Ric, well said. You are a gentleman. I'm new to this list and I can't believe all the unfounded attacks going on here. Al Guecia Allied PianoCraft PO Box 1549 High Point, NC 27261 (336) 454-2000 PianoTech at alliedpianocraft.com www.alliedpianocraft.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Brekne" <ricb at pianostemmer.no> To: <pianotech at ptg.org> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 5:12 PM Subject: RC&S question in general Kent > Hi Kent > > Your "bold faced fact" appears to be an opinion to me, an opinion > based on your analysis of the available data and evidence. Others > looking at the same data and evidence, myself included, might reach > a different opinion. > > Kent Swafford > > Of course we all have the right to draw whatever conclusions we want. > But lets back off from unnecessary extreme positions. These discussions > are supposed to enlighten us about how different approaches function. > The whole... <<which is better>> thing is nothing more then a > destructive side track. Who is discouraging who in all this ? > Disputing the validity of RC and CC methods is no more productive then > some of the discussion tactics just used... or throwing out presumably > lightly meant death threats. How does any of this answer any of the > questions on the table or provide deeper understanding into the various > methods different builders use and have used to build the instrument we > all love and have devoted our lives to servicing ? > > Take this residual crown bit as an example. The query was clearly > qualified as including two other known states... Rib dimensions and > amount of panel compression at glue up MC. Before going on please let me > point you to the following very short post from Ron Nossaman. > > http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/2008-January/216274.html > > So I asked...given the aforementioned qualifying conditions how much > compression a given downbearing will impart into the soundboard for a > given deflection... ie. for what ever target residual crown there is > after downbearing is applied. The post I just directed you to clearly > conflicts with the flurry of responses I got declaring that residual > crown is meaningless. Despite going out of my way to re-underline the > conditions I set... which are perfectly inline with Rons post I linked > to above... I got the usual ration. Grin... and on top of that.. there > are actually exacting predetermined amounts of this same residual crown > calculated on when designing and RC&S board for any given scale. Its > nearly half of the whole design approach ! > > Now where is the constructive learning spirit in all this ? What ends > are served ? > > I'd restate my question... but it seems like really no one knows how to > figure how much compression is imparted to a panel for a given > downbearing with known starting values for rib strength and orientation > and panel compression for a constant RH. And if THAT be the case... > then how on earth can we be certain of just how much compression is in > an RC&S panel when loaded ? Those ribs are stiff suckers... downbearing > forces compression in the panel as it strains against the ribs.... its a > fair question. > > Why don't we drop all this judgmental stuff and get down to what this > list is supposed to be about. I'm just asking questions I want straight > and respectful answers too. Is that such a problem ? > > Cheers > RicB > > > On Jan 28, 2008 1:55 AM, Richard Brekne <ricb at pianostemmer.no> wrote: > > The fact is...and this is a bold faced fact... that experienced > manufacturers have been building boards of all types for 300 > years... and there is no statistical grounds for doubting the > viability of any of the basic methods employed (when done so > appropriately) today . > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20080128/547763a5/attachment.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC