Sound waves(The behavior of soundboards)

[Robin Hufford]

Given a level of understanding similar to that prated below I certainly
can
understand why it would not be very useful to wave theory, as is
indicated by
the author.  Little of this confused and foolish post  would be familiar
to a
physics student either, at least one that could pass the course.  In
general I
make no references to "authorities", preferring instead to rely on
coherent  and
reasoned argument -  a method plainly  distant to the consciousness of
the
author below but in this case it would be sinful not to make an
exception:
    " Newton's First Law:  A particle  originally at rest, or moving in
a
straight line with a constant velocity, will remain in this state
provided the
particle is not subject to an unbalanced force.
     Newton's Second Law:  A particle acted upon by an unbalanced force
F
experiences an acceleration  a  that has the same direction as the force
and a
magnitude that is directly proportional to the force.
     Newton's Third Law:  The mutual forces of action and reaction
between  two
particles are equal, opposite, and collinear."
      "Shortly after formulating his three laws of motion, Newton
postulated a
law governing the mutual attraction between any two particles.  In
mathematical
form this law can be expressed as".......(there follows the formula). 
Hibbeler
ENGINEERING MECHANCIS
      Should one wish to find the derivative of a function I would
certainly
suggest that one differentiate it although it seems the genius of the
author
below has discovered a new method.  We should now learn to derivate.
       I have not, in any of the intense arguments, or at any other time
during
some years reading this list, thought the term ignorant, which has been
thrown
around in the discussions of late, had any relevance to the proponents
of any
point of view.  However, at least momentarily and in this instance,  I
waver.
Robin Hufford


  Keith Roberts wrote:

> You guys don't know enough about basic physics to even be discussing wave
> theory.
>
>   In order for a body to move, a force needs to
> > be applied (Newton's first law)
>
> Newton's First Law, ( the apple hits me on the head ). The Law of Gravity.
> He said gravity is a Force that increases the speed of an object by a
> constant amount. 10 meters a second every second was what he measured it to
> be. Hence the term acceleration measured in (distance/sec)/sec. Then he
> theorized that the Force of an object was the product of its mass and
> acceleration. F=ma. Newton's Second Law. Now use your calculus to derivate
> the formula (acceleration becomes 0, velocity is constant) and the formula
> becomes F=m(velocity squared). F=mv2. The heart of vector analysis. It also
> explains why your tack hammer rebounds so dramatically from the tuning pin.
> For every action there is an equal and opposite action.
> Objects in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external
> force.
> Sound familiar physics students? Not very useful for wave theory.
> As for what the action of the bridge is, I offer proof that the strings
> stabilize the bridge.
> At the Reno convention I watched Virgil tune. He claimed the note dropped in
> pitch when he pulled the mute and tuned the second string. He showed us
> orally that this was true. Dr. Sanderson then came up and measured the
> difference. Dr Sanderson said the second string set itself up in opposition
> to the first string creating less movement of the bridge and there by less
> stretch of the string and an equivalent drop in pitch.    "set itself up in
> opposition",  now there's a man who understands wave theory.
> Keith Roberts
> Check out this site. Course notes for the physics of sound.
>  http://online.anu.edu.au/ITA/ACAT/drw/PPofM/