At 10:19 AM +0100 1/16/02, Richard Brekne wrote: >yes... obvious that the two camps are operating with different >concepts of motion. I think Robin and I are using 'motion' in precisely the same sense as the ripple theorists in almost every case. You will remember that I asked Ron N. to confirm his view, which finally he did. You can refer to the whole message and others posted at that time. >At 10:25 PM +0000 12/25/01, John Delacour wrote: >>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. >What is important is that readers participants get stimulated to >increase their >knowledge by reading, and experimentation, and thoughtfull reflection. >Yet again... I ask you and others... why should we be concerned to >do so in this >particular instance .... What ramifications for design issues can >either perspective have that are in conflict with the other ? More than you imagine, I think you will discover. For example it would help to know how a soundboard works in order to know what wood to use, whether fir or orange boxes; whether to butt the deals together or to use finger joints; whether to lay the varnish on thick or thin, hard or soft. I can give you more than intuitive answers to any of these questions, but first I want to get the foundations laid by continuing my reply to Phil of last night. The fact is that, hidden among all the noise of the messages on this topic, a great deal of information and a good number of examples have been given, which ought to leave you in no doubt by now that we are on the right track. It is very frustrating continually having to go back to square one and repeat stuff. I am not going to get drawn into any more time-wasting jousting. I will present the case step by step and will not proceed until it is quite clear what I (and Robin -- for it seems we are both saying the same thing in principle) is acceptable to you fence-sitters. If what I have written so far in that reply is in any way unclear or unscientific, you must let me know so that I can make it clearer. In the meantime, please tell me Richard, why Sitka spruce is so highly regarded as a sounboard wood and why Douglas fir would not be better. JD
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC