impedance and empericism

[Ron Nossaman]

>OK numbers to the nearest whole place then.
>As the son of an electrical engineer, I have always wondered what concept
>"impedance" was supposed to convey when used as "soundboard impedance".  He
>tried his best to show me how electrical impedance was measured and used in
>formulas. So you can see why I have always been expecting formulas for sound
>board impedance.   So not even knowing what the concept is, How can I  think
>of a better term.

The concept has been gone over lots of times in as much detail as anyone
participating has available. It's in the archives. 


>      There is that school of science that says in effect, if it can't be
>measured, you don't know what you are talking about.   I think they really
>say if it can't be measured it can't be defined, which is the same as
>existance for them.  

Who says it can't be measured? Predicting it numerically before the fact is
the tough part. The effects of impedance match governed energy exchanges
between string and soundboard governing overall sound characteristics, and
those governing the affects on the partial frequencies of any given note
may be products of the same phenomenon, but at considerably different
scales. So at what level must impedance be defined to be useful? How many
first rate cooks can explain the chemistry of fire, even, let alone diagram
results in the white sauce? 



>So a perfect problem for the "emperical" (measuring) scientists would be,
>"does humidity affect frequency of tones, or any part of the frequency of
>tones?"
>---ric

Yes, I believe that's the point. 

Ron N