Violin bridges

[Ron Nossaman]

>I am frankly not interested in the Nossaman theory of sound:

Of course you aren't John, but you're going to get it anyway. 

>sound (sound) n. 
>1.a. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic material or a solid, liquid,
>or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz,
>capable of being detected by human organs of hearing. b. Transmitted
>vibrations of any frequency. c. The sensation stimulated in the organs of
>hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium. d. Such sensations
>considered as a group. 

And since vibrations are mentioned, they are defined.

>vi·bra·tion 
>1.a. The act of vibrating. b. The condition of being vibrated. 
>
>2. Physics. a. A rapid linear motion of a particle or of an elastic solid
>about an equilibrium position. b. A periodic process. 
>
>3. A single complete vibrating motion; a quiver. 
>
>4. Slang. A distinctive emotional aura or atmosphere regarded as being
>instinctively sensed or experienced. Often used in the plural. 

#2, the physics definition is the important one here, rather than the #4
I've been reading so much of.

Note please that the sound definition doesn't restrict itself to
compression waves. You do, which is fine except that it ignores all other
vibrational modes from consideration. I choose not to ignore these other
vibrational modes (and mass and tension interactions) in the piano bridge,
which include stationary transverse, progressive transverse, standing
waves, and some torsional motion. Your theory totally disregards, if not
outright denying all these other physical bridge movements in favor of a
molecular level compression wave as the sole driver. Mine does not. While
it ought to be inescapably obvious and demonstrable that a moving bridge
will move the soundboard to which it is attached, I don't seem to be able
to get an explanation of how that compression wave passing through the
stationary bridge and hitting the soundboard moves the soundboard, other
than another insistence that it is so.     

>It strikes me he really has a big problem because his vision flies in 
>the face of all known science, and to me at least is actually 
>inconceivable.
>
>JD

Yes, I do have the occasional problem communicating with utterly closed
minds, but that can't be the case here since you are so willing to learn.
I'm certainly willing to learn too, so please explain to me how the concept
that impressing a force on an object causes the object to physically move
is flying in the face of all known science. Hint: this explanation will not
contain the word "intuitive". You've made similar statements plenty of
times, but I don't seem to be able to get explanations for them or
rationalizations for ignoring effects other than compression waves (SOUND).
I'm also still wondering about the beneficial effect of that 0.0000285
second (approximate) delay in the compression wave (SOUND) through the
violin bridge too, and what the benchmark point from which the delay is
figured might be. If you're throwing this stuff up as anything more than
diversionary noise, you should be willing to attempt a rational explanation
for these declarations.

Ron N