compression waves

[Richard Brekne]

Ron Nossaman wrote:

> >Go look at the website that had the experiment I posted. I am sure you will
> >understand what the speaking length is.
>
> If you're referring to the Kundt's tube setup, yes, I think I understand
> the example. In this case, the speaking length is precisely half of the rod
> length, determined by a simple clamp, with the rod ends free. It's
> interesting, but I'm not sure that it applies. Now what happens with a
> clamp type consisting of a double bearing point with relatively solid
> surface contact in between (piano bridge) with the speaking length other
> than half the overall length, or is that agraffe to pressure bar, or hitch
> to counter bearing, or tuning pin to hitch, with the ends terminated rather
> than free? I thought that's what we were after.
>
> Just thought I'd remind you.
>
> Ron N

Grin.... and a good chuckle to bot. Thanks for the reminder.  Yes... as to
whether it applies. Outside of the fact that the results of this experiement fit
point in the exact same direction that Conklins research points to, my initial
feelings would be to think this does indeed apply. So.... my next step is to
build a monochord variation of this apparatus to run the experiment in a more
piano like set of circumstances.

I suspect actually that the same results will show themselves, but we will see.
I dont really see any reason to think that the double bearing point clamp no
matter how massive will act as an inhibitant to longitudindal waves continuing
through the medium (string). After all, these are internal to the string and the
clamps are on the outside.

After we ascertain this much, then we can get to the bit about how such LM waves
can (if they can) contribute to the excitation of transverse waves beyond such
boundry conditions as our backlength represents.

So... we on the same track or what ? :)

--
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no