Stephen, I think the discussion has calmed down because most of the participants have given up. If we are going to start afresh with short, dispassionate synopses, then I also think it would be an appropriate time to have a synopsis of the applicability of the non-linear (or other descriptor of your choice) view of how the system works to design of a piano. I believe that Robin said at one time that the implications are profound. Perhaps he can expand on that. Treating the system as linear (a simple spring-mass system, the bridge moves first which moves the soundboard, the pressurists view, or any other way you want to describe or label it) seems to lead toward certain design parameters: for example, stiff but light bridge and soundboard configuration at the high end, flexible bridge and soundboard at the low end, massive capo or string termination at the plate at the top end, high down bearing at the top end, low bearing at the low end, etc. These things seem to work in practice. They also seem to be supported by trends in piano design which were largely driven by empirical data. If this view of things is incorrect then how will having the 'correct' view change or influence the design? Hooke's Law apparently is only true at low load levels. Beam formulas that you get out of any engineering handbook are based on many assumptions such as load levels not too high, plane sections remaining plane, etc. This would seem to indicate that these formulas may not 'really' describe how beams behave, but are merely simple minded approximations of what is 'really' happening. That doesn't prevent these 'laws' and formulas from being used to design and build many useful structures and products. Would these products be designed any differently if we knew how beams 'really' behave or how materials 'really' behave under load? I doubt it. In the case of the piano, our ignorant or simple minded view of how things work hasn't hindered us from designing pianos that musicians want to play. Will understanding how things 'really' work improve our chances of doing so? If not, other than as an academic exercise, what's the point? Phil F --- Phillip Ford Piano Service & Restoration 1777 Yosemite Ave - 215 San Francisco, CA 94124 On Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:18:51 Stephen Birkett wrote: >Robin wrote: >> owners unfortunately incapable of taking note of the many experimental >> anomalies arising from their point of view which their complete >> indifference to the numerous models and experiments suggested both by >> you and myself demonstrate. > >Now that the discussion has calmed down - I found it difficult to follow the various >threads while the salvos were going back and forth - perhaps this would be a good point >to present a short, dispassionate synopsis of these key experimental anomolies and >observations that need explanation. > >Stephen > >Stephen Birkett Fortepianos >Authentic Reproductions of 18th and 19th Century Pianos >464 Winchester Drive >Waterloo, Ontario >Canada N2T 1K5 >tel: 519-885-2228 >mailto: birketts@wright.aps.uoguelph.ca > > 2,000,000,000 Web Pages--you only need 1. Save time with My Lycos. http://my.lycos.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC