> I'll admit to having been snoozing while this Great Debate raged, but > it's a little bit of a shock to wake up and find myself in the same > paddy wagon as the mongoloid hordes you describe. <G> One of the more comprehensive discussion was between Phil Ford and me last year, on seating strings, which should catch you up pretty quickly. > I'll be interested to see who makes that claim, too. I was talking about > the pinning, ie., the integrity of the holes the pins are driven in. So > I guess I can take it that if the bridge cap is split at the bridge > pins, that's entirely the work of side bearing. I agree that you'd > probably have to create several inches of negative crown for the string > deflection in the vertical plane to come anywhere close to that in the > horizontal plane (side-bearing). But it's hard to shake the notion that > while positive downbearing is borne entirely by the bridge, negative > downbearing is assigned to the bridge pins. The bridgepins are the means > by which the strings are pulled downwards from a straight path. > Irespectagardless of crown. Sure, there would be more side stress on bridge pins with negative bearing, but not much compared to that produced by the offset angle. At 160 pounds, a 1° bearing angle produces about 2.8 pounds, while a 10° offset angle produces about 25 lbs. > Which is why if I were to design a piano with negative crown and bearing > in the belly, which worked, I'd look for another way of coupling the > strings to the bridge. Maybe it's just me, but I can't help but wonder why anyone would want to design a piano with negative crown and bearing. I don't think of any benefit to doing so. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC