Downbearing

[Dean May]

Ric,

You are confusing us Yanks by interchanging commas and periods for decimal
points! ;-)

Dean

-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of Ric Brekne
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 3:22 AM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Downbearing

Thanks Ron O.

Since the downwards force is correct, the rest of it is no doubt correct 
as well.  I  still want to be sure about given the below data... whether 
the undeflected string have a tension of  159,975 lbs  tho...

By undeflected string I mean that if you had a string as per specs 
below... and simply lowered the bridge so that the string was no longer 
deflected... its tension would  end up at 159,975 lbs... and for that 
matter its entire length would be somewhat shortened...  to 74,947 I 
believe... or a little over half a milimeter. The speaking length 49.98 
roughly and the back length to 25.95 roughly.

Yes ??

RicB



Ric B wrote:

 >Are the following results then valid ?
 >Undeflected string length total 74,98984643
 >String angle from the front termination 1,333363422 degrees
 >String angle from the aliquot / hitchpin  0,666636578 degrees
 >String deflected Height  0,581737034 mm
 >Downwards force on the bridge. 5,584676 lbs

Ron O wrote:

By 178 degrees I understand that you are talking about the angle
underneath the string segments, ie. speaking length and back length
segments. The downbearing force you have calculated is correct, since
178 degrees if measured from underneath translates to a 2 deflection
of the string over the bridge.

Sin 2 degrees*160 = 5,584676

Ron O.