Bridge physics (was Re: Bridge...)

[Phillip Ford]

>Ron, Phil, Ric, others -
>
>(David S)
>  >>Phil, are you discounting, or unaware of the Wapin system...
>
>Why assume the presence of a poorly functioning soundboard?  Or that I or
>Wapin is proposed as a "fix" for such?  There may very well be no "need"
>for it.  That doesn't preclude the fact that someone claims to have
>observed and measured certain phenomena, and created an experiment, albeit
>in the form of a commercial enterprise, which claims to interact favorably
>and predictably with said phenomena.  The claims may or may not be
>accurate, but it seems a bit capricious to dismiss the ideas out of hand,
>given their applicability to the topic we're discussing.

Without trying to dismiss Wapin out of hand, or denying that there 
are some observed phenomena, I'm not sure I see its applicability to 
the topic we're discussing, which (I think) is bridge cap damage.  I 
was attempting not to talk about acoustics.  I had suggested (purely 
as a matter of conjecture) that perhaps less bridge cap damage would 
occur with pins having a less acute angle.  If in fact it turned out 
that there was a structural benefit, with regard to bridge cap 
damage, from having a vertical bridge pin, then it might be 
appropriate to ask if there was an acoustic consequence of making 
that choice, and the experience of the Wapin practitioners might be 
helpful, assuming that they're willing (and legally allowed) to share 
it.  So, to that extent it has some applicability.

>
>>(David S)
>  >>As I see it, you need to decide, from the beginning, whether your inquiry
>  >>is directed towards understanding the mechanical processes at work, or
>  >>the more practical aspect of building something that will continue to
>  >>function for a reasonable length of time.......
>........
>As an attempt to understand the acoustic process more fully, I see no fault
>in considering such models of inquiry, even if you choose to build your
>product with multiple layers of insurance.
>
>David Skolnik
>

David,

I have only included a brief excerpt of your post here. Frankly, I 
found your post overwhelming.  There were many questions, none of 
which I could answer.  Each one could serve as the basis of a PH.D. 
thesis, so I couldn't hope to answer them in an e-mail, even if I had 
answers, which I don't.  I see nothing wrong with an attempt to 
understand the acoustic process more fully, but it is a large task, 
for which I'm not sure I have the energy.  As you can see, just 
trying to address the seemingly simple phenomenon of bridge 
indentation by the strings requires multiple posts and a lot of 
discussion.  I'm not sure I'm up to trying to address why there is a 
difference in sound between an angled bridge pin and a vertical one, 
especially since the people who are telling us that Wapin is a great 
new invention don't seem to be able to supply an explanation 
themselves.  If you want to dive into these subjects then you have my 
admiration, and I'll try to participate if I can.  But rather than 
posing all of these things as questions, why don't you propose an 
explanation, which might generate a discussion?

Phil Ford