Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

New scientific article on violin making - anyone else see this?


Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Dimitri Musafia said:

What you say reminds me of when the Honda NSX came out against the Ferrari 348 in the 1990s. Critics came out of the woodwork to state that Honda had mastered Ferrari's game for a third less cost. And yet, which of the two would virtually anyone prefer in their driveway?

Branding is everything! And I tip my hat to you, sir, because you have mastered that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

17 hours ago, GeorgeH said:

Branding is everything! And I tip my hat to you, sir, because you have mastered that. 

Thank you indeed, very appreciated, but branding is almost everything... the brand needs to represent a known and appreciated quantity, or it will quickly fall out of favor. 348 owner speaking here! :-)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, GeorgeH said:

1. The modern hummingbird has evolved at least over 30 million years.

"The world's oldest known modern hummingbird fossils have been discovered in Germany. The tiny skeletons are also the first modern-type hummingbird fossils ever found in the Old World. These creatures, with strikingly similar resemblances to today's hummingbirds, lived in present-day Germany more than 30 million year ago."

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-05/aaft-wom043004.php

2. No, according to NASA, it took 6 years to develop and build the Mars helicopter Ingenuity.

1. This particular case is not one of my examples of being difficult. In the opinion of other experts that is not a hummingbird at all.

"It's fun to study species from this time period in Earth's history, the early Oligocene, because some of the species begin resemble modern species," Mayr explained."

"The remainder of the skeleton is also very hummingbird-like"

All Mr. Mayr does is ( somehow ) informed speculation. As you surely know "they" often make colossal mistakes and the jaw bone of a rat does not point to the hip of a whale. This is not science, it only looks like it.

2. I very much beg to differ here. You may wish to notice that NASA based their development on a long and very thick chain of RESULTS of discoveries in mathematics, physics  and technology stretching for some 2300 years at least. They didn't use their own mud. And the Ingenuity is simply an adaptation of a well understood working principle  and endlessly tried design. 

In general, NASA's "achievements" tend to rest on somehow difficult ground. :lol: 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiA2sKmq8nwAhUDhlwKHf35AUoQFjALegQIBBAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FOperation_Paperclip&usg=AOvVaw3Mv-es9IUh6bM3vd5TSULB

"Operation Paperclip was a secret US intelligence program in which more than 1,600 Nazi scientists, engineers, and technicians were taken from Nazi Germany to the United States for government employment after the end of World War II in Europe.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Don Noon said:

The timescales and physics are different, but to me it is a bit like trying to analyze a hummingbird.  You might figure out a few little things, but you can't beat experience and trial-and-error (over millions of years in this case) for making ones that work really well.

 

6 hours ago, GeorgeH said:

Humming birds took millions of years to develop, but how long did it take humans to design, build, and deploy the helicopter that is now flying around Mars? 

By using AI design algorithms (such as evolutionary algorithms) and reproducible synthetic materials, I am quite certain that violins and bows that work "really well" could be designed and manufactured in a fairly short time frame. They might not look like violins that we are used to, however. They might not even be wholly acoustic.

The primary problem is human: there is no agreement on what the specifications for "really well" should be. If a goal cannot be defined, then the neither can the criteria for achieving it. Furthermore, who would fund the research?

I'd propose a "Turing Test" for violins. If audiences of human beings cannot distinguish between an artificial violin and a conventional violin, then it will have succeeded.

 

4 hours ago, Carl Stross said:

1. How do you know that ?

2. Millions of years. The first couple of millions was used to learn counting to three.

3. Possible.

4. This is at the core of the problem. My observations seem to indicate there is a pretty good agreement on what a good violin should do. But that might not involve "everybody".

5. True. Worth reading a couple of times.

6. I'm sure funding can be found. I'd be more concerned with who would do the research. Some horrible examples around...

7. Sure, that should work. But what's "audiences" ???  Audiences at large can't tell a violin from a clarinet or one "song" from another one. Audiences have become ever more de-sensitized to quality of tone or voice. 

  1. The hovering flight characteristics of some birds, bats, and flying insects depend on the ability to continuously reconfigure the airfoil, which was easier for Nature to do than to produce a rotary joint.  The reverse is true of human technology.
  2.  NASA produces very little hardware, and few of its own goals.  NASA gets their technology primarily from defense contractors, research institutions, and/or direct from the military (this last includes Operation Paperclip by way of the 1950's USAF/US Army rocketry and lunar base programs).  NASA was originally a civilian smiley face drawn over an existing collection of military space programs.  Hopefully, it will now nurture profitable corporate space development, and then go away.  Viva SpaceX!
  3. That's dodging the problem, which is to reproduce the "old" curves (as recorded by Don and Sebastian) using Baroque period technology.
  4. (also 5, 6, and 7)  Perhaps, if you find some politically, militarily,and economically legitimate reasons for violin technology development, standards and funding will magically appear, and we can stop having these asinine discussions.   :ph34r::lol:;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, GeorgeH said:

Humming birds took millions of years to develop, but how long did it take humans to design, build, and deploy the helicopter that is now flying around Mars? 

The Mars helicopter is super-simple by comparison.  It does not need to detect sources of fuel and collect it, and process it into a usable form, or find another helicopter to manufacture new helicopters, hover or dive at 50 mph, land precisely on a tiny twig, and do all of that entirely without outside intervention. Not to mention: package it into something that weighs 4 grams.   Maybe in 30 million years we can design a helicopter to do all of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Violadamore said:

 

 

  1. The hovering flight characteristics of some birds, bats, and flying insects depend on the ability to continuously reconfigure the airfoil, which was easier for Nature to do than to produce a rotary joint.  The reverse is true of human technology.
  2.  NASA produces very little hardware, and few of its own goals.  NASA gets their technology primarily from defense contractors, research institutions, and/or direct from the military (this last includes Operation Paperclip by way of the 1950's USAF/US Army rocketry and lunar base programs).  NASA was originally a civilian smiley face drawn over a collection of military space programs.  Hopefully, it will now nurture profitable corporate space development, and then go away.  Viva SpaceX!
  3. That's dodging the problem, which is to reproduce the "old" curves (as recorded by Don and Sebastian) using Baroque period technology.
  4. (also 5, 6, and 7)  Perhaps, if you find some politically, militarily,and economically legitimate reasons for violin technology development, standards and funding will magically appear, and we can stop having these asinine discussions.   :ph34r::lol:;)

1. No. It's easier for Nature to produce a rotary joint. Does it all the time. There is another reason for re-configuring the airfoil. 

2. I trust you. Not what was discussed, though.

3.  But we don't know what "Baroque period technology" was as it applies here. We speculate. 

4. That'd be sad as there isn't much else "we" can discuss.  But I'll have to stop here or Jeff will again tell me I am insulting "members". 

Now, go to 1) and see if you can figure that one out. That will impress me a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Carl Stross said:

1. No. It's easier for Nature to produce a rotary joint. Does it all the time. There is another reason for re-configuring the airfoil. 

2. I trust you. Not what was discussed, though.

3.  But we don't know what "Baroque period technology" was as it applies here. We speculate. 

4. That'd be sad as there isn't much else "we" can discuss.  But I'll have to stop here or Jeff will again tell me I am insulting "members". 

Now, go to 1) and see if you can figure that one out. That will impress me a bit.

  1.  I'm not counting biomolecular examples, microscopic flagellae, or the cilia-driven crystalline stylae of some Mollusca, or any examples lacking totally free rotation.  Now show me a bird with a rotary propeller, or a turtle with wheels or tracks.   :P;)
  2. Using NASA as an example of technological development is looking where the illusionist wants you to.  The more awesome efforts got comparatively little publicity at the time, to the extent that people who cannot follow the steps taken like to invoke alien technology to explain where we are now. :rolleyes:   JPL, BTW, long predates NASA.  It was assimilated.  :ph34r:
  3. IMHO, we know enough to exclude many approaches which don't fit the known facts.
  4. :lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Don Noon said:

The Mars helicopter is super-simple by comparison.  It does not need to detect sources of fuel and collect it, and process it into a usable form, or find another helicopter to manufacture new helicopters, hover or dive at 50 mph, land precisely on a tiny twig, and do all of that entirely without outside intervention. Not to mention: package it into something that weighs 4 grams.   Maybe in 30 million years we can design a helicopter to do all of that.

Any hummingbirds flying around Mars yet? :D

Violins are not hummingbirds either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Violadamore said:
  1.  I'm not counting biomolecular examples, microscopic flagellae, or the cilia-driven crystalline stylae of some Mollusca.  Now show me a bird with a rotary propeller, or a turtle with wheels or tracks.   :P;)
  2. Using NASA as an example of technological development is looking where the illusionist wants you to.  The more awesome efforts got comparatively little publicity at the time.
  3. IMHO, we know enough to exclude many approaches which don't fit the known facts.
  4. :lol:

1. I do ( count them ). No reason not to. You had your turn, don't ask for repeats.

2. I know. We called them "secret efforts". 

3. That means nothing. (Look at medicine in general as an example). We don't know any , not one, of the guiding principles. 

4. I thought so, too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carl Stross said:

1. I do ( count them ). No reason not to. You had your turn, don't ask for repeats.

2. I know. We called them "secret efforts". 

3. That means nothing. (Look at medicine in general as an example). We don't know any , not one, of the guiding principles. 

4. I thought so, too. 

  1. Count what you want to, just be sure to get the same answer twice.  I'm not getting drawn into a general discussion of the evolution of locomotion.  My point is that each process had to use its own bag of tricks, and human technology has a much smaller bag at this point.
  2. I do not recall.  ;)  I was also referring to perfectly open (if proprietary) things like the development of techniques for making semiconductor chips, etc.  Awesome tech, just not very "sexy" in the public mind.
  3. Yes, it does.
  4. Yup.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GeorgeH said:

Violins are not hummingbirds either.

Never said they were.  Just an example to point out how incredibly effectve trial-and-error and natural selection can be in creating something where engineering and science would struggle with the complexity of the problem.

In that narrow way, I think there is some similarity in how hummingbirds and violins have evolved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Don Noon said:

In that narrow way, I think there is some similarity in how hummingbirds and violins have evolved.

IMHO, the hummingbirds have violins beaten for "cute", but the violins make prettier sounds.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2021 at 4:54 AM, Dimitri Musafia said:

What you say reminds me of when the Honda NSX came out against the Ferrari 348 in the 1990s. Critics came out of the woodwork to state that Honda had mastered Ferrari's game for a third less cost. And yet, which of the two would virtually anyone prefer in their driveway?

Oh man.  That's a much more interesting discussion. 

Ferrari vs Honda?  Sure, go for the Ferrari and bumble around town in a civic or an odyssey.  
But 348 vs NSX, that's potentially a conversation.
 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2021 at 5:54 AM, Dimitri Musafia said:

What you say reminds me of when the Honda NSX came out against the Ferrari 348 in the 1990s. Critics came out of the woodwork to state that Honda had mastered Ferrari's game for a third less cost. And yet, which of the two would virtually anyone prefer in their driveway?

FWIW, I wouldn't want either, but would opt for the Honda:

I don't want to signal that I am wealthy (or if I'm not, in debt to buy the car).

I don't want to pay the extra maintenance costs and the higher insurance costs.

I don't want it to be a target for thieves 

I don't want it to be a target for vandalism.

I don't want to have to feel I have to be extra careful where I do, or don't, drive it.

I don't want to worry/fuss with it. Dog hair? Muddy boots? Spilled my take-away latte? OMG! STONE CHIP???

So? Then what? Hide it in a garage, don't drive it. Maybe just look at it periodically- like an objet d'art?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Rue said:

FWIW, I wouldn't want either, but would opt for the Honda:

I don't want to signal that I am wealthy (or if I'm not, in debt to buy the car).

I don't want to pay the extra maintenance costs and the higher insurance costs.

I don't want it to be a target for thieves 

I don't want it to be a target for vandalism.

I don't want to have to feel I have to be extra careful where I do, or don't, drive it.

I don't want to worry/fuss with it. Dog hair? Muddy boots? Spilled my take-away latte? OMG! STONE CHIP???

So? Then what? Hide it in a garage, don't drive it. Maybe just look at it periodically- like an objet d'art?

 

Sorry, you're off target.

1. Some people think the NSX IS a Ferrari.

2. You'll pay more maintenance on the average Mercedes than the Ferrari 348.

3. In my neck of the woods, any Ferrari is greeted with thumbs-up national pride, so no vandalism.

4. A flat-plane V8 has a vastly more enjoyable soundtrack than a V6.

5. No cup holders.

So, yes, I drive the 348, but obviously it's not my daily driver, not least because I can't clear the ramp at my supermarket without grating the front air dam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I miss something here? f1 = ?? Hz; f2= ?? Hz.

I don't even know what f1-f5 really corresponds to. What modes are they? 

Where is the data?  

How can this be data-driven when I can't figure out what actual data they are feeding into the AI?

The data they feed is simulation data calculated using finite element model. Nothing really measured. I am not even sure their calculated f1 corresponds to real measured values. A very confusing paper for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that this article is hard to understand and get anything useful out of. They seem to emphasize on the free plate modes and how different changes influence these. F1 is likely to be the + mode, the F2 the )( mode then two not so often used modes 3 and 4 finally the «ring mode» F5.

While the methodes may be useful at some point when the «total model» assembled violin is working properly, then automated calculations could be of help at some point. 

E.g. The sensitivity plots where to thin to get the largest change, are shown in an impractical way. Martys hand drawn figure is better, I think. Nothing on mass nor thickness, the two main paramers, next to the arching. I must admit that I haven’t read the article in full, and will probably not do it either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Dimitri Musafia said:

Sorry, you're off target.

1. Some people think the NSX IS a Ferrari.

2. You'll pay more maintenance on the average Mercedes than the Ferrari 348.

3. In my neck of the woods, any Ferrari is greeted with thumbs-up national pride, so no vandalism.

4. A flat-plane V8 has a vastly more enjoyable soundtrack than a V6.

5. No cup holders.

So, yes, I drive the 348, but obviously it's not my daily driver, not least because I can't clear the ramp at my supermarket without grating the front air dam.

We live in very different necks of woods. :D

Here, the most desired vehicle is  Ford 150.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2021 at 7:54 AM, Dimitri Musafia said:

What you say reminds me of when the Honda NSX came out against the Ferrari 348 in the 1990s. Critics came out of the woodwork to state that Honda had mastered Ferrari's game for a third less cost. And yet, which of the two would virtually anyone prefer in their driveway?

Uh oh. Your Ferrari 348 has 296 to 315 horsepower, while my unmodified Chevrolet has more than twice that, and will also trounce the Ferrari's time around a roadracing track? :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, David Burgess said:

Uh oh. Your Ferrari 348 has 296 to 315 horsepower, while my unmodified Chevrolet has more than twice that, and will also trounce the Ferrari's time around a roadracing track? :)

 

David, hmmm I'm assuming you have a newer Corvette. That's not fair, it's like comparing new violins to old ones, of course new ones are better :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Rue said:

We live in very different necks of woods. :D

Here, the most desired vehicle is  Ford 150.

Dodge Ram 3500 (but 1500's are the most common).  Just what you need to pull a Ferrari (or a Corvette) out when it gets stuck.  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Violadamore said:

Dodge Ram 3500 (but 1500's are the most common).  Just what you need to pull a Ferrari (or a Corvette) out when it gets stuck.  :lol:

37,000 pound towing capacity? Wow!

Chrysler also has the most powerful SUV, with 710 horsepower.

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...