Bridge physics (was Re: Bridge...)

[David Skolnik]

At 08:58 PM 4/24/2005 -0700, Phil Ford wrote:

>David,
>
>I have only included a brief excerpt of your post here. Frankly, I found 
>your post overwhelming.  There were many questions, none of which I could 
>answer.  Each one could serve as the basis of a PH.D. thesis, so I 
>couldn't hope to answer them in an e-mail, even if I had answers, which I 
>don't.  I see nothing wrong with an attempt to understand the acoustic 
>process more fully, but it is a large task, for which I'm not sure I have 
>the energy.  As you can see, just trying to address the seemingly simple 
>phenomenon of bridge indentation by the strings requires multiple posts 
>and a lot of discussion.  I'm not sure I'm up to trying to address why 
>there is a difference in sound between an angled bridge pin and a vertical 
>one, especially since the people who are telling us that Wapin is a great 
>new invention don't seem to be able to supply an explanation 
>themselves.  If you want to dive into these subjects then you have my 
>admiration, and I'll try to participate if I can.  But rather than posing 
>all of these things as questions, why don't you propose an explanation, 
>which might generate a discussion?
>
>Phil Ford

Phil-
Your point is well taken, and you've made it before, I think.  I seem to 
take the easy way out...just asking the question, although, for me, even 
framing the question is a struggle.  To the extent that I appear to be 
expecting the "answers" from either you or Ron, I apologize.  As I may have 
said in the past, I seem to react if I perceive less-than-definitive data 
and theory being presented as absolute fact, even as the explanation might 
be comfortingly clear.  You are right in suggesting that I need to generate 
some of my own data and theories.

Regards and thanks -

David Skolnik