Sound waves(The behavior of soundboards)

[John Delacour]

At 8:19 PM +0000 1/14/02, Phillip L Ford wrote:

>  >>I'm afraid, Robin, that likelihood is very real indeed!  It really
>>>does appear that they think it is measuring bodily movement,
>>>fantastic though you and I find that.
>>>
>>>JD
>>
>>Apparently so. I certainly don't see that it is logically reconcilable that
>>a body can experience a change in velocity at a measurable rate without
>>having moved.
>>
>  >Ron N
>
>Right.

Wrong.

>   This is like saying we were talking about force and everyone knows
>you can't measure force with a strain gauge.  OK, strictly speaking, that's
>right.  A strain gauge measures strain.  But the presence of strain indicates
>the presence of force.  I hope this bogged down thread isn't going to bog
>down further in discussions of semantics.

No, Phil, this is not playing with semantics, and unless you are 
prepared to consider the whole question as a great deal more 
complicated than Ron N. would have you do, and really get down to 
some proper analysis of what's happening and serious reading of 
texts, it is people like you that will bog down the discussion.

Ron and Del have repeatedly insisted that the vibration of the 
strings causes BODILY movement of the bridge and soundboard and take 
no account of the elastic nature of the media of the system, 
constantly ridiculing any suggestion that it is waves of pressure in 
the system that constitute the sound.  I can find no ambiguity in 
their stance, and every search I make of their growing list of 
declarations makes their position firmer and more clear.

OF COURSE a body can experience a change in velocity without moving 
bodily.  If this did not happen, there would be no such thing as 
vibration.

Have you read the Giordano papers?  They are quite interesting and 
not at all difficult to understand compared with anything really 
instructive on the question of forced vibrations.  They don't tell a 
hundredth of the story because they are experimenting with impedance 
at a very simple and practical level with certain aims in view.  I do 
not personally see Giordano's methods or the range of his tests as 
very serious, but there are some good points in his approach. 
Nevertheless both papers are dealing primarily with the ratio p/v[b]. 
He comes across a few things that "surprise" him and resorts to 
"presumably" more often than I'd expect in a scientific paper.