Downbearing

[David Skolnik]

Dear Ric & Ron -

To avoid a disaster on the scale  comparable to : 
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/news/mco990930.html
I would appreciate some clarification as to the use of commas and 
decimal points in your numerical representations. In the quote below, 
they seem to be used interchangeably.
Otherwise, curious to see where this goes.

David Skolnik



At 03:21 AM 8/15/2006, you wrote:
>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.