Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

The Zuger theory


Andreas Preuss
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, reguz said:

 

David. You say the back is going down by the action of the sound post. My opinion is tha the end block pull upp teh arching and a moment of force over the soundpost become produced. If the thickness= stiffness under the sound post is not strong enough that location will bend more than the arc shape on the bout. In fact on some violins you can observe a local bulging. Thus thsi is not what you believe its the other way around.

Parts of the top will bend upward under the end-to-end compression of the strings, but this happens in the upper and lower bouts (under the fingerboard and the tailpiece), where there is no downforce from the bridge to counteract it.

When we fit a soundpost and then string up the fiddle, the soundpost almost always gets a lot tighter.

On the backs of old fiddles, what we observe is that the highest point on the transverse axis has become offset to the treble side, from the pressure of the  soundpost. And we can start to see this pretty quickly in new fiddles too, by comparing the original cross-arching templates with the arching shape after several months under string tension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 6/27/2020 at 10:59 AM, reguz said:

I can say you cannot learn any by looking at a picture. That's the reason why I have choosen not publishing pictures. But take a look on my Facebook. I hope that satisfy your demand. I see nothing extra for you or any other to learn by that.

Not being a facebook member, I was unable to view your pages there.
It seems others could, so I have an idea of what is represented there now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Wood Butcher said:

Not being a facebook member, I was unable to view your pages there.
It seems others could, so I have an idea of what is represented there now.

When I checked a couple of days ago, there was nothing of any significance there, and I just checked it again- same.

Not worth looking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Burgess said:

Parts of the top will bend upward under the end-to-end compression of the strings, but this happens in the upper and lower bouts (under the fingerboard and the tailpiece), where there is no downforce from the bridge to counteract it.

When we fit a soundpost and then string up the fiddle, the soundpost almost always gets a lot tighter.

On the backs of old fiddles, what we observe is that the highest point on the transverse axis has become offset to the treble side, from the pressure of the  soundpost. And we can start to see this pretty quickly in new fiddles too, by comparing the original cross-arching templates with the arching shape after several months under string tension.

 

Yes David your observations are right. The technical term you should use for pressure on two ends produce "Buckling" that are forces normally on a column in a building. Since the shape of the longitudinal arc shape hold a curve we know for sure in what direction it will deflect (buckle) this is as you say on the bout shapes. On the "island" the bridge feet stay in front of the sound post. The bridge will produce e downward bending of the structure between the sound post and the cross structure between the upper F-hole eyes. That also is the local structure the STLs end on the top of the arching shape, thus a firmly stable structure. Beside that it’s the location of the less wide cross section in the C-bout. All these work together making the firmly stable structure.

Putting in the sound post and string up produces forces on the violin structure I earlier showed with a vector diagram. Compression forces arises on the sound post. Depending on the angle of the string over the bridge a specific compression becomes produced. The total system in in a state of equilibrium, it do not move at any direction. However a lot of energy is transformed into the violin body. When the structure hold a specific stiffness the transformed string load is spread out over the bout shapes thus getting bulging stress condition like blowing a balloon. When that happens the structure becomes sensitive for any change in the applied stress system, thus changing string load by the playing action.

No about what you say about the highest point on the tremble side. When you pull the strings you pull the complete back plate upward with the sound post as the supporting withstanding structure. However, structure surrounding the sound post location are not supported and thus move upward, are part of the bending process that is going on. If the sound post was placed on the center line the surrounding structure would deflect symmetrical measured from the sound post. We have a different location and thus the surrounding structure do not deflect symmetrical as we graduate the thickness of the plate. We can prevent by making the location on the other side of the center line stiffer. This means make it thicker. When you stay on a board out of the center like the sound post and start pulling you will find the the length curves not are symmetrical. You need an extra support = extra sound post to be able making them curve to become equal. 

Please take a close look at the vector diagram I have showed before. Equilibrium state arises when the sum of the upward force under the bridge by compression on the end blocks together with the upward forces on the end blocks make the zero state. In between the buckling and bending bout shapes. Hope this will give you a better understanding 

Yes David your observations are right. The technical term you should use for pressure on two ends produce "Buckling" that are forces normally on a column in a building. Since the shape of the longitudinal arc shape hold a curve we know for sure in what direction it will deflect (buckle) this is as you say on the bout shapes. On the "island" the bridge feet stay in front of the sound post. The bridge will produce e downward bending of the structure between the sound post and the cross structure between the upper F-hole eyes. That also is the local structure the STLs end on the top of the arching shape, thus a firmly stable structure. Beside that it’s the location of the less wide cross section in the C-bout. All these work together making the firmly stable structure.

Putting in the sound post and string up produces forces on the violin structure I earlier showed with a vector diagram. Compression forces arises on the sound post. Depending on the angle of the string over the bridge a specific compression becomes produced. The total system in in a state of equilibrium, it do not move at any direction. However a lot of energy is transformed into the violin body. When the structure hold a specific stiffness the transformed string load is spread out over the bout shapes thus getting bulging stress condition like blowing a balloon. When that happens the structure becomes sensitive for any change in the applied stress system, thus changing string load by the playing action.

No about what you say about the highest point on the tremble side. When you pull the strings you pull the complete back plate upward with the sound post as the supporting withstanding structure. However, structure surrounding the sound post location are not supported and thus move upward, are part of the bending process that is going on. If the sound post was placed on the center line the surrounding structure would deflect symmetrical measured from the sound post. We have a different location and thus the surrounding structure do not deflect symmetrical as we graduate the thickness of the plate. We can prevent by making the location on the other side of the center line stiffer. This means make it thicker. When you stay on a board out of the center like the sound post and start pulling you will find the the length curves not are symmetrical. You need an extra support = extra sound post to be able making them curve to become equal. 

Please take a close look at the vector diagram I have showed before. Equilibrium state arises when the sum of the upward force under the bridge by compression on the end blocks together with the upward forces on the end blocks make the zero state. In between the buckling and bending bout shapes. Hope this will give you a better understanding 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me strongly of an episode of This American Life, "A Little Bit of Knowledge."

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/293/transcript

Act three is the most germane, here's an excerpt:

[Non-Physicist Guest]: So I sat down, I got out my books and started reading. Of course, I never got to the invention because I found something else, something that I couldn't understand, couldn't resolve. And I think something much more important, because it's something every Nobel Prize-winning physicist missed.

[Host]: I told [him] I'd run his work past a trained physicist. This turned out to be more difficult than I had expected.

A scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory replied to my email with a curt, please don't waste my time again. The head of the Physics Department at the University of Miami dropped [his] research paper like it was radioactive. He receives one of these papers each week, he said. It turns out, there is a whole community of people out there who also claim to have disproved Einstein's theory. So persistent are these outsiders that John Baez, a Professor of Mathematics in California, felt compelled to publish the crackpot index. It's an online quiz you can take to see if you are, by his definition, a crackpot.

There are 35 items in the index, including 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein. 10 points for each claim that the theory of relativity is fundamentally misguided. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a quote, "paradigm shift." 10 points for each statement along the lines of, I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right. Here's Baez.

[John Baez]: I'm sure that I've seen at least 100 different crackpot theories. I will get emails from people asking me to help them work out the details of their theory. And so it's sort of like saying I'm good at music, but I just don't know what the notes are supposed to be in this piece. If you could just write down the notes, I could come up with a great piece of music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bill Yacey said:

I told you kids if you don't take care of your record albums and put them away in the dust sleeves, they'll develop scratches! ;)

I hated it when my parents turned out to be right. :lol:

And my kids hated it too. :angry:

But they're better now. Sometimes they even ask for advice. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wood Butcher said:

Mr Zuger, did you ever consider discussing your theories with the American violin specialist Lyndon J. Taylor?

He enjoys discussing the finer points of instruments, and I think he may have a lot to say on this matter.

No Wood, I never heart of him but certainly will look at the internet!!

I'm open for any kind of discussion!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, reguz said:

Please take a close look at the vector diagram I have showed before. Equilibrium state arises when the sum of the upward force under the bridge by compression on the end blocks together with the upward forces on the end blocks make the zero state. In between the buckling and bending bout shapes. Hope this will give you a better understanding 

Equilibrium is attained when you do not see the violin spontaneously accelerate with no outside forces.

(Newton:  action=reaction....  do you see?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spelman said:

This reminds me strongly of an episode of This American Life, "A Little Bit of Knowledge."

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/293/transcript

Act three is the most germane, here's an excerpt:

[Non-Physicist Guest]: So I sat down, I got out my books and started reading. Of course, I never got to the invention because I found something else, something that I couldn't understand, couldn't resolve. And I think something much more important, because it's something every Nobel Prize-winning physicist missed.

[Host]: I told [him] I'd run his work past a trained physicist. This turned out to be more difficult than I had expected.

A scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory replied to my email with a curt, please don't waste my time again. The head of the Physics Department at the University of Miami dropped [his] research paper like it was radioactive. He receives one of these papers each week, he said. It turns out, there is a whole community of people out there who also claim to have disproved Einstein's theory. So persistent are these outsiders that John Baez, a Professor of Mathematics in California, felt compelled to publish the crackpot index. It's an online quiz you can take to see if you are, by his definition, a crackpot.

There are 35 items in the index, including 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein. 10 points for each claim that the theory of relativity is fundamentally misguided. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a quote, "paradigm shift." 10 points for each statement along the lines of, I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right. Here's Baez.

[John Baez]: I'm sure that I've seen at least 100 different crackpot theories. I will get emails from people asking me to help them work out the details of their theory. And so it's sort of like saying I'm good at music, but I just don't know what the notes are supposed to be in this piece. If you could just write down the notes, I could come up with a great piece of music.

Your reference was a very interesting read however Einstein was also considered a crackpot for a long time:

https://daily.jstor.org/why-no-one-believed-einstein/

'With hindsight, it seems as though scientific breakthroughs sweep quickly to universal acceptance. A paper is published and everybody says, “Eureka!” But that’s not necessarily the case. Sometimes scientists have too much invested in the status quo to accept a new way of looking at things. This was certainly true when Albert Einstein‘s 1905 paper on “special relativity” first challenged the British conception of ether. Einstein argued that space and time were bound up together (something he would elaborate on in his theory of general relativity of 1915, adding gravity to the mix of space/time), a complicated idea that contradicted the long-held belief in something called ether.

In the U.S., a few understood it, but, in general, relativity was ridiculed as “totally impractical and absurd.” '

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

Einstein was also considered a crackpot for a long time:

Scientists are highly motivated to do two things for which there is substantial peer recognition:

- Be the first to prove an important theory

- Be the first to disprove an important theory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

Your reference was a very interesting read however Einstein was also considered a crackpot for a long time:

https://daily.jstor.org/why-no-one-believed-einstein/

'With hindsight, it seems as though scientific breakthroughs sweep quickly to universal acceptance. A paper is published and everybody says, “Eureka!” But that’s not necessarily the case. Sometimes scientists have too much invested in the status quo to accept a new way of looking at things. This was certainly true when Albert Einstein‘s 1905 paper on “special relativity” first challenged the British conception of ether. Einstein argued that space and time were bound up together (something he would elaborate on in his theory of general relativity of 1915, adding gravity to the mix of space/time), a complicated idea that contradicted the long-held belief in something called ether.

In the U.S., a few understood it, but, in general, relativity was ridiculed as “totally impractical and absurd.” '

So Zuger is Einstein?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wood Butcher said:

Mr Zuger, did you ever consider discussing your theories with the American violin specialist Lyndon J. Taylor?

He enjoys discussing the finer points of instruments, and I think he may have a lot to say on this matter.

Clash-1.jpg.4e72ce29787d2d54e6854073472716f5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

This was certainly true when Albert Einstein‘s 1905 paper on “special relativity” first challenged the British conception of ether

Don't forget the mathematical contributions of Henri Poincare who also postulated electromagnetic field energy of an electromagnetic wave behaves like a fictitious fluid with a mass density of E/c2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Spelman said:

So Zuger is Einstein?

The problem is that it is not about natural science. We are analyzing the structure of a man made object. The judgement of what is regarded as 'best' or 'optimal' rests largely on those who use it. 

I sometimes ponder what if Stradivari would never have won prominence over Stainer, Robert Zuger would have to base his whole model on the violins of a 'looser' and this would have entailed certainly a very negative perception of it. (Though the model itself with all its implications would be exactly the same)

So I think we can safely say that people who worked their whole life with structures find Zugers model fascinating in itself, but the relation to an 'optimum sound production' would have to be proved by himself in making instruments. Period.

All artistic giants from da Vinci over Beethoven to Van Gogh were hard workers repeating over and over the idea they had in mind AND they made it all by themselves. So I am simply waiting for the proof. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Wood Butcher said:

Mr Zuger, did you ever consider discussing your theories with the American violin specialist Lyndon J. Taylor?

He enjoys discussing the finer points of instruments, and I think he may have a lot to say on this matter.

Zoltan see massive mushroom cloud just over horizon. Is not good to over-stir pot.

MC.jpg.c751182ebece74f4c093dc07b39bcb36.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Wood Butcher said:

Mr Zuger, did you ever consider discussing your theories with the American violin specialist Lyndon J. Taylor?

He enjoys discussing the finer points of instruments, and I think he may have a lot to say on this matter.

Don’t be poking fun at Mr. Taylor when he’s not able to come and defend himself. Seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

Your reference was a very interesting read however Einstein was also considered a crackpot for a long time:

https://daily.jstor.org/why-no-one-believed-einstein/

'With hindsight, it seems as though scientific breakthroughs sweep quickly to universal acceptance. A paper is published and everybody says, “Eureka!” But that’s not necessarily the case. Sometimes scientists have too much invested in the status quo to accept a new way of looking at things. This was certainly true when Albert Einstein‘s 1905 paper on “special relativity” first challenged the British conception of ether. Einstein argued that space and time were bound up together (something he would elaborate on in his theory of general relativity of 1915, adding gravity to the mix of space/time), a complicated idea that contradicted the long-held belief in something called ether.

In the U.S., a few understood it, but, in general, relativity was ridiculed as “totally impractical and absurd.” '

No,  Einstein's special theory was accepted almost immediately.   Recall that the article was named "On the electrodynamics of moving particle."   The Lorentz transformation of Maxwell's equations would not be valid unless the meter sticks were seen to shrink and the clocks run slower.   

The argument about whether the speed of light was an absolute constant may have been rejected.  But it was clear to most that it was not a mechanical wave in an "aether."  

General relativity was difficult and few (at first) would have understood it well enough to criticise it.   Of course,  it took 6 years to observe the apparent shift of star positions near the limb of the sun during a total eclipse.  Than he was world-famous,  overnight.

General relativity did not discuss the aether.  It took another ten years to finally publish the general theory,  and by that time,  Einstein was highly regarded,  and the special theory was understood and accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...