<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>Re: Rocking bridges</title></head><body> <div>At 11:01 AM -0600 12/24/01, Ron Nossaman wrote:</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite>The only persistent confusion I've seen here is a disagreement of what<br> moves when and what moves it, not whether or not anything moves at all.<br> We've already dealt with that and, I had assumed, corrected any</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>misunderstandings. Yes, everything still moves. If we're not talking about<br> the same thing here and haven't been through this whole thread, I'd like to<br> know that now please. If we are talking about the same thing, then we have<br> been far beyond that point for some time. To bring you up to date, the<br> current question I'm dealing with is whether a string displacement in the</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>speaking length of a piano can rock the bridge.</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Well to bring _you_ up to date, Ron Nossaman, it was I who deliberately _started_ this thread with a statement of what we were arguing about so that there would be absolutely no doubt about it.</div> <div><br></div> <div>The basis of the discussion is the view expressed by you and Del and Ron Overs of the way the piano produces sound, which I print now below for the third time in red.</div> <div><br></div> <div>At first you pretended to ignore my request; at the second time of asking, in red,  you refused to confirm it and at 2:00 PM -0600 12/23/01 wrote:</div> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite>Nor is there any reason for me to. With you maintaining that a string deflected by a finger will move the bridge but one deflected by a hammer strike won't, I see no point in continuing.</blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>And nevertheless you _are_ now continuing with your own agenda, twisting and turning as ever and trying to get free by making a lot of noise about irrelevancies and refusing to confirm or deny that you stand by the views below.</div> <div><br></div> <div>Either these are your views or they are not.  If you say they are not, then you and your friends have quite a lot of words to eat.  In any case, that is the basis of this discussion.</div> <div><br></div> <div>JD</div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div><br></div> <div>At 5:50 PM +0000 12/23/01, John Delacour wrote:</div> <blockquote type="cite" cite>In my post with the topic "Rocking Bridges", to which at the time of writing you have not yet responded, I ask you to confirm your position so that we may actually be quite clear about it.  The definition of your position as I have laid it out seems to be unobjectionable, but I have given you the opportunity to modify this as you please so that he is no doubt what your position is.</blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br> On that basis some reason can be brought to bear on the discussion, which has been distorted and side-tracked by you and your associates from the beginning, apparently with the sole aim of saving face and without a single relevant demonstration in proof.<br> </blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>In case by chance you missed the message (and pigs might fly!) here is the relevant portion again:</blockquote> <div><br></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="+2" color="#FF0000">First, may we get it clear that you and others have mentioned three types of movement in relation to the bridge, namely a) rocking movement (of the top towards and away from the stud or hitchpin)  b) up and down movement and c) rippling movement.<br> <br> Secondly, that it is the string that is the _direct_ cause or driver of these bodily movements and<br> <br> Thirdly, that these bodily movements of the bridge cause the soundboard to move (as it must, since the two are glued together) and to produce the sound of the string into the air.<br> <br> I use the word "bodily" to distinguish these movements from molecular disturbances within or at the surface of the objects in question which result in no displacement of the object as a whole. I would allow that a movement of a part of the object would also constitute bodily movement, so it is not necessary for every inch if the bridge to be displaced.</font><br> <font size="+2" color="#FF0000"></font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font size="+2" color="#FF0000">So long as I am not twisting your words or misinterpreting your stand, then we can continue; so please confirm that the above is your view or modify it as necessary.</font></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote> <blockquote type="cite" cite>If you agree, then I would like first to consider the "rocking motion" of the bridge that you and Ron Overs (and probably Del) have referred to.  We have to begin somewhere and that's as good a place as any.  It would be best if we get our positions clear at every point as we progress.  How about it?</blockquote> </body> </html>