[CAUT] Sperrhake Harpsichord wire

[Ron Nossaman]

Fred Sturm wrote:

> Thanks. Obviously I have been relying on false data to come to my 
> conclusions.
>     Just for the sake of completion, and maybe to make it clear to some 
> others, I'll recap a couple things. We will all agree that on any 
> working real scale, which means that length increases at less than two 
> times per octave, if you string with one gauge, the tension goes down as 
> you move down the scale, and up as you move up the scale. Since the 
> breaking point stays constant (since you are using the same gauge), that 
> means break% is higher at the top and becomes lower as you move down.

That's not what we're doing here. What we're doing here is 
deciding that replacing any one string with another gage wire 
won't change the break% of the wire at pitch. That's all this 
has ever been about. It has nothing whatsoever to do with 
length progressions within the scale. It's as simple as I've 
been trying to keep it, in spite of your efforts to divert it 
elsewhere. This doesn't call for sweeping generalizations of 
what break% will be where. That's another thing that we are 
NOT discussing.



>     More to the point, though, given a single note, meaning a speaking 
> length and a target pitch, if you increase the diameter of wire, the 
> tension increases (and, obviously, the inverse: decrease diameter, 
> tension decreases). So the question is whether the strength of the 
> material increases at the same rate, to keep up with the increase of 
> tension. I had thought, based on the information I had, that it did not 
> keep up. Apparently I was wrong. Of course, the measurement of breaking 
> point tension is not an absolutely precise science, and so it is likely 
> that my information was based on sampling that happened to slant in a 
> particular direction (that is, the breaking point figures selected by 
> the spreadsheets I used tended to show more relative strength in 
> narrower gauges).

This is, indeed, the only point, and always was.


>     So, bottom line, I am convinced. Again, thank you for going to the 
> trouble.

It's a miracle!
Ron N