<div>I don't get some of this. I see nothing disproved. The coupled motion thing seems to be an issue of semantics as well as the para inharmonicity. I also disagree with the statement that tuning devices have shortcomings, They are just measureing devices and if there is a sound there, it measures it. How the data is interperted and used by the operator is where the shortcomings are. You know, a man can be a 5 time divorcee loser or a man who is not afraid to make a committment. Depends on how you word it.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Keith Roberts<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/10/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Remoody</b> <<a href="mailto:remoody@midstatesd.net">remoody@midstatesd.net</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>
<p><font face="Courier New" size="2">Was posted........<br>"""The bridge is not a ridged termination. (coupled motion of piano strings).<br>If the rigidity changes with humidity then the string may appear longer or
<br>shorter thus affecting pitch. Dean Reyburn refers to this effect as "para<br>inharmonicity"i.e.""""<br><br>I would like to offer some arguments to disprove the idea of coupled motion, and para inharmonicity, and to look at inharmonicity in a new light.
<br><br>"Coupled motion" is dispelled when the definition of it is given. It is not logical, rational, nor holds up to the Scientific Method of proof by experiment.<br><br>"Para inharmonicity" is a myth to explain (or excuse) the short commings of tuning machines.
<br><br>Inharmonicity seems to be a valid scientific phenonenom but still eludes consistant measurement.<br><br>--Richard Moody<br><br><br><br><br> <br></font></p></div></blockquote></div><br>