[CAUT] Sperrhake Harpsichord wire

[Ron Nossaman]

Fred Sturm wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Ron Nossaman wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
>     Then you say your number correspond to mine for Rhodes. But my 
> Rhodes figures show a progression of break%. For C-4, 29.2, 29.8, 31, 
> 32. For C-7, 52, 53, 55, 57. (The second series of figures I posted were 
> from Rhodes, with tension converted to Kg for consistency. But the Lbs 
> tension are precisely the same as yours).
>     So why the inconsistency? 

There is no inconsistency. The math works the same on my copy 
of Excel as it does yours. I said my numbers, plural, 
corresponded to yours, meaning the Rhodes formula on my 
spreadsheet produces the same break% numbers as the same 
formula on your spreadsheet. It is, in fact, the same 
spreadsheet because you sent me a copy of it. Do I have to 
actually send numbers that are the same as yours, or can you 
bring yourself to trust that I compared them and they were the 
same as yours - as I said? I'm sure if you dig long enough, 
you can find something to question on some level. This is why 
I tried to keep things as simple as possible, and limited to 
only one point. Even at that, it can be bottomless.
Ron N