RC&S question in general Kent

[AlliedPianoCraft]

I fear the sharks ;>)

Al

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dean May 
  To: 'Pianotech List' 
  Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 6:45 PM
  Subject: RE: RC&S question in general Kent


  Hello newbie!

   

  Not unfounded attacks, vigorous discussions. The list remains amazingly civil considering the number of highly intelligent and opinionated people that it contains. Piano technicians after all can be among the most anal retentive obsessive compulsive of anyone you'll ever meet. And most of them on this list are amazingly nice people, too! 

   

  Jump in, the water's fine. ;-)

   

  Dean

  Dean May             cell 812.239.3359 

  PianoRebuilders.com   812.235.5272 

  Terre Haute IN  47802

   


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of AlliedPianoCraft
  Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 5:48 PM
  To: Pianotech List
  Subject: Re: RC&S question in general Kent

   

  Ric, well said. You are a gentleman. I'm new to this list and I can't believe all the unfounded attacks going on here.

   

  Al Guecia
  Allied PianoCraft
  PO Box 1549
  High Point, NC 27261
  (336) 454-2000
  PianoTech at alliedpianocraft.com
  www.alliedpianocraft.com

   

   

  ----- Original Message ----- 

  From: "Richard Brekne" <ricb at pianostemmer.no>

  To: <pianotech at ptg.org>

  Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 5:12 PM

  Subject: RC&S question in general Kent

   

  > Hi Kent   
  > 
  >    Your "bold faced fact" appears to be an opinion to me, an opinion
  >    based on your analysis of the available data and evidence. Others
  >    looking at the same data and evidence, myself included, might reach
  >    a different opinion.
  > 
  >    Kent Swafford
  > 
  > Of course we all have the right to draw whatever conclusions we want.  
  > But  lets back off from unnecessary extreme positions. These discussions 
  > are supposed to enlighten us about how different  approaches function.  
  > The whole... <<which is better>> thing is nothing more then a 
  > destructive side track.  Who is discouraging who in all this ?   
  > Disputing the validity of RC and CC methods is no more productive then 
  > some of the discussion tactics just used... or throwing out presumably 
  > lightly meant death threats. How does any of this answer any of the 
  > questions on the table or provide deeper understanding into the various 
  > methods different builders use and have used to build the instrument we 
  > all love and have devoted our lives to servicing ? 
  > 
  > Take this residual crown bit as an example. The query was clearly 
  > qualified as including two other known states... Rib dimensions and 
  > amount of panel compression at glue up MC. Before going on please let me 
  > point you to the following very short post from Ron Nossaman.
  > 
  >    http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/2008-January/216274.html
  > 
  > So I asked...given the aforementioned qualifying conditions  how much 
  > compression a given downbearing will impart into the soundboard for a 
  > given deflection... ie. for what ever target residual crown there is 
  > after downbearing is applied. The post I just directed you to clearly 
  > conflicts with the flurry of responses I got declaring that residual 
  > crown is meaningless.  Despite going out of my way to re-underline the 
  > conditions I set... which are perfectly inline with Rons post I linked 
  > to above... I got the usual ration. Grin... and on top of that.. there 
  > are actually exacting predetermined amounts of this same residual crown 
  > calculated on when designing and RC&S board for any given scale. Its 
  > nearly half of the whole design approach !
  > 
  > Now where is the constructive learning spirit in all this ? What ends 
  > are served ?
  > 
  > I'd restate my question... but it seems like really no one knows how to 
  > figure how much compression is imparted to a panel for a given 
  > downbearing with known starting values for rib strength and orientation 
  > and panel compression for a constant RH.    And if THAT be the case... 
  > then how on earth can we be certain of just how much compression is in 
  > an RC&S panel when loaded ? Those ribs are stiff suckers... downbearing 
  > forces compression in the panel as it strains against the ribs.... its a 
  > fair question.
  > 
  > Why don't we drop all this judgmental stuff and get down to what this 
  > list is supposed to be about.  I'm just asking questions I want straight 
  > and respectful answers too.  Is that such a problem ?
  > 
  > Cheers
  > RicB
  > 
  > 
  >    On Jan 28, 2008 1:55 AM, Richard Brekne <ricb at pianostemmer.no> wrote:
  > 
  >     The fact is...and this is a bold faced fact... that experienced
  >    manufacturers have been building boards of all types for 300
  >    years... and there is no statistical grounds for doubting  the
  >    viability of any of the basic methods employed (when done so
  >    appropriately) today .
  > 
  >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20080128/c8061f33/attachment.html