<html> <body> Ron & list - Somehow, my attempts to be non-confrontational and unprovocative  seem to have failed, rather dramatically!  I don't know.  How much of what I hear in Ron's tone is my own misreading or projection?  I tried to do two things, maybe three, with my last post.  I tried to be appreciative of Ron's time and effort, I tried to rephrase some of my questions in response to his comments, and I tried to eliminate those issues that seemed to digress too far from the point.  Actually, four things.  I tried for a little levity too, but I'm afraid I have to acknowledge that, with this medium, and my writing skills, I can't get away with not using <grin> or :-).  I won't ask any further technical questions.  My objective here is to understand the communication glitches, and to apologize for any role I might have in them. At 07:30 AM 2/25/2004 -0600, you wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><blockquote type=cite class=ci= te cite><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>The pin angle combined with the string tension and offset angle forces the string against the bridge top. It's a clamp system.</blockquote> This is a static definition.  What I was trying to ask  about was "dynamic" coupling, that is, the interaction of the parts (string, pin, bridge) in motion.</blockquote> Which was no where evident in the question.</blockquote> I'm sorry, That's why I rephrased the question. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><blockquote type=cite= class=cite cite><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><blockquote= type=cite class=cite cite>Does the front edge of the bridge play any role in defining the string termination?</blockquote> Yes. It's what the pin angle, string tension, and offset angle clamp the string TO, ideally.</blockquote> I meant, does the front edge of the bridge have any effect on the way in which the various modes of string vibration evolve & decay that might be measurably altered by its absence?</blockquote> Again, the question you asked in no way remotely indicated that, and I don't have those answers in any case.</blockquote> I'm sorry, but while I acknowledge that, upon consideration, the original question was overly broad, I find it a bit excessive to describe it as "in no way remotely indicated".   I said in the intro to this series of questions (which was not copied in Ron's reply) that I did not expect him to be able to answer all of them, nor did I wish the burden of response to fall entirely upon him.  <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><blockquote type=cite= class=cite cite>What amount of negative force would be needed to overcome the design parameters you have quoted..."10 degrees side, 20 degrees pin slant"?</blockquote> With a string at 160 pounds tension, with zero overall down bearing, 10° offset, and 20° pin slant, it would take about 23 pounds to push the string up the pin. With 160 pounds tension, zero bearing, 5° offset, and 10° pin slant, it would take about 10 pounds to push the string up the pin.</blockquote> This is useful information. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><blockquote type=cite= class=cite cite>I recall some discussion about the bridge surface itself expanding upward (apart from the soundboard's upward excursion) and, in the process, pushing the string up the pins.</blockquote> I've written about this before.</blockquote> Ron - At this point, why wouldn't you have elaborated a bit.  You say you've written about that, but you choose not to indicate, even in brief, what you said or when.  Wouldn't this have added something substantive and possibly relevant? <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Suit yourself. I see way to= o much friction between the pin and string to allow the string to slither up and down the pin during play - unless something is seriously wrong. And if the string was, indeed causing a false beat by slithering up and down the string, the beat wouldn't stop when you place a screwdriver against the side of the pin opposite the string - which it typically does.</blockquote> The noise I observe and associate with termination deficiency at the front bridge pin is not the same as the false beats, which I find to occur mostly in the upper two or three octaves.  They are different noises, with, I believe, different sources. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><blockquote type=cite= class=cite cite><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Of course. But it's because you're inducing a curve into the string to force it down to the crushed bridge edge by tapping, not because the string has climbed the pin.</blockquote> Sorry, no.  I have, with a magnifier and strong lighting, watched the bridge-segment string set to the bridge surface from almost all the way back to the rear pin. It can't be all about wood fiber crushing.  Of course, as I get older, and my eyes get worse, I can reasonably suppose that I'll be seeing less of this. That's one solution!</blockquote> Most likely right. I'm just blind and don't know what I'm talking about.</blockquote> I believe my intended meaning was poorly served by my choice of words.  I had intended my comment to relate solely to my own experience of late, having more difficulty seeing than I used to.  Ron's comment seem to suggest that he interpreted my remarks as being insinuatingly directed at him,  If that's the case, I sincerely apologize. Not only is that not who I am, but, frankly, such technique is beyond my rhetorical repertoire.  <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><blockquote type=cite= class=cite cite>From the rebuilder's perspective, and not just Ron N, :</blockquote> Whatever that means.</blockquote> Again, my language was ineffective in communicating my intent.  I was only trying to encourage rebuilding-readers other than Ron's self to contribute some comments, not that his in put was to be diminished.  Sorry again. <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><blockquote type=cite= class=cite cite>Are you striving for positive downbearing  (with positive front bearing) across the scale?</blockquote> Yes. Aren't you? If not, why not? <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>If so, do you know (by measuring) how often you do or do not achieve this goal?</blockquote> Always. Don't you? If not, why not?</blockquote> As I've indicated on more than one occasion in these, and other discussions, I am not doing rebuilding.  That would address the question of why not me.   These statements by Ron are, I think, at the core of my questions regarding negative downbearing over the recent months. If they are representative of the approach adopted by this readership, they then also represent an unfortunate indictment of much of the work (new and rebuilt) that I have come across in my years in this business. So, thanks Ron, and others who have contributed thoughts along the way. David Skolnik RPT, DBH </body> </html>