Ron,
It should be easy to see from recent posts that at least two people, and
possibly more, separated by a large and wet ocean and part of a continent,
never having laid eyes on each other and never having spoken or communicated
directly, except by this list have arrived at essentially similar conclusions.
So your count, had it been accurate, would have been at least two. I daresay
there are others. As to this so-called anonymous model, in spite of that it
represents opinions contrary to yours, those of Del and Ron O., surely you
can see it must represent differences in experiences, observations and
perspectives.
I will state categorically that this model proposed by myself and JD is
highly grounded in a scientific approach and thoroughly embodies well
established physical principles. This thread, was taken up by me, at
least, in reponse to numerous posts indicating flexion at the bridge as being
the principal driver of soundboard motion and subsequent conclusions being
predicated upon this notion, something I think is plainly incorrect. I have
suggested trying a particular test and asked for comments pertaining to the
behavior of a soundboard when a tuning fork is set in vibration while being
attached to it by a slack wire, J.D. suggests the use of a six foot rod.
This appears to not worth the trouble by the proponents of your point of view.
I have no emotional attachment to either model and no axe to grind for
either but I am highly attached to the facts as I see them, and the
implications that flow from them, whatever they are; those constrain me to
this point of view. Whether a
concept is in opposition to your views or those of Del, or Ron O. or anyone
else, is of little consequence and certainly not offensive to me as I similarly
take no offense at opinion contrary to mine. To avoid the tedium of repetition
then I say we should simply acknowledge that we disagree on these points.
.
Ron Nossaman wrote:
> >Once again, your response shows that you do not understand at all,
> >since there has been no discussion in this thread of compression
> >waves in the soundboard and the strings. What is under discussion is
> >the waves that pass through the bridge.
>
> No, what is under discussion is what moves the bridge and soundboard.
>
> >You talk of "my" theory as though I had dreamed it up out of thin air
> >without any scientific evidence and as if I were claiming some
> >novelty.
>
> Then who's theory is it if not yours?
>
> >On the contrary I have challenged you (in a part of my
> >message you have avoided reproducing) to produce one serious URL,
> >such as a University site, in support of what you are claiming.
>
> Oh, sorry. Since you only asked that once in passing, I mistook it for just
> another diversion and didn't give it much weight. As far as I know, there
> isn't one. You see, the strings moving the bridge is my own theory, dreamed
> up by me, based on sound mechanical and physics principles, so it isn't
> likely to be on a university web site anywhere. Oddly enough though, two
> piano designers, builders, and fellow rebuilders who have against all
> apparent odds actually given it some thought, seem to hold similar
> views.
> Imagine such a thing! Two different people who have spent years studying
Surely, you must not think this is unusual for people that contribute to this
list.
>
> how pianos work and building pianos, reaching conclusions similar to my
> own. Perhaps we should post our collective theory on a web site so we too
> could be quoted as undisputed authorities. Better yet, with three different
> sites showing animations, with circles and arrows and lots of mathematical
> formulas, mine (and at least two other folks who have given it some
> thought) would undoubtedly become the theory of choice. By the way, I
> assume you have at least one URL illustrating how piano soundboards are
> moved by vibrations through the bridge rather than by the strings moving
> the bridge. I'm sorry, but I must have overlooked it when you posted it in
> support of the anonymously conceived theory you are espousing. I'm not
> interested in general vibration theory stuff mind you, any more than you
> are interested in simple mechanics, just the list of sites dealing with
> this particular subject.
>
> >You
> >ask "how small a bridge movement constitutes no movement at all" and
> >the question is perfect nonsense. If there is some movement then
> >there can't be no movement, but what is supposed to be the context of
> >this meaningless question? You are claiming that the string bodily
> >moves the bridge in such a way as to induce the soundboard to emit
> >the sound appropriate to the string's vibrations and I say that it is
> >impossible for this to happen.
>
> Yes, I know what I said, and I know what you said. What you just said is
> the context of my far from meaningless question. So I take as your answer
> that any measurable movement of the bridge by the movement of a string is
> impossible by your theory. That is not a question.
