RC&S question in general Kent

[AlliedPianoCraft]

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.

Al Guecia
Allied PianoCraft
PO Box 1549
High Point, NC 27261
(336) 454-2000
PianoTech at alliedpianocraft.com
www.alliedpianocraft.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Brekne" <ricb at pianostemmer.no>
To: <pianotech at ptg.org>
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 5:12 PM
Subject: RC&S question in general Kent


> Hi Kent   
> 
>    Your "bold faced fact" appears to be an opinion to me, an opinion
>    based on your analysis of the available data and evidence. Others
>    looking at the same data and evidence, myself included, might reach
>    a different opinion.
> 
>    Kent Swafford
> 
> Of course we all have the right to draw whatever conclusions we want.  
> But  lets back off from unnecessary extreme positions. These discussions 
> are supposed to enlighten us about how different  approaches function.  
> The whole... <<which is better>> thing is nothing more then a 
> destructive side track.  Who is discouraging who in all this ?   
> Disputing the validity of RC and CC methods is no more productive then 
> some of the discussion tactics just used... or throwing out presumably 
> lightly meant death threats. How does any of this answer any of the 
> questions on the table or provide deeper understanding into the various 
> methods different builders use and have used to build the instrument we 
> all love and have devoted our lives to servicing ? 
> 
> Take this residual crown bit as an example. The query was clearly 
> qualified as including two other known states... Rib dimensions and 
> amount of panel compression at glue up MC. Before going on please let me 
> point you to the following very short post from Ron Nossaman.
> 
>    http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech/2008-January/216274.html
> 
> So I asked...given the aforementioned qualifying conditions  how much 
> compression a given downbearing will impart into the soundboard for a 
> given deflection... ie. for what ever target residual crown there is 
> after downbearing is applied. The post I just directed you to clearly 
> conflicts with the flurry of responses I got declaring that residual 
> crown is meaningless.  Despite going out of my way to re-underline the 
> conditions I set... which are perfectly inline with Rons post I linked 
> to above... I got the usual ration. Grin... and on top of that.. there 
> are actually exacting predetermined amounts of this same residual crown 
> calculated on when designing and RC&S board for any given scale. Its 
> nearly half of the whole design approach !
> 
> Now where is the constructive learning spirit in all this ? What ends 
> are served ?
> 
> I'd restate my question... but it seems like really no one knows how to 
> figure how much compression is imparted to a panel for a given 
> downbearing with known starting values for rib strength and orientation 
> and panel compression for a constant RH.    And if THAT be the case... 
> then how on earth can we be certain of just how much compression is in 
> an RC&S panel when loaded ? Those ribs are stiff suckers... downbearing 
> forces compression in the panel as it strains against the ribs.... its a 
> fair question.
> 
> Why don't we drop all this judgmental stuff and get down to what this 
> list is supposed to be about.  I'm just asking questions I want straight 
> and respectful answers too.  Is that such a problem ?
> 
> Cheers
> RicB
> 
> 
>    On Jan 28, 2008 1:55 AM, Richard Brekne <ricb at pianostemmer.no> wrote:
> 
>     The fact is...and this is a bold faced fact... that experienced
>    manufacturers have been building boards of all types for 300
>    years... and there is no statistical grounds for doubting  the
>    viability of any of the basic methods employed (when done so
>    appropriately) today .
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech/attachments/20080128/547763a5/attachment.html