Marijan Radaljac

Members
  • Content Count

    556
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

About Marijan Radaljac

  • Rank
    Enthusiast
  • Birthday 04/14/1966

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    www.violineradaljac.com
  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

5207 profile views
  1. Hmm, so 3 min is overkill? Although, I was counting one blue whale, two blue whales... in latin.
  2. Actually, no need for that. For the OP crack (at least as I have done in my two cases) just try to rest your left palm on the legs, hold the neck/pegbox with heal facing away from you, and use 3 inner fingers of the right hand to keep the scroll in contact position. 2 and half to 3 min is all I did. No need to say, both scrolls are holding after quite a few years. You should need 10 sec max (even less) to aligne parts in register and apply the preasure to the contact area after you apply the glue on, and squize the ecxcess out.
  3. I agree that it is not quite the same, error chance is low at center joint providing good flat areas. But advantage of "hold joint" is that it is much easyer to realy feel good contact between the areas when ajusting it by hands-fingers that when using jig. And it will be very quick. If glue is on a hot side, not to thick and wood warmed up, you will squize almost all glue out at the time point when areas align perfectly at resonable hand preassure. That is just my limited expirience though so I am really not in position to argue about this subject with you. As I said, well made and applied jig, most probably better and safer option. I had just two similar cracks as OP and one across A peg hole. The last one I solved using jig .
  4. Since this is still the early stage of finishing the neck, where scroll can still be subjected to some accidental impacts and stady loads during your working process, I would go with new scroll too. Otherwise, for example, rubed center joints on backs seems to be sucessfully used by many makers (I use it anyway, with zero failure/problem till now) so "glue it, hold and leave" can be all you need if you want to procede with it anyway, and if you have a clear break. On the other hand I do clamp my neck joint. Well constructed, and perfectly applied (the essential thing) jig can leave you with even better result though, or at least greater peace of mind about it
  5. Hopefully your stomach is fine. At 5mm overstand and 36 bridge projection, the top of the nut is probably also somewhere below the extended line of the top edge? If things didn`t change at all in a couple of weeks while this topic was runing, I would still suggest as in the start of the thread that there was a failure in your gluing process if dry-fit was fine, or you didn`t measure the dry-fit projection correctly. I can not tell, perhaps someone can, if your boxy, honky, nasal sound is a consequence of the high neck set up, but it would make no harm to reset the neck to widely accepted standard.
  6. It would be nice to know what OP mean by boxy . I could describe in a couple of ways what that could mean to me, but as Martin said it is mostly a personal intepretation of word in relation to the sound in generaly and a point of view (player, maker, listener, recording ingenier). Something like trying to have a consensus about the labeling the jar with the unknown content. I would say exaggerated mid to low frequences, if I had to write something on that jar.
  7. Sorry, I can make only one homework at the time so it took me some time. Learning and verifying that my presumption about the lower tension of the baroque strings in comp. with more modern versions was wrong, was just a bit quicker. By that fact alone debating the mortice introduction in relaton to the string tension as I pressumed, is unnecessary and purely academic. But anyway, (as far as I`ve bein able to read and some time ago learn when studying construction transitions in early Neapolitan mandolin) strings construction changes took place during the 18`th centurie from pure gut to wound gut (dated even earlyer), twisted strings where introduced, gut and brass, , pure brass.... Those changes where slow but going, through the time where morticed neck on violin was similary slowly introduced, becoming a standard in new making in 19`th c. Academic as I said, if modern mortice construction isnt a consequence of that. I though, do wonder about, still just scratching the surface, about the diferences (or the lack of it as Roger H. is sugesting) between barouque and modern geometry - neck set/construction, load...
  8. No relevant ones, I definitly stand corrected on the modern to baroque string tension comparation in relation to the modern set up. Chicken/egg or cause/consequence question issues on my side.
  9. Change of the string material from gut to metal and raise of the pithc are two important factors in history that changed the construction of violin to some degree. They both increased the load on the violin construction and therefore increased the amount of strain energy stored in the violin construction, to the degree beyond the elastic limits of the material , caousing the ireversable (the strain energy will not produce ireversabe deformation on the object if it is in materials elastic limits ie. object will return in it`s original shape by remowing the load) deformations of the material (plates, joints...) in relation with constant, load force and time being a changeable factor. To overcome that, the constuction had to be strenghten - larger bas bar, blocks, neck/body geomety, and certainly the neck mortice. Regarding to the arch raising from the block, well Vieuxtemps is quite deformed instrument across the arch, as far as I can see it from poster only, but it`s longitudal arch with quite extreme raise up from the blocks and longest possible straight section of the top survived supriseingly well. Just an example, that there is quite a few factors that should be considered.
  10. Yes it does. Take a simple cantilever construction like this. Drill a hole through the beam and through the fixed end (wall or a neck block...) and secure the steel wire on the free end of the beam. Apply the pull force on the other end of fixed end. If the pull force is applyed dead center through the beam (which would be ideal position) that you will have just compression impact along the lenght of the beam. In this case the fixed point will have the most chance to withstand the load of the pulling force. All deformations or brakes (which will eventualy happen with high enough force) will be the consequence of material properties. If you drill the hole abow the fixed end of the structire and install your steel wire through it (still secured on the free end) than the impact on the beam longitudal integrity and on the fixed end construction will increase the higher you drill the hole. You will bent the beam and brak or deforme the fixed point (and the suporting structure behind the fixed pont - violin body for example) much quicker. Since you are just redistributing the part of the string pulling force from the neck joint to the bridge, the higher the angle or direction of the pulling force in relation to the beam (neck) the higher will be force acting on the body construction through the bridge. You don`t want the angle between the neck and strings high for structural reasons. What is the efect on the violin tonal performance is another mather. And you want your main load point/fixed point area to be as perpendicular to the string force direction as possible.
  11. One thing that had to be considered whent talking about the forces in the neck/block/back position, if you are perceiving this construction as some kind of lever model (for me it is fixed construction under the load, not ideally rigid only becouse of the material fisical properties and construction shapes), is the construction of the mortice. It`s vertical angle in particulary. There is a diference between the back mortice wall being perpendicular to the rib/block structure or being slanted toward the inside of the block. The second, leaning inwards one, where the contact/gluing area is almost perpendicular to the string pulling force direction will withstand the load with greater stability and resistence than on the "vertical" one. Also the compression efect on the edge of the top (and along the block) bill be lesser that way. But in the same time, in this second scenario there will be more "lever" force loaded on the back/block contact area. With slanted mortice back wall, the gluing area (it`s height line) is taller than ribs+top edge which would be the case on perpendiculary executed mortice. Since the angle between the button and mortice is bellow 90° the neck heal bottom is acting as a wedge, or as a kind of lever which is trying to push the button and back/block gluing area down (to break or unglue the back/block contact) when pulling force is acting on the pegs/neck. But since the top of the neck (a torque point) is not a hinge, neck has also a chance to release itself from the mortice construction just sliding verticaly in the line of the mortice. So If the joint at the button and neck root glue joints are not the best ones, that described wedge/lever up lifting force at the heal / button could theoreticaly produce a clean (non trauma) break. But now, imagine that the whole instrument is solid monostructure, let`s say printed on 3d printer which is able to mimic diferent densityes of the violin parts too. No joint, just rigid (not idealy) structure. Do the string tension forces react with the structure in the same way as on, made of glued parts, "normal violin?
  12. I don`t think we are talking about lever structure at all here. Neck/body joint was designed a a fixed, static structure with purpose to withstand the structural loads (forces of the string puling action (effort)). In ideal conditions though. But since we work with wood (materials aplied as I mentioned earlyer) which will give up to a degree through the time or becouse of it`s naturale structure, poor planing, bad materials or lousy execution, this construction can be treated as very uneficiente lever too to some degree. Uneficiente becouse the effort (string pulling force) isn`t aplied to the construction verticaly from the nut, which would be most eficiente way to aply leverege, but at very low 158˙along the line of the puling force of the strings, not making too much stress to the joint. Load is not as I see it, the top of violin as it was mentioned, but the neck/body joint itself. That is the point where your effort, applied by the string force ends up (to breake it or deforme ). The top load through the bridge is just a redirection of one part of the force affecting the joint, compensated with sound post, bass-bar and back reinforcement to some degree. Normaly, any actions which would increase the string angle would increase the puling-up force at the effort (nut) point. If you drive it far enough it will break the joint or deform the structure behind the joint (load) point, that is, plates/ribs construction. I think (I may be wrong though) that any decent static enginier, can sufficiently explain and calculate to some degree the forces in the strings/neck/body construction,so this is all just a sotr of mental masturbation if you exucuse the expression. Violin itself demonstrated, through a couple of hundreds years, the ingenuity and strenght of it`s construction. Perhaps that is whay I just rely on such prosaic reasons and do my overstands and projections accordingly to the historical expirience.
  13. To complicate things more, you should count in the parameters that defines the plates and top block, Thicknes, density and longitudal strenght of the plates and dimensions width and lenght of the top block, to be able to calculate the impact of the pull force to the top(and back) of the construction. It will be different by changing those parameters.
  14. This is the kind of density fluctuation I am used to see on some of my tops too. On Bachmann and our domestic Slovenian spruce from Pokljuka. There is a number of reasons already mentioned (weather/climate, water availability,temperature variations...) that are described in various scientific articles on the net, about density fluctuation in soft and hard woods , which can be intresting reading if you want to spend some time on it. Peter Radcliff could shed some light on that I belive, in shorter version.
  15. It will work on No.1. It worked on my No.21 too for example. Although I did get a green light to go on with that one, from a musician who ordered a violin, after I told her that I will have to make another neck. She just wanted to know if the construction stability will be compromised, that`s all. She actually liked the look. People are strange as someone said.