Dangerous but not fatal. I’m not dismissing the language as unimportant but the word amplify carries different meanings. I know what he means even if the way it was technically expressed might be incorrect. The points been made and I think it’s much ado about nothing. The point of the discussion has been lost which was to do with hitch pin contributions to plate resonance. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of PAULREVENKOJONES at aol.com Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:20 AM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] Accujust and grunting fish bait I'm not sorry to disagree in turn, David, nor should you be in a civil discussion. To dismiss the vibratory system connections language as semantic differences is dangerous since it leads to misunderstanding the effects of energy transfer which as you properly point out was the original question. To accept a confusion of a common definition of a word with the scientific one is logical fallacy as its shoddiest. We can do better. By your definition, then, water is an amplifier, too, since it makes wood larger. C'mon. P In a message dated 5/8/2009 1:17:57 A.M. Central Daylight Time, davidlovepianos at comcast.net writes: Sorry to disagree but I think in this case it is a semantic issue and the original question has been lost on this tangent. The soundboard is clearly not an “amplifier” in the scientific sense in that it doesn’t add energy, but it does “amplify” (make larger) the meager sound of a lonely vibrating string that would otherwise be forgotten if the energy were not made more audible by the soundboard’s greater efficiency in moving more air in spite of the total energy loss in the transfer—now isn’t that some kind of magic wood J. The issue that has been lost is whether the vertical hitch pin might contribute in some way to a plate resonance. While I don’t know the answer, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable question. David Love www.davidlovepianos.com From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of PAULREVENKOJONES at aol.com Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 10:57 PM To: caut at ptg.org Subject: Re: [CAUT] Accujust and grunting fish bait This is not a semantic difference. The physics of this is relatively simple, and it is glib and facile simply to cast it as semantic. It is a matter of some responsibility that we take as "technicians" to accept known physics and use it to understand what is happening in the vibratory system. Ron's phrase "at a net loss" is critical to understanding what is going on. P In a message dated 5/7/2009 11:41:53 P.M. Central Daylight Time, tannertuner at bellsouth.net writes: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Nossaman" <rnossaman at cox.net> > No, it doesn't. It transduces, at a net loss. The energy output is less > than the input, the difference being absorbed by the system. If there were > such a thing as a free amplifier, you could daisy chain the things and run > the world on a flashlight battery. Look up James Maxwell. > Ron N You knew what I meant. Since I'm not a physicist, I consider this a semantics difference. What I meant by amplify is some device that increases volume of sound. I can do the same thing with my voice. Same energy on the vocal chords, but properly placed in the resonance, the volume and projection are increased. (which would mean a lower energy requirement to produce the same volume?) Jeff _____ Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find <http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000006> a florist near you now. _____ Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find <http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000006> a florist near you now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090508/ec8ab4ef/attachment.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC