<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> I see we still are talking past each other on this point a bit. Refer to the two drawings inclosed. <img src="cid:part1.03080008.05050409@broadpark.no" alt=""> Note that the red line is not a string. It is the triangle that is formed by the three contact points... front and back string termination and highest point on the bridge. In the top drawing, the entire bridge surface is above the red line going down to the termination. In the lower drawing the front termination is below the red line. The condition in the  lower drawing according to Rons idea is the only one of these two in which it is possible to observe that strings are not in  full contact with the bridge.  The notch is destroyed so that it is not able to maintain contact with the string under any usual conditions. Forcing the string to seat here will be quite temporary and cause more damage. All fine and dandy. However... the condition found in the top drawing can exist with strings not in contact with the entire bridge surface as well. You just proved it for one with your pulling experiment, tho if one actually goes out and actively looks ... it is not particularly unusual.  How the string gets up there is another matter,  but that it does is simply without question. One need look no further then new pianos as I've said before.  A few points that are easily confirmed --the dynamics of the system do not necessarilly bring the strings down -- it is possible to measure that the string height relative to the top of the bridge pin can decrease with increased humidity, which clearly points to the string moving up the pin. -- the strings can be slightly out of contact with all or part of the bridge in spite of the condition in the top drawing. You can go out and measure this and find plenty instances.  And all of them are clearly in conflict with the idea that the only thing that is happening is that the bridge surface is crushing and then retreating. Baffling it may be. But it happens, and not unfrequently.  Why would strings in the upper drawing case need seating ?? Because they climbed the pins ??... grin.. yup. Cheers RicB ------------- <pre>>This is central to the whole line of reasoning that Rons <<theory>> rests >on. If there is positive bearing at all points on the bridge, and >strings need seating, then Rons claims do no not hold. I'm baffled by this. If we're using bearing here in the sense of contact between string and bridge cap, and there is contact everywhere across the cap by the string, why would it need seating? It's already seated.</pre> </body> </html>