Sound waves(The behavior of soundboards)

[John Delacour]

At 10:32 AM -0600 12/23/01, Ron Nossaman wrote:
>  >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.

Now that is a most deceptive and disingenuous statement of the case, 
and this is the way you have tried all along to gain support for your 
stand.  Any child can tell that pressure on the string can cause the 
bridge to move; he only has to jump in and stand on the strings to 
show that, and now you are trying to tell people that this proves 
your theory.  There may be some people on the list that were born 
yesterday, but I wasn't.

In my post with the topic "Rocking Bridges", to which at the time of 
writing you have not yet responded, I ask you to confirm your 
position so that we may actually be quite clear about it.  The 
definition of your position as I have laid it out seems to be 
unobjectionable, but I have given you the opportunity to modify this 
as you please so that he is no doubt what your position is.

On that basis some reason can be brought to bear on the discussion, 
which has been distorted and side-tracked by you and your associates 
from the beginning, apparently with the sole aim of saving face and 
without a single relevant demonstration in proof.

In case by chance you missed the message (and pigs might fly!) here 
is the relevant portion again:

At 10:39 PM +0000 12/22/01, John Delacour wrote:
>First, may we get it clear that you and others have mentioned three 
>types of movement in relation to the bridge, namely a) rocking 
>movement (of the top towards and away from the stud or hitchpin)  b) 
>up and down movement and c) rippling movement.
>
>Secondly, that it is the string that is the _direct_ cause or driver 
>of these bodily movements and
>
>Thirdly, that these bodily movements of the bridge cause the 
>soundboard to move (as it must, since the two are glued together) 
>and to produce the sound of the string into the air.
>
>I use the word "bodily" to distinguish these movements from 
>molecular disturbances within or at the surface of the objects in 
>question which result in no displacement of the object as a whole. 
>I would allow that a movement of a part of the object would also 
>constitute bodily movement, so it is not necessary for every inch if 
>the bridge to be displaced.
>
>So long as I am not twisting your words or misinterpreting your 
>stand, then we can continue; so please confirm that the above is 
>your view or modify it as necessary.
>
>If you agree, then I would like first to consider the "rocking 
>motion" of the bridge that you and Ron Overs (and probably Del) have 
>referred to.  We have to begin somewhere and that's as good a place 
>as any.  It would be best if we get our positions clear at every 
>point as we progress.  How about it?