At 9:22 AM -0500 10/27/04, Ron Nossaman wrote: >What speaking length? And what strike point? Sorry, Ron. It's C5 (the note not the plastique), and my notes are buried somewhere in a filing cabinet. I'll find them on SUN. In the meantime, I agree with you that movement of string across the bridge has yet to be entered into the picture. The string friction across the bridge due to downbearing has got to be on the order of ounce, just like to test blow (or so I've believed). The tricker part is the friction due to side-draft. The unknown here is what might be motivating the string to wedge itself into the corner at the base of the angled bridge pin. Which I'd guess is several orders of mag larger than the downbearing friction. It's actually possible, with a pocket microscope, to see wire move across the bridge in tiny increments. It might be possible to infer a friction barrier across the bridge top (combining both aforementioned types of friction) by correlating a tension drop (inferred from a itch drop as the tuning hammer pushes wire into the speaking length) at the point where wire is seen to move across the bridge (ie., the point at which the tension differential overcomes the friction barrier). But then you really need to know whether the beginning tension on the other side of the bridge to judge whether the tension differential started out at zero, or whether it might have already been close to the size of the friction barrier, either plus or minus. To do that really accurately, you'd need a frequency counter, and a way of activating the back duplex length so that this counter could successfully read it. Maybe, existing tension could be accurately measured using a sideways deflection test. Hey, you brought it up. I think that gets you appointed to he committee. BTW, you must be one them thar undecideds, I haven't seen you tossing any termayders or goose eggs.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC