francoisdenis

Members
  • Content Count

    431
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About francoisdenis

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.traitedelutherie.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Angers France
  • Interests
    Organology, history of science and art

Recent Profile Visitors

3645 profile views
  1. Yes, you divide it in 8 units . Speaking of "relative measurements "unit" is a kind of equivalent of "the part of a ratio" You have a "unit" each time you use a ratio which can be the same...or not (Actually in this case you set all the measurement of the width using twice the section 3-5) and you do that using the Thales theorem
  2. Interesting, I didn't know this book yet....
  3. That matchs our empirical experience , perfect circles and perfect straight lines are an abstraction (all of us have had this experience trying to glue our first cello joint...) . So you have this gap between the reality and the ideal - which is an old philosophical issue. circle and straight line are an ideal conception of a reality which, at the end, is more the euler spiral. you will find the same kind of issue with the way the Ancient dealed with integers and irrationals - The beauty is a reality close to the ideal. It is this way that Ancient Ideals were made - the perfection was only the gods domains David you are on the god side and Marty, on the weak humain side
  4. One may also consider (perhaps in a more constructive and realistic way) that it is not one or the other but the one and the other
  5. Yes for example, but I am not the only one, the proposals of David and Kevin require only simple measures too (and some others before us, as well). As far as I am concerned, I consider myself more as a historian of the concept of measurement. I read and sometimes studied closely all that I could on the subject. The violin is for me only one example among hundreds of others, the organ buffets interested me, viola da gamba etc ... and since the beginning of this discussion I studied 4 guitars and I am gathering documentation to study 4 others. I reacted to your post because you were saying a common untruth - If someone uses (presumably without knowing it) complex maths it's us, much more than a fifteenth century craftsmen whose methods of measurement are not not so mysterious as that. Above all, I try to defend in this thread the importance of the research method to appreciate the quality of a result.
  6. I do not know the IQ of A Amati (and I admit that this subject is of no interest to me) but if you admit that he knew how to count until 12 it is more than enough to make a violin. We are very far from complex mathematics ....
  7. You seem to be unaware that this work has and continues to be done...
  8. a glance ... I have the book if you want to dig in
  9. Dear Delabo, You're just arguing that Amati was not able to count to 12. Because you do not need to know much more than "complex math" to design a violin you did not read me well where I expressed myself badly
  10. Are you kidding ? Have you read Max Möckel ? You have to gave up with all these the XIX° century cliché time to move forward
  11. Some new of the Strad Guitar... The actual measurements of the Strad Rawlins guitar has been given by Pollens and, good news, the variations with respect to the dimensions of the photo are remarkably low (1.5 mm in length and 3/10 ° in width which is excellent) - We can therefore consider that the analysis that I previously posted here is well founded Moreover Pollens always seems angry with the relative measurements since the three ratios W / L (body max width / length) are bad .... "Guistiniani" W / L = 2.24 "Hill" W / L = 2.2 and "Rawlins" W / L = 2.08 the correct ratios are : "Guistiniani" W / L = 1.758 "Hill" W / L = 1, 74 and "Rawlins" W / L = 1,644 Given these surprising errors in calculations Pollens's conclusions are faulty - it does not have a 5/11 ratio and the 5/9 ratio is only found on one paper template ...
  12. "incredibly complex ways" ....Sorry but these means nothing- English is "incredibly complex" for me is it for you too? complexity is a relative concept as soon as it is connected to ignorance Seven different measurement of the foot were used at the same time by the stone carvers to built the Cathedral of Chartres would you says that it is an "incredibly complex way" ? if you answer "Yes" your thought is addressed to our nowadays commun sens - for us, it is obviously a "complex way" if you answer "No" your thought will be addressed to our capacity of understanding this is where the place of complexity is. Explaining of our ignorance can be a hard work- I understand and respect the motivations of people who prefer the reassuring idea that there is nothing to understand but here, I see nothing more than a confortable opinion founded on ignorance. It is a very normal behaviour ,ignorance, peace of mind and certainties are good friends of all of us.
  13. I continue to explore the side of guitars- I am now studying three Voboam guitars in Paris I have good photos and also ... measurements Here is an example of a match between a good definition photo and real measurements. (the camera was in a wrong axe) I repeat, be careful with photos
  14. You are right - following my experience, the quality of an analysis depends on the quality of the info This kind of bad pictures (as the Strad guitar) ought to be considered cautiously wether we don"t have the original measurements