John - I apologize for the mis-attributed endorsement. I must also confess that I still have trouble assimilating angular and distance deflection, but I'm continuing to work on it. However, I'm still not sure I'm understanding you regarding the Lowell or, for that matter, any gauge other than one that measures the actual distance at the string rest. I understand, I think, the limitations of Lowell, both in its resolution and vulnerability to certain misreading, however Dale's gauge seems to have a comparable vulnerability in its 'blindness' to the bridge surface and the anomalies that can be introduced. For example (I don't know how to incorporate illustrations yet), a bridge surface which angles upward (creating "negative front bearing"), then has the string return to a point exactly on a line with the extended straight line of the sounding length of the string, would show no bearing, yet it would be present, albeit in a distorted form. The Lowell would show that information, however, without the additional information from an Erwin-style tool, it would be difficult to determine the net-effect. Would you be satisfies with Lowell gauge with a better vial, wider distance range, with magnetic feet? What would it's shortcomings be at that point? besides price? Regards - David Skolnik Hastings on Hudson, NY At 05:55 AM 5/13/2007, you wrote: >At 7:07 pm -0500 12/5/07, David Skolnik wrote: > >>...it has been an invaluable analytical tool for me over the years, >>and it took years to get it back on the market, even without the >>modifications I was hoping for, including better balance and >>magnetic feet. If I understand John D's post, it is still more >>accurate than the Wixey, which, given the price, I will probably >>try, just for fun. > >I didn't actually comment on the Lowell gauge; my comparison was >between the Wixey gauge and Dale Erwin's stick of maple used with a >stepped feeler gauge, the latter being more accurate. The Lowell >gauge relies on a bubble. For less than $2 I could buy one maker's >_cheapest_ plastic bubble gauge (radius ca. 0.2 metres) and that >will give me a bubble movement of 2mm for 35 minutes (ie. 1/3 mm. >for each jump on the Wixey gauge). Ground or bent glass vials are >made with radiuses up to 100 metres (as used,for example, in the >Mitutoyo precision level) with accuracies far exceeding our requirements. > >Looking through the archives I find a posting from Phil Ford that >suggests the Lowell vial is marked with divisions of 1/6 degree. >Supposing the spacing for the marks on the vial to be the usual 2mm, >each millimetre would thus show 5 minutes of angle and the vial >would have a radius of about 1 metre. I personally would prefer a >considerably more sensitive vial. > >JD
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC