<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16587" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>Ric, well said. You are a gentleman. I'm new to this list and I can't believe all the unfounded attacks going on here.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>Al Guecia<BR>Allied PianoCraft<BR>PO Box 1549<BR>High Point, NC 27261<BR>(336) 454-2000<BR></FONT><A href="mailto:PianoTech@alliedpianocraft.com"><FONT face=Arial>PianoTech@alliedpianocraft.com</FONT></A><BR><A href="http://www.alliedpianocraft.com"><FONT face=Arial>www.alliedpianocraft.com</FONT></A></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>----- Original Message ----- </FONT> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>From: "Richard Brekne" <</FONT><A href="mailto:ricb@pianostemmer.no"><FONT face=Arial>ricb@pianostemmer.no</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial>></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>To: <</FONT><A href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org"><FONT face=Arial>pianotech@ptg.org</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial>></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 5:12 PM</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>Subject: RC&S question in general Kent</FONT></DIV></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial>> Hi Kent   <BR>> <BR>>    Your "bold faced fact" appears to be an opinion to me, an opinion<BR>>    based on your analysis of the available data and evidence. Others<BR>>    looking at the same data and evidence, myself included, might reach<BR>>    a different opinion.<BR>> <BR>>    Kent Swafford<BR>> <BR>> Of course we all have the right to draw whatever conclusions we want.  <BR>> But  lets back off from unnecessary extreme positions. These discussions <BR>> are supposed to enlighten us about how different  approaches function.  <BR>> The whole... <<which is better>> thing is nothing more then a <BR>> destructive side track.  Who is discouraging who in all this ?   <BR>> Disputing the validity of RC and CC methods is no more productive then <BR>> some of the discussion tactics just used... or throwing out presumably <BR>> lightly meant death threats. How does any of this answer any of the <BR>> questions on the table or provide deeper understanding into the various <BR>> methods different builders use and have used to build the instrument we <BR>> all love and have devoted our lives to servicing ? <BR>> <BR>> Take this residual crown bit as an example. The query was clearly <BR>> qualified as including two other known states... Rib dimensions and <BR>> amount of panel compression at glue up MC. Before going on please let me <BR>> point you to the following very short post from Ron Nossaman.<BR>> <BR>>    </FONT><A href="http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/2008-January/216274.html"><FONT face=Arial>http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/2008-January/216274.html</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial>> <BR>> So I asked...given the aforementioned qualifying conditions  how much <BR>> compression a given downbearing will impart into the soundboard for a <BR>> given deflection... ie. for what ever target residual crown there is <BR>> after downbearing is applied. The post I just directed you to clearly <BR>> conflicts with the flurry of responses I got declaring that residual <BR>> crown is meaningless.  Despite going out of my way to re-underline the <BR>> conditions I set... which are perfectly inline with Rons post I linked <BR>> to above... I got the usual ration. Grin... and on top of that.. there <BR>> are actually exacting predetermined amounts of this same residual crown <BR>> calculated on when designing and RC&S board for any given scale. Its <BR>> nearly half of the whole design approach !<BR>> <BR>> Now where is the constructive learning spirit in all this ? What ends <BR>> are served ?<BR>> <BR>> I'd restate my question... but it seems like really no one knows how to <BR>> figure how much compression is imparted to a panel for a given <BR>> downbearing with known starting values for rib strength and orientation <BR>> and panel compression for a constant RH.    And if THAT be the case... <BR>> then how on earth can we be certain of just how much compression is in <BR>> an RC&S panel when loaded ? Those ribs are stiff suckers... downbearing <BR>> forces compression in the panel as it strains against the ribs.... its a <BR>> fair question.<BR>> <BR>> Why don't we drop all this judgmental stuff and get down to what this <BR>> list is supposed to be about.  I'm just asking questions I want straight <BR>> and respectful answers too.  Is that such a problem ?<BR>> <BR>> Cheers<BR>> RicB<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>    On Jan 28, 2008 1:55 AM, Richard Brekne <ricb at pianostemmer.no> wrote:<BR>> <BR>>     The fact is...and this is a bold faced fact... that experienced<BR>>    manufacturers have been building boards of all types for 300<BR>>    years... and there is no statistical grounds for doubting  the<BR>>    viability of any of the basic methods employed (when done so<BR>>    appropriately) today .<BR>> <BR>></FONT></BODY></HTML>