The debates around these different board types seem to have two distinct aspects to them. The first is and most obvious is the combatant aspect where folks doing different board types go to no ends discredit the other. They do about anything then topically confront the opposing sides views. This applies to all camps pretty much equally as far as I can see. I stand here on the outside looking at a host of different designers, builders, manufacturers asking the same questions and getting the same basic message back. "We know best... obviously the other guy is full of hot air and you shouldn't listen to him" And with few actual exceptions from any camp, thats about as far as it goes. The other aspect is all the stuff going on about how soundboards actually work that quite obviously far less is known then all, each from their own perspective would have it. Nothing could make this more clear IMHO then the apparent total lack of anyone to be able to predict the load bearing capacities of a compression reliant board. This is used on the one hand as a criticism against compression reliant boards... but then on the other hand these same critics can not account for the degree of compression (beyond what humidity vs rib restraint) itself imparts into any panel at all... including so called non compression reliant boards. It is easy to demonstrate that the initial support provided by a CC board is far beyond what the rib structure itself is able to bear. Again... the entire reasoning for building an RC&S board underlines this as the stated goal in RC & S boards is to design said support into the ribs themselves. This directly implies and recognizes that the stress conflict between the compression of the panel and tensioning of the ribs in a CC board is what creates the support and strength against downbearing at any given time. In a new board, other relevant factors are knowns... or should be. The only unpredictability I see in any of this is the lack of anyone to be able to describe in math mechanics terms the functioning of the rib restraining against a glued panel wanting to expand due to a given downwards force on the panel. If this was calculated... all the guess work goes out of the compression reliant picture as it is the only <<unknown>> factor. We already know how beams work as beams. We already know how to figure what compression in the panel and tension in the ribs forms for RH changes given known starting points for these. Personally... I don't give a hoot which kind of board anyone decides to build. I'll try anything myself. My only interest is to find out how things work. Getting into some kind of crusade for one or the other type is TMMOT a waste of time as history proves the hopelessness and meaningless of such endeavor. The fact is...and this is a bold faced fact... that experienced manufacturers have been building boards of all types for 300 years... and there is no statistical grounds for doubting the viability of any of the basic methods employed (when done so appropriately) today . Nor does that fact prevent, impead, or threaten anyone from trying anything new. End of rant. Cheers RicB
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC