Fred Sturm wrote: > So you are saying you ran those same notes and lengths and diameters > with Sanderson and Hays? And found no change in break%? If that is the > case, I guess I am willing to concede it isn't clear cut. It doesn't matter what numbers you run. With these formulas, the break% doesn't change. Is this starting to sound familiar? >But I'd like > to see your figures just for the record, parallel to what I provided > (note, length, diameter, tension, break%). Doesn't take that long to do, > and, hey, if you convince me I'll shut up <G>. There's no possible way I'll convince you of anything - ever. Using your figures, C-4 goes 83lb, 94lb, 118lb, 145lb, and the break% remains 34% for both the Sanderson and Hays formulas. For the C-7, it goes 147lb, 167lb, 210lb, 258lb, and the break% remains 61% for Sanderson, and 60% for Hays. My numbers correspond to yours for the Rhodes formula. The other one isn't a formula at all, but a lookup table. > But my mind is always open to the thought I could be wrong. I've been noticing that. Now, I'd like to state once more that none of the formulas anyone has are absolute gospel. None of them. The closest thing I have to truth here is from reports I've read through the years from facilities having done empirical testing on wire stating that break% doesn't change with wire size, if you average in enough batch testing. Zero change falls in the middle of the bell curve. Once again, the formulas that we use to calculate tension, inharmonicity, impedance, and break% aren't, and can't be, absolutely accurate. This doesn't render them less useful for their purpose, but picking two at random (which themselves don't nearly agree) isn't a useful indicator of an absolute premise. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC