string seating - was bridge caps

[Richard Brekne]

Ron Nossaman wrote:

> Richard Brekne wrote:
> >No no no no no... you cant use the linear sin expression to make that
> >comparison.
> >You need an exponential equation for that. I used the Sin function just to
> >get to a
> >low point for the edge relative to the bearing angle.
>
> I know that. I was just using your example, which doesn't work either (and for
> the same reason), to make a point.
>

For the most part I think we understand each other and aggree... but this line I am
not sure about. Using the Sin function to determine the "height" of a point on a
slope....is like sort of...."per definition" Seeings how thats how I used it I fail
to see how it doesnt work in "the" (not mine) example we had before us... (1 degree
total bearing angle)

I say again that my only point is

" that string seating does not become superfluous until the indentation at the
bridge edge is below the bearing angle line... thats where I brought in the Sin
function.. as it can be used to find that exact depth any given point on the
bridge."

This remains true,  regardless of how indentation of the bridge comes about...
regardless of the degree any given factor plays in the bridge indentation.

I think you have shown very good evidence as to how the bridge pins holding the
strings down against a swelling bridge can contribute significantly to the
indentation of the bridge. It seems obvious also that when this indentation becomes
too severe, string seating becomes useless. But these facts in no way address the
neccessity (or lack there of ) of string seating when the indentation is not so
severe as to be below the gradient of the string bearing angle. I have yet to see
anything written here that addresses that at all...grin... tho granted I coulda
missed sump'em.



--
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no