impedance and empericism

[Richard Moody]

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Nossaman <RNossaman@KSCABLE.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: impedance and empericism

Ric rote
> >      There is that school of science that says in effect, if it can't be
> >measured, you don't know what you are talking about.   I think they
really
> >say if it can't be measured it can't be defined, which is the same as
> >existance for them.

Ron rit
>
> Who says it can't be measured? Predicting it numerically before the fact
is
> the tough part. The effects of impedance match governed energy exchanges
> between string and soundboard governing overall sound characteristics, and
> those governing the affects on the partial frequencies of any given note
> may be products of the same phenomenon, but at considerably different
> scales. So at what level must impedance be defined to be useful? How many
> first rate cooks can explain the chemistry of fire, even, let alone
diagram
> results in the white sauce?

Ric rites back
Yeah,  but you forgot to say how it can be measured. If impedance is to be
defined at a useful level it should come from it measurements. The point of
emperical science is that prediction is the same as measurement.  Or the
measured result should be the same as predicted by the formula---which is
constructed from the measured results.   This  is what the inharmonicity
formula appears to be, a formula based on measurements.   However it doesn't
appear to predict so good, since other variables are now being claimed to
influence Ih.


Ric rote earlier
> >So a perfect problem for the "emperical" (measuring) scientists would be,
> >"does humidity affect frequency of tones, or any part of the frequency of
> >tones?"
> >---ric

ron responded
> Yes, I believe that's the point.
>
> Ron N

ric asks......
Ok how do they measure that, and what measurements do they come up with?
---ric