More on soundboard crown

[Ron Nossaman]

>Jimmenees there Ron.. I'm not attacking you or anything... Just trying to 
>sort out on my own what some of the justification for using a CC board 
>must be in the minds of its advocates. There is no game here... no 
>competition... nothing except a simple question.

That's what I'm trying to do - keep it simple and accurate. Toward that 
end, I won't do the I said, you said thing. Nor will I go through my 
conversation with John with you trying to untangle every single word and 
alternate implication you can come up with for the next week. I know from 
past experience that nothing will come of this. I don't understand why you 
are asking these questions in the first place because all this stuff has 
been gone over with you personally in some detail more than a couple of 
times in the past and hasn't changed a bit since the last time. I know it's 
the poor little me doesn't understand about soundboards, but these 
discussions aren't about soundboards. If you don't believe what you hear, 
read up on it and learn for yourself. The information on wood properties is 
available for the reading any time you would like to read it. The fact that 
it doesn't specifically say anything about soundboards doesn't make it 
non-information. The principals discussed here about arches, beam 
deflection, compression set and the long term effects of various 
construction techniques aren't soundboard specific either. The principals 
apply universally to the materials in any construction using these 
materials. They happen to apply to soundboards because of the materials 
used to build soundboards, and that's all. This isn't soundboard physics, 
it's wood technology. You don't have to know a thing about soundboards to 
understand these physical principals. You just have to learn something of 
the physical properties of the materials and logically apply them. That's 
it. The physical principals aren't all that open to debate. They're 
documented by actual official sources and qualify as real, factual, and 
reasonably dependable information. You don't have to decide who's argument 
seems to hint at coming closer to what might be the running score of 
compared consensus this week to decide who might be ahead at the moment. 
You can learn the real basis for the discussions directly from the source 
and work up your own truth irrespective of who said what and we might not 
have to start over again at the beginning quite as often. Why don't you 
give it a try? You might find it interesting.

Ron N