Charles,
Others may have said that their view of my position is that perfect
rigidity is the point at issue. Should my posts be read carefully, you will
find that I have never maintained this; of course, in the real world this is
impossible and is but a contrivance of analysis. The point I have grown very
weary of maintaining is that this motion is not responsible for the periodic
behavior of the soundboard system.
The book by Den Hartog, as well as the others are by no means rudimentary
therefore, I ask in the interests of intellecual completeness, how does you
criticism apply overall? And what does it suggest? You yourself make the
point I have made many times, quoting "the terminations need to be.....well,
rigid enough to support standing waves." This level of rigidity is such that
they cannot be moving the bridge/board at the frequencies contained in the
vibrating string which is driving them.
Regards. Robin Hufford
Charles Neuman wrote:
> > From: Robin Hufford <hufford1@airmail.net>
> > These two rudimentary books give a brief, only lightly mathematical
> > treatment to wave mechanics. It is incumbent to all that profess to be
> > experts on the subject to comprehend what these, elementary approaches
> > themselves imply, notwithstanding casual observation and that is that a
> > standing wave NECESSARILY IMPLIES RIGID TERMINATIONS AND THE ASSOCIATED
> > REFLECTIONS ARISING THEREFROM. Otherwise, the standing wave itself
> > cannot exist.
>
> The problem with introductory physics texts is that they treat the world
> in a black and white sort of way: Either a string has fixed terminations
> and therefore supports standing waves or it does not. In the real world,
> you can get standing waves if the terminations are not entirely rigid. The
> terminations need to be... well, rigid enough to support standing waves.
> So, just because standing waves exist, one cannot conclude that the
> terminations must be completely rigid.
>
> Charles
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC