>My point was simply to point to information compiled by those
>scientists that have actually done some hard research.
Robert Anderssen may have come up with a mathematical model to
support the theory, but as I understand it (and I did speak with him
on this matter on the day of the official launch concert for the
Stuart piano - when he offered his services to my company also), the
bench testing to verify the claims hasn't been done. This information
came from Mr Anderssen himself when Geoff Pollard and I were speaking
with him.
> Most of what is tossed around back and forth here
>is speculation to some degree or another.
And much of what is tossed around in brochures and websites is likely
speculation also. Speculation isn't restricted only to those of us on
the pianotech list. While I am the first to admit that its not
possible to exhaustively test every idea one has, we should endeavour
to establish what factor is actually giving us the characteristics we
are claiming.
>Not that that is a bad thing mind you. But to at least read what
>research and real experimentation has been done seems to my mind a
>good idea before one starts drawing up any conclusions.
Indeed, and bench experiments to prove or disprove an idea should be
done before the brochures are printed.
>Personally, I find the vertical vibration claim quite plausible, and
>there seems to be
>some basic maths that back it up.
After checking both a standard piano string and the Stuart piano
string, with the rudimentary apparatus of a trouble lamp and my eyes,
I don't find the idea has merit at all. I believe he is getting
better sustain through higher bridge mass loading and zero
downbearing.
Ron O.
--
OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY
Grand Piano Manufacturers
_______________________
Web http://overspianos.com.au
mailto:ron@overspianos.com.au
_______________________
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC