<!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"> Hi Ron. Thanks for you contribution here. Interesting to hear your understanding that there have been no bench testings to confirm (or deny) what Dr. Anderssen's maths seem to clearly support.  But then thats my whole point.  There are folks ready to write this whole issue off as unreasonable with out so much more then what amounts to casual observation.  Ok, the increased mass bit is educated enough, but that looks in another direction entirely without really looking at the question in hand. For the same reasons I  must  aggree with you that bench testing should be done before brochures are printed.  That said, until such testing is done we are speculating at best. One way or the other. Fair enough, as you say speculation is found in other places then this list as well.  Still, I think you would aggree that it would be interesting to ascertain beyond any doubt what the truth of the matter is. That exact spirit I believe was at the core of Carls initial posting.  I think its a good pursuit.  I would imagin however that it needs time and somewhat more then casual resources to do the neccessary controlled experimentation. FWIW, I'd like to see someone carry it out. Cheers RicB -------------------- Ron Overs writes in reply to RicB's comments: <pre>>My point was simply to point to information compiled by those >scientists that have actually done some hard research. Robert Anderssen may have come up with a mathematical model to support the theory, but as I understand it (and I did speak with him on this matter on the day of the official launch concert for the Stuart piano - when he offered his services to my company also), the bench testing to verify the claims hasn't been done. This information came from Mr Anderssen himself when Geoff Pollard and I were speaking with him. > Most of what is tossed around back and forth here >is speculation to some degree or another. And much of what is tossed around in brochures and websites is likely speculation also. Speculation isn't restricted only to those of us on the pianotech list. While I am the first to admit that its not possible to exhaustively test every idea one has, we should endeavour to establish what factor is actually giving us the characteristics we are claiming. >Not that that is a bad thing mind you. But to at least read what >research and real experimentation has been done seems to my mind a >good idea before one starts drawing up any conclusions. Indeed, and bench experiments to prove or disprove an idea should be done before the brochures are printed. >Personally, I find the vertical vibration claim quite plausible, and >there seems to be >some basic maths that back it up. After checking both a standard piano string and the Stuart piano string, with the rudimentary apparatus of a trouble lamp and my eyes, I don't find the idea has merit at all. I believe he is getting better sustain through higher bridge mass loading and zero downbearing. Ron O. -- OVERS PIANOS - SYDNEY Grand Piano Manufacturers _______________________ Web <a href="http://overspianos.com.au">http://overspianos.com.au</a> mailto:<a href="mailto:ron@overspianos.com.au">ron@overspianos.com.au</a></pre> </body> </html>