evaluating sdbd. crown & bridge downbearings in a new piano

[Ron Nossaman]

>
>Ron, your math is probably pretty good, although I didn't spend the time to
>check it.  However, the premise behind doing all the math leaves me a little
>in doubt.  The bottom line of the drill you set forth hinges on knowing
>"springback" for a make believe panel.  Since we don't know any of this, we
>can't very well draw conclusions.  All in all it makes very little sense to
>attempt to prove with numbers what can't first be demonstrated logically.
>
>Frank Weston
>


Frank,
I disagree. Since the logic presented doesn't seem to be acceptable to both
sides of the discussion, the numbers are the only thing left that has any
hope of making sense. A phone call to your rebuilding facility, asking for
some figures to turn my make believe panel into a real one would answer a
few questions. The rebuilder most likely knows, fairly closely, what his
press caul radius is, and what the spring back typically is for given rib
and panel dimensions, or can measure them in a couple of minutes with the
next panel assembly. 


>> The question is not whether or not the panel is under
>>compression, rather how much compression is it under.
>
>Maybe we can agree here if you will agree that tension and compression are
>both stress, positive and negative.  Make that paragraph read: The question
>is not whether or not the panel is under stress, rather how much positive or
>negative stress is it under (and where).
>


I see very little sense in an attempt to stall the discussion on a point
that tension and compression are merely different forms of stress, when a
little information (numbers) from the source of your model for discussion
could clear a few things up.

 Ron N