Lowell Gauge...Communication Problem?

[Ron Nossaman]

>>>This is a static definition.  What I was trying to ask  about was 
>>>"dynamic" coupling, that is, the interaction of the parts (string, pin, 
>>>bridge) in motion.
>>
>>Which was no where evident in the question.
>
>I'm sorry, That's why I rephrased the question.

And to the question you intended to ask, I don't have an answer for you. 
It's not something I know about.


>>>>>Does the front edge of the bridge play any role in defining the string 
>>>>>termination?
>>>>
>>>>Yes. It's what the pin angle, string tension, and offset angle clamp 
>>>>the string TO, ideally.
>>>
>>>I meant, does the front edge of the bridge have any effect on the way in 
>>>which the various modes of string vibration evolve & decay that might be 
>>>measurably altered by its absence?
>>
>>Again, the question you asked in no way remotely indicated that, and I 
>>don't have those answers in any case.
>
>I'm sorry, but while I acknowledge that, upon consideration, the original 
>question was overly broad, I find it a bit excessive to describe it as "in 
>no way remotely indicated".   I said in the intro to this series of 
>questions (which was not copied in Ron's reply) that I did not expect him 
>to be able to answer all of them, nor did I wish the burden of response to 
>fall entirely upon him.

"In no way indicated" still seems accurate to me. You asked about the role 
of the front edge of the bridge defining the string termination, not about 
vibrational modes. There's no way I would make that connection from the 
question asked, and I'd be surprised if anyone else would either. I find it 
more than a little frustrating attempting to answer broadly general 
questions that change dramatically into something narrowly specific in the 
next iteration. Why not just ask the specific (accurate) question in the 
first place and avoid the problem altogether?


>>>What amount of negative force would be needed to overcome the design 
>>>parameters you have quoted..."10 degrees side, 20 degrees pin slant"?
>>
>>With a string at 160 pounds tension, with zero overall down bearing, 10° 
>>offset, and 20° pin slant, it would take about 23 pounds to push the 
>>string up the pin. With 160 pounds tension, zero bearing, 5° offset, and 
>>10° pin slant, it would take about 10 pounds to push the string up the pin.
>
>This is useful information.

In response to a straightforward specific question. I worked the math out 
on this myself, and I'm short more than a few math receptors, but I think 
it's in the ball park, and useful for comparison if nothing else.


>>>I recall some discussion about the bridge surface itself expanding 
>>>upward (apart from the soundboard's upward excursion) and, in the 
>>>process, pushing the string up the pins.
>>
>>I've written about this before.
>
>Ron - At this point, why wouldn't you have elaborated a bit.  You say 
>you've written about that, but you choose not to indicate, even in brief, 
>what you said or when.  Wouldn't this have added something substantive and 
>possibly relevant?

Didn't you say you recalled the discussion? Why would I spend the time 
replaying for you an extensive discussion that is already in the archives, 
that you said you recalled? What, specifically, do you want information on?


>The noise I observe and associate with termination deficiency at the front 
>bridge pin is not the same as the false beats, which I find to occur 
>mostly in the upper two or three octaves.  They are different noises, 
>with, I believe, different sources.

Please elaborate. What noises, other than false beats, do you hear in the 
upper octaves that you attribute to termination deficiency at the front 
bridge pins?


>>>Sorry, no.  I have, with a magnifier and strong lighting, watched the 
>>>bridge-segment string set to the bridge surface from almost all the way 
>>>back to the rear pin. It can't be all about wood fiber crushing.  Of 
>>>course, as I get older, and my eyes get worse, I can reasonably suppose 
>>>that I'll be seeing less of this. That's one solution!
>>
>>Most likely right. I'm just blind and don't know what I'm talking about.
>
>I believe my intended meaning was poorly served by my choice of words.

All right, let's do it this way. You said "from almost all the way back 
from the rear pin". If it wasn't all the way back, and the string wasn't up 
the rear bridge pin too, then it wasn't above the bridge cap. It was 
resting on the cap at some point.  What was the front bearing angle before 
and after you seated the string, and what were the approximate pin slant 
and string offset angles?

Ron N