Counter bearing treatment

[David M. Porritt]

Brian:

The CD rom of the past 20 years of the Journal will be a reality this
year... before the convention I believe.

Dave Porritt
Chairman, Electronic Communication Committee

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 1/13/00 at 12:51 PM Brian Trout wrote:

>Hi Richard,
>
>You wrote:
>> On the side... why do scaling programs not take into consideration the
>string
>> length from the tuning pin to the forward termination, but do take into
>account
>> the length behind the bridge ??
>>
>I would venture to say that the length of wire behind the bridge is more
>critical because the bridge is not stationary, but rather needs to move.
If
>the wire length is too short, it will indeed 'clamp' the movement of the
>bridge.  (That would be bad).
>
>Conversely, the capo bar or agraffes are not intended to have any movement
>at all, and are designed to be quite rigid.    With that in mind, the
length
>from the forward termination to tuning pin is not nearly so critical.  If
it
>is intended to speak, intended lengths need to be designed into the plate.
>(It can be re-engineered if one desires, but like Del has said
>previously,... a well designed soundboard does not require the assistance
of
>a duplex for tonal support <I'm paraphrasing>.)
>
>I've enjoyed reading about the thoughts and concepts of termination design
>variations.  I find it mentally stimulating.  Perhaps at some point, I'll
be
>able to lay hands on those Journal articles as well. :-)
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Brian Trout
>Quarryville, PA
>btrout@desupernet.net




David M. Porritt
dporritt@swbell.net
Meadows School of the Arts
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, TX 75275