>Lets see, I recall some folks saying that the Skin of the plate is harder, but I >dont recall a consensus of opinion stateing that the plate as a whole is softer >useing V-Pro. Quite the opposite, most of what I have read points to the opposite. * I read softer V-Pro, and case hardening in sand cast. >Then there is the matter of the porish consistency difference between the two types, * I'll probably regret it, but I'd like an explanation of this too if you would. >> Also, how does a >> larger capo radius accelerate capo wear by not allowing the string to have a >> precise pivot? That doesn't make any sense to me at all and I'd like it >> explained. How can a longer support area for a given load, on a given >> footprint width, result in accelerated wear of the support? This is contrary >> to logic as I know it. How does this work? Let's backtrack and plug a few >> holes before we hotly dispute anything else, what do you say? > >Grin ...I can only report the information and arguments as I read them, Ron, but >they make sense to me. The wear and tear on the capo by the string is of different >character if the capo is more a "clamped" termination then a "Pivot" Your "longer >support area" for a given load analogy doesnt really hold true. The "given load" is >not there at all. The "load" is in fact different in each case, by virtue of the >fact that the "load" behaves differently in each case. * Metaphysics aside, how can a bearing load resulting from a given string tension, at a given deflection angle not be the same in either case? >Lets put it this way. If you were standing on a really like "big" V-bar being really >carefull to only tilt your feet forward and backwards, exactly perpendicular to the >bar, and then compare the amount of wear and tear on your feet and on the bar to the >same experiment on a wider rounder bar, then your conclusion would be correct. But >if in the case of the wider rounder bar you introduce some twisting and sideways >motion then the wear will increase dramatically.(Both on your foot, and on the bar) >This only makes sense to me. * How would all this sideways motion, I'm throwing "twisting" out altogether, get past the termination (tangent) point and wallow around on the rest of the string/capo contact area to cause all that wear on all that extra area? This doesn't make sense to me. >The precise pivot has the effect of limiting the stings motion in this regard. >Whatever "flex" the string has at the termination point is "pivoted" in the >direction of the pivot. If you replace the pivot with a wider, rounder surfoace,then >the flexing of the string is dispersed in several directions, thus increasing >friction and thereby wear. * Wear of the capo? Why? The *internal* friction increase would be in the string, wouldn't it? >Now.. be it known that this is not me talking as an authority. It is me relateing >what I have read. This part of the termination point as a "pivot" visa vi a >"clamped" point is supported in several places on the nett. There are lots of >Universities running acoustics sides and several of these have short explanations >and/ or demonstrations of this. As far as I can see they are all in aggreement with >this. * So where can I find all this information about how, *specifically*, a large radius capo wears faster than a small radius under similar conditions? Since this is at odds with my understanding of basic physics, I'd sure like a cood clear explanation of how this works. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC