Rocking bridges

[Richard Brekne]

Ron Nossaman wrote:

> >
> > At first you pretended to ignore my request; at the second time of asking, in
> > red,  you refused to confirm it and at 2:00 PM -0600 12/23/01 wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Nor is there any reason for me to. With you maintaining that a string
> >> deflected by a finger will move the bridge but one deflected by a hammer
> >> strike won't, I see no point in continuing.
> >
>
> I consider this to be a pretty obvious and extremely elementary point which I
> have addressed extensively. If you can dispute this rationally, now would be a
> good time to begin. Yes, I have said what the words in red indicate. If there
> is an actual point to this, please make it.
>

Well I can sure as heck dispute  this... at least based on the evidence you have
given. You have simply demonstrated that by pushing your finger down on a string,
the bridge is deflected a tad. I say again this in no way means that the bridge is
deflected in any similiar fashion by the strings vibrating and it says nothing
whatso ever about whether or not this motion (however so significant or
insignificant) has anything to do with producing sound. You simply cannot jump to
that kind of conclusion, let alone try and justify it by calling it elementary,
obvious or anything else. In itself it says nothing at all except that moving the
string with your finger yields a measurable deflection of the bridge.

Do the same experiment except actually excite the strings by playing a key. In
fact. JD and Robin do the same thing. Then if the results are at all the same for
similiar pressure.... THEN you have a point.

There ARE problems with the moving bridge theory that have to be resolved. If these
two fellows have done nothing else they have quite adequately demonstrated that.
Now that doesnt mean these can not be resolved within that theory. But it does mean
that backyard physics and with extremely simple examples whose context relevance
have not been shown is not going to do it.



> > And nevertheless you _are_ now continuing with your own agenda, twisting and
> > turning as ever and trying to get free by making a lot of noise about
> > irrelevancies and refusing to confirm or deny that you stand by the views
> > below.
>
> If staying with my initial claim that the string moves the bridge, etc, is
> twisting and turning, then you have obviously trapped me. If you have any
> evidence that I have made claims to the effect that I know what specific bridge
> and soundboard movements have what specific affects on piano tone, I'd like
> that presented now.
>

Im sorry... correct me if I am wrong... havent you stated that the physical bridge
movement caused by the strings vibrating (as in all transverse wave format) causes
the soundboard to move and gives us the sound we hear ? Isnt that specific... or
are you refering to some tonal quality thing here.

>
> > Either these are your views or they are not.  If you say they are not, then
> > you and your friends have quite a lot of words to eat.  In any case, that is
> > the basis of this discussion.
> >
> > JD
>
> When you can produce evidence that I have made the claims you have focused on
> to the exclusion of everything else, we can talk about who eats what.
>
> Ron N

Still havent chosen sides here guys.... doubt that I will right away either because
it looks to me like both sides have issues that need resolving before I see a
bonified Sirloin in front of me.


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