tensile limit of the string at it's current tension, and that number doesn't change with wire gage changes. For instance, one wire in a B-3 of 703mm length with 0.042" diameter will be at 190lbs at 43% of it's breaking tension. That's a break% of 43. Change the wire gage to 0.044" diameter and the tension goes to 208lbs, while the break% remains at 43. > I'd be happy to send these along to any skeptics who want to try for > themselves. I am sure there are others on this list who already have > their own spreadsheets, similarly populated with real piano (or > harpsichord) data, who can try it out for themselves. I would be happy > to hear of any results. Then you'll be thrilled with the above. > I view the matter as settled, Ron Nossaman's carping notwithstanding. It was settled before we started, Fred. The empirically derived math says the break% doesn't change with a wire gage change. If my unsuccessful attempt to inform you of this basic fact is carping, then it's still carp diem. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC