----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Jolly" <baldyam@sk.sympatico.ca> To: <pianotech@ptg.org> Sent: November 25, 2000 10:18 PM Subject: Re:Bass bridge bearing > > >On another subject, I've read or heard that the total downward pressure > >on the soundboard is about 1500 lbs., and that the approximate downward > >pressure of one string on the bridge is about 7 lbs. 1500/240 strings > >= 6.25 lbs. per string and 7 lbs. x 240 strings = 1680 lbs. total. , so > >these two figures are in the same ballpark. That means a 42-string > >bass bridge would have about 300 lbs. pressing down on it. Can that be > >right? Many bass bridges are cantilevered out -- no matter how good > >the glue joint, and even with screws into the apron from the back of the > >soundboard, it seems that two 150-lb. people standing on the > >cantilevered bass bridge would break it right off! > > Hi Dave, > In many pianos the bass string tension is almost double the > plain wire tension, with a corresponding increase in down bearing pressure. > However, the strings are wider spaced, compared to say the treble, also 1 > and 2 string unisons,this helps distribute the load over a wider area. > Greater stiffness and mass per unit length of the taller bass bridge, helps > with supporting the load, as does the positioning and height of the ribs . > An over simplification of a complex subject, that will lead into the old > Impedance, Reactance, debate. > I'm sure Ron and Del will contribute. > Just some thing to muse over. > Regards Roger --------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's the problem with averages -- on average, they don't tell us much. As may be...on average, bass bridges are not loaded as heavily as are tenor bridges. At least they shouldn't be. And, yes, there are special cautions that must be observed when using cantilevered bass bridges. Enough so that it probably would be a good idea for the designer to consider ways of not using them at all (there are several). I went into the stresses on cantilevered bridges in a Journal article some time back and have repeated the concepts in several convention and conference classes. Not much has changed. Cantilevered bridges are still a 'feature' to be avoided. At low frequencies, the stiffness of the bridge/soundboard/rib system has a greater effect on mechanical impedance than does mass. This means that, within reason, a bass bridge can be fairly heavy without the excessive mass having much effect on the fundamental, or low frequency, sound produced by the system. Soundboard stiffness, on the other hand, will have a much greater effect at these same frequencies. Excessive string bearing against the bass bridge -- especially with the typically short backscales found in pianos short enough to sport cantilevered bass bridges -- will restrict the motion of the bass bridge quite a lot at low frequencies. Very simplistically, string downforce works against the crown of the soundboard to stiffen the complete system. This tends to raise the mechanical impedance of the soundboard system and reduce the transfer of energy from the string to the soundboard at low frequencies. The problem is made worse by the filtering effect of the bridge cantilever. The combination reduces the low frequency energy in the sound produced by these pianos, often to the point that, through the first octave or two, the string's fundamental frequency is not present in the acoustic wave envelope at all. Acoustics aside, most cantilevered bass bridges probably could support a string downforce of 300 lbs (approx. 136 kgf) evenly distributed along its length. Temporarily. It's the long-term structural viability we have to worry about. What will happen to the bridge and soundboard in ten years? Fifty years? On average, cantilevered bass bridges do not have a good long-term track record when they are overloaded. Regards, Del
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC