>Oh come on Ron,... Physically displacing one string with your finger in no way >simlulates the real life situation of the vibrating system. Of course you can >push the bridge and sound board down with your fingers. No, I pushed down the unison, the bridge moved. I pulled it up too, like the hammer does when it hits the strings, and the bridge moved the other way. Wasn't the discussion about whether or not the bridge can be moved by the string, or are we now to presume that the string isn't deflected by the hammer as well? That's the first requirement to the rest of the entire discussion. > That does not show, nor >does anything else you have had to say so far, that the board gets moved by the >bridge which is moved up and down and forward and backswards physically by the >strings vibrating. No offense meant, but proofing something to be true or false >requires a little bit more then opinion, unsupported declarations of some >insight into the realm of physics, and oversimplified examples that are >questionable in terms of their relevance to the subject matter at hand. Who has the burden of proof here? I thought there were two theories in question, not just one, and I haven't heard what I consider a remotely adequate argument or test to support the other theory. As I said before, Instrumentation and an intelligently run test is the only way to say. I don't have the proper instrumentation to test it in real time. Whether the test data would be believed or not is another question. >Now, none of this means I am taking sides with JD on this... I am not at all >convinced he is correct, tho I find his thoughts interesting enough. You sure sound convinced to me. > I have seen a lot of scoffing and the >like. Yes, so have I. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC