> >> >> I see you've found CCRMA at Stanford. Neat resource eh, but a kelp forest of >> a place to navigate through. > > > > And what's going on here isn't? > >> >> I for one have taken much less issue with the whole motion thing per se then >> I have spent time looking into just what it is that constitutes this motion. >> Ergo I still seem to be sitting in the middle of this discussion arguing >> "apparently" against motion with you, and for it with JD. (Definition for >> Transmit included below) > > > > This "motion thing" is the one thing I'm interested in clearing up here. > Without a clear understanding of what moves the bridge and soundboard, the > eternally inward spiral of ever more esoteric self referential minutia being > generated here is meaningless. The motion thing is at this time, still not > universally agreed upon. Until it is, the rest of this is of no use that I > can see. > >> >> Something I found of interest is a comment by Olson in his book which states >> that at the termination points of strings in musical instruments represent >> nodes. And we all know the "motionless" characteristic of modes. > > > > As we should all know the cyclic motion induced in a sprung mass by the force > applied to it by another cyclically moving sprung mass coupled to it. I'm not > particularly interested in semantic games ignoring basic physics either. > >> >> Clearly its not as simple when it comes right down to it as simply waving a >> stick at someone, (not that that isn't in reality complicated enough if you >> want to get into it) On the other hand, as I have stated several times, I >> still see no real earth shaking implications these differing perspectives >> (if that's what all this indeed boils down to in the end) have relative to >> design issues.... yet, though I have pondered about about how all this fits >> into the idea that rims and cases do not play any part in sound radiation or >> how, if they do this could be a design issue for some factories. > > > > I sure see earth shaking implications here. With the current potential for > ideas influencing large numbers of people around the world by being supplied > a platform for easy dissemination, I'd like it a lot if these ideas > corresponded to real world physics in some way. If I prove to be wrong in my > theory that strings physically move bridges and bridges physically move > soundboards, I'll acknowledge it and upgrade my information as I have > thousands of times through the years, and continue to do. But the update will > be contingent on reason and known or verifiable physics rather than the > density of the smoke cloud. > > >> >> Another thing you might find neat is the idea that the set of strings can be >> viewed as a 2 dimensional plate with its own set of wave impedance modes, as >> contrasted to the single dimension modes of a single string. > > > > You've heard both Del and I talk about the string plane in soundboard > interactions. > > >> >> This 2 dimensional perspective of the whole scale can be used feasibly as >> part of an alternative way of designing a scale. This thought is presented >> in Benades book. The gist is that such a plane then would interact with the >> sound board modes in such a way that the problems relating to resonance >> modes of the sound board can be manipulated to some degree. > > > > It's interesting in theory. Can it be done with an existing board when you > are working with all the unknowns inherent there? And could you expect better > results than more standard approaches to rescaling? Something realistically > equivalent can be and is done with a redesign of rib scales, with > considerably better results than string scaling alone produce. > > >> >> Last but not least... I clicked on that link to "dashpot" at the link you >> provided (wondering what on earth that was) and look what comes up. >> "The elementary impedance element in mechanics is the dashpot which may be >> approximated mechanically by a plunger in a cylinder of air or liquid, >> analogous to a shock absorber for a car." >> There we have that "pump" like picture presented again, even a "motion >> absorption" picture. The bridge then is loosely compared to a shock absorber >> this link you provide... and shock absorbers deal very very much in >> compression waves.... or what ? > > > > They deal very much in controlling gross movement between two objects in a > direction parallel to their travel. That's what. > > Yes, it is a pretty neat site. Now if I only spoke math. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC