<HTML>In a message dated 5/3/2002 6:18:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, RNossaman@KSCABLE.com writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Subj:Re: Crown, was RE:Curve on Bridge Bottom Date:5/3/2002 6:18:31 AM Pacific Standard Time From:<A HREF="mailto:RNossaman@KSCABLE.com">RNossaman@KSCABLE.com</A> Reply-to:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A> To:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A> Sent from the Internet          Rick</BLOCKQUOTE> , Ron   Well it does seem doeable at first thought but, it's not.  I toook a long rib (60 ft. radiused) unattached to any thing and simply bent it down flat as an experiment. Imperceptable change in length to the eye. No more argument from this casual observer>   >>>>Dale >>>>>>>>> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"> >Just trying to figure out why Dale got the notion that the panel would >spread by >0.05 " (1,27mm).  Just eyeballing, it seems a reasonable enough first guess - until you check the math. It's just another of the 7.3 billion things that aren't what they seem to be at first glance, traditional wisdom, or intuition. Of course, it's just a matter of opinion that the math is right, and we haven't heard all the expert estimates yet. Ron</BLOCKQUOTE> </HTML>