Sound waves(The behavior of soundboards)

[Ron Nossaman]

>On the one hand it was recognized that the bridge 
>does
>indeed get moved physically up and down to some degree by the strings and 
>this to
>some degrees moves the soundboard. 

To which degree was that, other than affirmative, and what other degrees
were offered and explained? Note the word "explained" here. 


>On the other hand it was also conceeded that
>completely immobilizing the bridge, inhibiting this physical movement,  leaves
>some sound to be heard from the board.

Which is also easily enough explained by the fact that the strings will
shake the whole structure from the other end too. The plate, pinblock, and
rim will be moved by a vibrating string, albeit less so, just like the
bridge would be. NOTHING IS ABSOLUTELY RIGID, and A SMALL MOVEMENT IS NOT
NO MOVEMENT AT ALL. And while you may be able to hear the result, it will
hardly be quite acceptable as piano sound.



>Take for example the rock in the pond illustrated presented in this 
>discussion to
>clarify this buisness about soundboard ripples. A rock is dropped into the
pond
>and we see surface ripples. Brilliant... but what was completely
overlooked was
>the fact that there are a lot of things going on under the surface at the same
>time. 

What has apparently been completely overlooked is the blanket on the
clothesline analogy, which was presented as a better model, and has nothing
under the surface at all to confuse anyone. That was covered.  


>In any case... it would seem to me that neither of the theories presented is
>sufficient alone to be the basis of any good working model of the panel. Tho
>either may have their uses as a particular perspective.

I sure couldn't tell, since I never did get an explanation of how the other
theory was supposed to work other than repeated restatements of the theory
and the insistence that it was correct. Perhaps I missed it. I didn't read
a single observation or demonstration that wasn't easily enough explained
with conventional physics. Perhaps I missed that too. I also seem to have
missed any counter argument based on published physics that refuted any of
my models or explanations. You've read these posts over and over. Perhaps
you can tell me where this compelling evidence in support of the opposing
theory appeared in these posts. I can't see that they have made any case
whatsoever much less left room for lingering doubt but, as I said, I might
have missed it.

Ron N