R,C&S question

[Ron Nossaman]

> */Ok so I propose that the RC&S is more about the rib design than the 
> emc at rib glue-up. Why can't an RC&S panel be ribbed at a lower emc for 
> the sake of a given climate. There would be some compression in the 
> panel but it wouldn't be necessary to support the panel. 

It wouldn't be necessary, but it would be there, making the 
assembly stiffer than your rib design intended, and adding an 
accelerated aging feature as the high compression loads 
crushed the panel. Avoiding that accelerated aging feature is 
one of the reasons for switching to RC&S in the first place.


>Then I could 
> join the club and wouldn't have to skate the issue with my hybrid. Seems 
> it's more about matching a given load with a given resistance./* 

I'm not sure there's an answer for making anything at all out 
of wood that is to be taken through very wide humidity swings. 
Laminated, would seem to me to be the best bet. You're always 
matching load to resistance, etc, etc, but climate conditions 
under use complicate things. In the monoseason area of the 
west coast, for instance, CC seems to work much better than it 
does in the midwest.


> */Since I didn't hear the pianos in question nor get any real specifics, 
> it is just hearsay which I wish to publicly retract. I was just very 
> surprised at the source but no matter. Maybe it was an RC board or maybe 
> an RC&S with a mismatched scale design. Can you say that RC&S unto 
> itself precludes that there are other factors that could render tonal 
> problems?/*

No, of course not. It's still a piano.


> */Again it seems to be about the ribs not the panel, so what difference 
> does the emc really make in this regard. 

Because panel MC and resulting compression affects assembly 
stiffness. It's one of the important parameters.


> */Ron, you're always the warrior that takes the time to dicuss this and 
> I really appreciate it./*

It needs understanding.
Ron N