>
> >No one is claiming that there is no disturbance or stress at the
> >meeting of the string with the bridge, otherwise no sound would be
> >transmitted, but to claim that this disturbance results in the bodily
> >movement of the bridge and drives the soundboard as a solenoid drives
> >a loudspeaker is nonsense. That disturbance results in the
> >_vibration_ of the bridge, which is the movement of a compression
> >wave through the bridge during which every molecule of the bridge
> >will be set in an oscillatory motion about its position of
> >equilibrium. These vibrations will travel through the bridge in the
> >same way whether or not the sum of the additional forces exerted by
> >the vibrating strings on the bridge, whether laterally or vertically,
> >amounts to zero as in an example I gave earlier in the thread.
>
> I've read this explanation plenty of times, and hard as it seems for you to
> accept, I understand your theory. I just don't agree with it.
>
> Ron N
Ron Nossaman wrote:
> >Once again, your response shows that you do not understand at all,
> >since there has been no discussion in this thread of compression
> >waves in the soundboard and the strings. What is under discussion is
> >the waves that pass through the bridge.
>
> No, what is under discussion is what moves the bridge and soundboard.
>
> >You talk of "my" theory as though I had dreamed it up out of thin air
> >without any scientific evidence and as if I were claiming some
> >novelty.
>
> Then who's theory is it if not yours?
>
> >On the contrary I have challenged you (in a part of my
> >message you have avoided reproducing) to produce one serious URL,
> >such as a University site, in support of what you are claiming.
>
> Oh, sorry. Since you only asked that once in passing, I mistook it for just
> another diversion and didn't give it much weight. As far as I know, there
> isn't one. You see, the strings moving the bridge is my own theory, dreamed
> up by me, based on sound mechanical and physics principles, so it isn't
> likely to be on a university web site anywhere. Oddly enough though, two
> piano designers, builders, and fellow rebuilders who have against all
> apparent odds actually given it some thought, seem to hold similar views.
> Imagine such a thing! Two different people who have spent years studying
> how pianos work and building pianos, reaching conclusions similar to my
> own. Perhaps we should post our collective theory on a web site so we too
> could be quoted as undisputed authorities. Better yet, with three different
> sites showing animations, with circles and arrows and lots of mathematical
> formulas, mine (and at least two other folks who have given it some
> thought) would undoubtedly become the theory of choice. By the way, I
> assume you have at least one URL illustrating how piano soundboards are
> moved by vibrations through the bridge rather than by the strings moving
> the bridge. I'm sorry, but I must have overlooked it when you posted it in
> support of the anonymously conceived theory you are espousing. I'm not
> interested in general vibration theory stuff mind you, any more than you
> are interested in simple mechanics, just the list of sites dealing with
> this particular subject.
>
> >You
> >ask "how small a bridge movement constitutes no movement at all" and
> >the question is perfect nonsense. If there is some movement then
> >there can't be no movement, but what is supposed to be the context of
> >this meaningless question? You are claiming that the string bodily
> >moves the bridge in such a way as to induce the soundboard to emit
> >the sound appropriate to the string's vibrations and I say that it is
> >impossible for this to happen.
>
> Yes, I know what I said, and I know what you said. What you just said is
> the context of my far from meaningless question. So I take as your answer
> that any measurable movement of the bridge by the movement of a string is
> impossible by your theory. That is not a question.
>
> >No one is claiming that there is no disturbance or stress at the
> >meeting of the string with the bridge, otherwise no sound would be
> >transmitted, but to claim that this disturbance results in the bodily
> >movement of the bridge and drives the soundboard as a solenoid drives
> >a loudspeaker is nonsense. That disturbance results in the
> >_vibration_ of the bridge, which is the movement of a compression
> >wave through the bridge during which every molecule of the bridge
> >will be set in an oscillatory motion about its position of
> >equilibrium. These vibrations will travel through the bridge in the
> >same way whether or not the sum of the additional forces exerted by
> >the vibrating strings on the bridge, whether laterally or vertically,
> >amounts to zero as in an example I gave earlier in the thread.
>
> I've read this explanation plenty of times, and hard as it seems for you to
> accept, I understand your theory. I just don't agree with it.
>
> Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC