>Ron, > It should be easy to see from recent posts that at least two people, and >possibly more, separated by a large and wet ocean and part of a continent, >never having laid eyes on each other and never having spoken or communicated >directly, except by this list have arrived at essentially similar conclusions. >So your count, had it been accurate, would have been at least two. I daresay >there are others. Absolutely. Consider me corrected. I daresay there are also plenty more different and wonderful theories to be had in addition to these. >As to this so-called anonymous model, in spite of that it >represents opinions contrary to yours, those of Del and Ron O., surely you >can see it must represent differences in experiences, observations and >perspectives. As it should have been easy to see from recent posts, I was challenged to present a URL, or other authoritative source to what I was saying. I answered the question, but it is apparently not proper for me to ask the same of the two proponents of the other theory. And yes, the differences in perspective are quite evident. > I will state categorically that this model proposed by myself and JD is >highly grounded in a scientific approach and thoroughly embodies well >established physical principles. As is, and does, the theory the three of us propose. > This thread, was taken up by me, at >least, in reponse to numerous posts indicating flexion at the bridge as being >the principal driver of soundboard motion and subsequent conclusions being >predicated upon this notion, something I think is plainly incorrect. I have >suggested trying a particular test and asked for comments pertaining to the >behavior of a soundboard when a tuning fork is set in vibration while being >attached to it by a slack wire, J.D. suggests the use of a six foot rod. >This appears to not worth the trouble by the proponents of your point of view. I see no purpose to it. The fork will move the wire, slack or otherwise, and the moving wire or rod will move the soundboard - producing a faint sound, as you indicated. I don't think the handle of the fork is moving as a result of an internal stress wave any more than I think the bridge and soundboard are. So this test proves what? > To avoid the tedium of repetition >then I say we should simply acknowledge that we disagree on these points. Excellent suggestion. Consider it acknowledged. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC