limbo

[David Skolnik]

Ron-
While I may be pandering to your unhealthy dependence upon the list, I 
would like to reassure you that you are not the singular object of 
technotauntitus.  Since your previous post at 3:02 pm (Re: bridge caps), 
there have only been 4 other posts, which I have included below.  I hope 
you get this.


From: JIMRPT@AOL.COM
Received: from JIMRPT@aol.com
         by imo-m07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 4.6b.12258939 (6621)
          for <pianotech@ptg.org>; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:22:41 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <6b.12258939.27fb8b11@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 16:22:41 EDT
Subject: Re:  Re: Bridge caps
To: pianotech@ptg.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 3.0.1 for Mac sub 84
Sender: owner-pianotech@ptg.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: pianotech@ptg.org


In a message dated 4/03/2001 4:11:45 PM, you wrote:

<<"Traditional innovation?
Ron N">>

BZZZZZZ!! Wrong answer...unfair semantical construction and impeachable
maliceaforethought........ GUilty as charged, you cannot call a friend, ..do
not pass go, do not collect...well you get the picture:-)

Besides even if the pins did leach out energy they are still attached to the
bridge and that energy would 'still' be reflected by the bridge/ board
wouldn't it?
  Or morphing Dels terms  'transducted'........say, maybe this is the source
of some of the 'mysterious' false beats we run into......you know 'out of
phase' bridge pin lengths.
Jim Bryant (FL)

From: Yardarm103669107@AOL.COM
Received: from Yardarm103669107@aol.com
         by imo-r14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 4.88.4acd6b6 (3311)
          for <pianotech@ptg.org>; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:27:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <88.4acd6b6.27fba83b@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:27:07 EDT
Subject: Re: Bridge caps
To: pianotech@ptg.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 117
Sender: owner-pianotech@ptg.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: pianotech@ptg.org

In a message dated 4/2/2001 11:22:15 PM Central Daylight Time,
pianobuilders@olynet.com writes:

<<
  > Is bridge pinning just a traditional way of
  > securing the string over the bridge harking back centuries and having no
  > other physical purpose than you purport?

  Yes, and not a very good way at that.
   >>


Couldn't agree more about the mechanical structure. PR-J

From: Yardarm103669107@AOL.COM
Received: from Yardarm103669107@aol.com
         by imo-m02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 4.c9.e9ea5f7 (3311)
          for <pianotech@ptg.org>; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:30:28 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <c9.e9ea5f7.27fba903@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:30:27 EDT
Subject: Re: Bridge caps
To: pianotech@ptg.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 117
Sender: owner-pianotech@ptg.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: pianotech@ptg.org

In a message dated 4/2/2001 11:22:44 PM Central Daylight Time,
pianobuilders@olynet.com writes:

<< deally the string should contact both the bridge cap
  surface and the bridge pin. That is the way they exist in real life and that
  is the way they should be tested. >>
In order only to determine whether and how much energy transfer as a
component ofthe whole system is the point,but the practical realityis that
the twocomponents are so closely coupled that measurement of the one without
the other might (might) be meaningless.

Thanks for all of the time you put into this note, Del. PR-J

From: Yardarm103669107@AOL.COM
Received: from Yardarm103669107@aol.com
         by imo-r12.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.14.) id 4.d1.49ef6bc (3311)
          for <pianotech@ptg.org>; Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:31:59 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <d1.49ef6bc.27fba95e@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:31:58 EDT
Subject: Re: Bridge caps
To: pianotech@ptg.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 117
Sender: owner-pianotech@ptg.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: pianotech@ptg.org

In a message dated 4/2/2001 11:23:03 PM Central Daylight Time,
pianobuilders@olynet.com writes:

<< As well you should, but it ain't gospel. >>

True, and if I somehow came across as proselytizing, sorry. PR-J


There it is Ron.

David Skolnik





At 06:04 PM 04/03/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>It's happening again tonight. Listpostus interruptus. The last pianotech
>post I got today was about five hours ago, and my reply hasn't even showed
>up. I just received a private post, so something's working - but no
>pianotech reception. Stupid server. I'd hate to think I'm being picked on
>and am missing it. Guess I'll have to read it in the archives tomorrow 
>(again).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Sniff
>
>Ron N