<html> At 09:51 AM 04/08/2002 +0200, you RicB wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>David Skolnik wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>I don't understand this last statement.  Also, it's not clear to me if you are describing measuring  the bearing of a strung piano, or one which you are, or have destrung.  I was particularly curious about how you went about measuring the downbearing of a functional, or, using Ron N's parameters, a non-functional piano.</blockquote>Havent followed what Ron N means by a non-functional piano in this regard... but I suspect it is the same as meaning a destrung piano.</blockquote> Ron will likely clarify this himself, however, I took this to imply a value judgement (negative) being bestowed upon a piano which does not conform to some minimal standards of construction theory. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite> Downbearing as I view it has to be measured that way.  You already know the tensions involved... you need to know the angles you are subjecting the wires under these tensions to. If you measure an instrument that is already strung and up to tension...then you need to know how much the panel has been pressed down as well to really know what the actual downbearing is.  Knowing both is valuable anyways I might add. </blockquote> Just so that I'm clear, are you saying that it is not possible to take measurements with a gauge (and string under the 'panel') and make some conclusion about the downbearing present in the piano? Thanks for the suggestion re: Gravagne's articles.  I just got the paper copies of the Journal reprints that the Guild is unloading.  Good for ready while traveling about. Regards - David skolnik</html>