evaluating sdbd. crown & bridge downbearings in a new piano

[Ron Nossaman]

>Yes...But, as I pointed out a while back, these only have meaning when 
>referenced to a well-defined equilibrium state. Variation 
>in EMC in the process of differential drying means the *intuitive* 
>equilibrium state may not be the same for everyone. Del mentioned a 
>convention of 4%EMC. If everyone agrees to this ok, but it is probably not 
>"standard" in the industry. 

* It really doesn't matter if everyone agrees on the 4% figure or not. It
was chosen as an illustrative benchmark, and serves quite adequately in that
capacity. Although I have no idea what an *intuitive* equilibrium state is,
it doesn't seem to be necessary to the discussion.


>So there is always some 
>ambiguity in defining the *absolute* state of compression in a 
>differentially dried soundboard. The semantic difficulties that have 
>come in the list thread are probably related to this ambiguity in 
>terminology. The basic problem is trying to use a technical term in an 
>intuitive context, and ignoring the fact that it is relative not absolute.
>
>Stephen

* Where did that come from? I don't remember reading anything where anyone
has tried to define the *absolute* state of compression in anything. I must
have missed that one. Who said it, and in which post? This whole thing is
just a simple matter of acknowledging compression as compression, and
tension as tension. In the examples presented as illustration, I don't see
any ambiguity at all. The technical examples were presented to try to
logically, simply, and cleanly correct the intuitively generated
misconceptions. The fact that we were dealing with relative degrees of
compression, far from being ignored, was mentioned time after time, and that
still doesn't make a lesser degree of compression magically become tension,
nor does it make a lesser or greater degree of compression magically become
a zero stress state. The arguments counter to the illustrations given have
simply been inconsistent with logical cause and effect relationships and
established definitions of terms. Every attempt to clear up the
misconceptions as they appeared and bring things back into context just
resulted in alternate misconceptions. The problem as I see it comes from
imagined tangential inferences, an apparent reluctance to work out the logic
of the basic systems within the definitions and constraints of physics, and
an unwillingness to accept the conclusions. The only semantic confusion I
see here comes from side stepping the rational conclusions. If I'm mistaken,
so be it, but where are the science, technical, and physics based counter
arguments instead of the "gut feeling", intuitive, "that can't be" stuff? 

 Ron N