[CAUT] Sperrhake Harpsichord wire

[Fred Sturm]

On Dec 7, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Ron Nossaman wrote:

> There is no inconsistency. The math works the same on my copy of  
> Excel as it does yours. I said my numbers, plural, corresponded to  
> yours, meaning the Rhodes formula on my spreadsheet produces the  
> same break% numbers as the same formula on your spreadsheet. It is,  
> in fact, the same spreadsheet because you sent me a copy of it. Do I  
> have to actually send numbers that are the same as yours, or can you  
> bring yourself to trust that I compared them and they were the same  
> as yours - as I said? I'm sure if you dig long enough, you can find  
> something to question on some level. This is why I tried to keep  
> things as simple as possible, and limited to only one point. Even at  
> that, it can be bottomless.
> Ron N


	Okay, I thought you had looked at the formula for breaking point in  
Rhodes, and were saying it was the same as Sanderson and/or Hays. So  
IOW whatever Rhodes is using to get at breaking point is inconsistent  
with Sanderson/Hays/etc.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu