Long Arch Drawing

[David Burgess]

1 hour ago, Don Noon said:

There's the little issue of 300 years of aging/play-in that is really tough to engineer your way around.

Aren't you using "engineered" wood?

[Don Noon]

8 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

Aren't you using "engineered" wood?

Yes... but whether torrefied wood matches all of the properties of wood in a violin carved 300 years ago is hard to prove... and at the moment my opinion is that it's not quite the same (but closer than untorrefied wood).

[reguz]

Dear David and Don. I certainly that the wood you have for your making is well so good as the wood makers had 300 years ago. What is different is NOT that you can make a good or even a great instrumnet. OUr problem is that we do not know how creep affect the violin structure. With this I mean stress condition will change and in tact I belive influences the accoustic result in a positiv direction. I have studied this quite some time and believe it is what creep do we must come to an undestanding on.

[JacksonMaberry]

13 hours ago, Dennis J said:

I can see aspects of long arch design that many makers probably don't have any idea about.

Until your reputation as a maker of outstanding instruments beloved by players is established, this is nothing more than hot air and hubris. I genuinely hope for you that you achieve that recognition, and once you have, I think you'll find us all very willing to listen to what you have to say. 

[David Burgess]

2 hours ago, reguz said:

OUr problem is that we do not know how creep affect the violin structure.

Wrong, double wrong, and triple wrong.

Reguz, I've been closely observing creep on violins for 50 years. It's not a mystery. When creep has progressed far enough that it is believed to harm the tone or playing characteristics, the arching is re-formed to a shape more resembling what it was thought to be originally. And what it was thought to be originally is largely based on decades-long, even multi-generational observations of creep, which you do not possess.

It should be obvious to someone who claims engineering acumen that a violin is not shaped in a way to have maximum resistance to static load, and never was.

[reguz]

Dear David. You are Absolut correct when you say that a violin not is shaped resistant static load for a long time. Instead, the shape should be constructed having an overall stress condition from the beginning. When that condition not is present those structure part/area that hold again from the beginning will start deflecting. That is what creep is about. Creep will stop when all structure participates and thus will be in a no longer deflecting condition. In that condition the instrument probably do not function as it did before and action is taken to bring back an earlier shape that function better. This probably not is the originally shape since we do not little about it on an old instrument. If we understand structure and graduation, we can make a result that will function for a long time. However, from a technical point of view it is possible to find out how such structure should be. Thus, it is the other way around when it come understanding your last sentence. It is about shaping a structure all curved deflecting area is involved so it can carry static load optimal and no creep becomes produced. STL conditions help making such condition since it is not involved in that process. So basically we think the same.Dear David. You are Absolut correct when you say that a violin not is shaped resistant static load for a long time. Instead, the shape should be constructed having an overall stress condition from the beginning. When that condition not is present those structure part/area that hold again from the beginning will start deflecting. That is what creep is about. Creep will stop when all structure participates and thus will be in a no longer deflecting condition. In that condition the instrument probably do not function as it did before and action is taken to bring back an earlier shape that function better. This probably not is the originally shape since we do not little about it on an old instrument. If we understand structure and graduation, we can make a result that will function for a long time. However, from a technical point of view it is possible to find out how such structure should be. Thus, it is the other way around when it come understanding your last sentence. It is about shaping a structure all curved deflecting area is involved so it can carry static load optimal and no creep becomes produced. STL conditions help making such condition since it is not involved in that process. So basically we think the same.

[David Burgess]

2 hours ago, reguz said:

It is about shaping a structure all curved deflecting area is involved so it can carry static load optimal and no creep becomes produced.

Dude, there is no such thing as wood which doesn't creep under sustained load, although low moisture levels and reduced moisture cycling can reduce these to very low levels.

Do your homework before asking us to salute your boner, or your floppy, or whatever else you try to run up the flagpole.

[reguz]

Dear David
We all know that moistur affect wood which is a soft structure. But bu considering shaping an arching structure that can withstand acting forces and moister better we must think in terms of structural design and how to shape best. I have made a long study of this problem and you know what I found to do but your answer is "Do your homework before asking us to salute your boner, or your floppy, or whatever else you try to run up the flagpole." which is a ideom that hardly has anything to do understanding any of violin structure and function. You can do better I'm sure!

[HoGo]

24 minutes ago, reguz said:

But bu considering shaping an arching structure that can withstand acting forces and moister better we must think in terms of structural design and how to shape best.

So you want to say that you are the one who knows what is best for construction of violins? I wonder why we don't see your violins in hands of best players but rather those made by other makers around here. That was why I was asking to show us your results = your violins in hands of real players and some evaluations of those. No two people will agree what is best violin, you can only try to get close to target which is currently the "elusive" strad sound.

You should buid series of violins in controlled manner and come to Oberlin workshops to show and let the knowledgeable folks test and evaluate them from all aspects.

IMO, you are thinking of violin as a technical structure like a bridge that is designed to last indefinitely without movement (or at least within some limits). Sadly real violins (and especially those old valuable ones) have not shown to be such structures. They DO move and DISTORT and some might even collapse or get into unplayable condition just by string tension if not maintained by professional restorers for long enough time. And that even without environmental influences.

I would add that the DB citation about flagpoles etc. is somewhat less polite version of "please stop throwing this nonsense repeatedly again ad again" or something like that...

[HoGo]

double post...

[reguz]

Dear Hugo. I believe I have mentioned several times during the years that may background id structural engineer and that I'm not a professional violin maker. The word you write could also be directed to Prof. C Gough, Prof. J Woodhouse. Prof. Bissinger the list can be made very long. How many of them made one or two instruments? I do not know if you ever made an instrument? My research is a hobby but at a serious level which means the theoretical results I reach are tested with practical building instruments. I have constructed a routing technique that allows me making arching shape with high precision and I make always 2 or more arching shape of the same shape etc.

Nothing of such research I see by the mentioned prof above. Beside this I have done in cooperation with The Lund Technical University FEA study of real plates and complete instrument constructed in Abaqus. What I have been able to tell is well substantiated. I keep myself to what I found to be correct.

You seem also to believe "please stop throwing this nonsense repeatedly again ad again"

web5247.pdf

[reguz]

Dear Hugo. Since you are accoustian you may let is know your opinion on thertecorded spectra

REC 20220422.docx

[David Burgess]

2 hours ago, reguz said:

Dear Hugo. I believe I have mentioned several times during the years that may background id structural engineer and that I'm not a professional violin maker. The word you write could also be directed to Prof. C Gough, Prof. J Woodhouse. Prof. Bissinger the list can be made very long.

Reguz, all of the people you have mentioned above have been invited to make presentations at the various Oberin workshops (plus Evan Davis, a Boeing aircraft vibration analyst), by the makers, repair people, and acousticians who attend. You have not. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be because you are "more than half-a-bubble off plumb", and are not considered to be worth engaging?

[Peter K-G]

1 hour ago, David Burgess said:

Reguz, all of the people you have mentioned above have been invited to make presentations at the various Oberin workshops (plus Evan Davis, a Boeing aircraft vibration analyst), by the makers, repair people, and acousticians who attend. You have not. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be because you are "more than half-a-bubble off plumb", and are not considered to be worth engaging?

David, I should, would, completely  agree with you!

 My problem is that Robert is way smarter than you and me together!

Do you have a problem whith his intelligence? I do not NOT

[HoGo]

2 hours ago, reguz said:

Dear Hugo. Since you are accoustian you may let is know your opinion on thertecorded spectra

I'm not Hugo (I wrote that before but you don't seem to read any of my answers, or don't understand, and just repeat your stuff). I also wrote I'm MATH and IT graduate, not acoustician. Picture of sound spectrum is not sound and noone can reliably tell how hte violin sounds or plays from one picture (Even resident expert on sound spectra, Don Noon will only do educated guess).

I also posted link where you can see and hear one of my instruments being compared to two other instruments by two of the highest ranked makers in the world. Recorded profesionally by a professional musician. All of my instruments are in hands of good musicians who were willing to pay and wait a long time since I'm only building in my spare time.

I've read most (if not all) papers of Gough, Woodhouse, Bissinger etc. I've read the studies from Lund Univ people and pretty much everything accessible. There is vast difference in good paper and bad. Most of the scientific folks just measure, analyze and try to reveal how the real instrument works. Your style is quite different as you just try to persuade folks () that only archings of your style are the only correct way to build but without any supporting research. FEM model is nice by it won't produce sound and won't show that such instrument will be superior to another. You need to construct instruments in wood, not Abaqus to show something to real makers.

And please, stop adding the word or other files, I no more care to download or open any of those.

[Peter K-G]

10 minutes ago, Peter K-G said:

David, I should, would, completely  agree with you!

 My problem is that Robert is way smarter than you and me together!

Do you have a problem whith his intelligence? I do not NOT

 

3 minutes ago, HoGo said:

I'm not Hugo (I wrote that before but you don't seem to read any of my answers, or don't understand, and just repeat your stuff). I also wrote I'm MATH and IT graduate, not acoustician. Picture of sound spectrum is not sound and noone can reliably tell how hte violin sounds or plays from one picture (Even resident expert on sound spectra, Don Noon will only do educated guess).

I also posted link where you can see and hear one of my instruments being compared to two other instruments by two of the highest ranked makers in the world. Recorded profesionally by a professional musician. All of my instruments are in hands of good musicians who were willing to pay and wait a long time since I'm only building in my spare time.

I've read most (if not all) papers of Gough, Woodhouse, Bissinger etc. I've read the studies from Lund Univ people and pretty much everything accessible. There is vast difference in good paper and bad. Most of the scientific folks just measure, analyze and try to reveal how the real instrument works. Your style is quite different as you just try to persuade folks () that only archings of your style are the only correct way to build but without any supporting research. FEM model is nice by it won't produce sound and won't show that such instrument will be superior to another. You need to construct instruments in wood, not Abaqus to show something to real makers.

And please, stop adding the word or other files, I no more care to download or open any of those.

HoGo,

Robert does not read! But he is still right on static violin deformation!

There are no flaws in his thinking, except wood and violins!?

[James M. Jones]

13 minutes ago, Peter K-G said:

David, I should, would, completely  agree with you!

 My problem is that Robert is way smarter than you and me together!

Do you have a problem whith his intelligence? I do not NOT

Of course I’m not David, but this is a public forum. I have No problem with intelligence per say , however on any cognitive level there’s multiple facets to intelligence, for instance a mathematical savant might smell complex equations but not know how to play a tune, or order a pizza q . The “problem “as I see it ,  is violins fall within a fairly narrow scope of definition, that scope of definition doesn’t seem to include that what Robert describes.

the goal of violin making ,as I understand it, is not to create a wood structure that resist deformation to the greatest extent possible, (Robert seeming approach.) , although a consideration, it is not the goal , rather quite the opposite, it seems to be that the actual goal of making a great violin( easier said than done ) is to create a structure that, while strong enough to not simply collapse, but is is rather weak enough to respond to the slightest input possible and vibrate across a wide spectrum, for tonal color , and, with as much “out of plane “movement as possible within reason,  for amplitude… equal tonal projection. Or something like that .. walking the thin edge as it were. 
 

[Marty Kasprzyk]

7 minutes ago, James M. Jones said:

Of course I’m not David, but this is a public forum. I have No problem with intelligence per say , however on any cognitive level there’s multiple facets to intelligence, for instance a mathematical savant might smell complex equations but not know how to play a tune, or order a pizza q . The “problem “as I see it ,  is violins fall within a fairly narrow scope of definition, that scope of definition doesn’t seem to include that what Robert describes.

the goal of violin making ,as I understand it, is not to create a wood structure that resist deformation to the greatest extent possible, (Robert seeming approach.) , although a consideration, it is not the goal , rather quite the opposite, it seems to be that the actual goal of making a great violin( easier said than done ) is to create a structure that, while strong enough to not simply collapse, but is is rather weak enough to respond to the slightest input possible and vibrate across a wide spectrum, for tonal color , and, with as much “out of plane “movement as possible within reason,  for amplitude… equal tonal projection. Or something like that .. walking the thin edge as it were. 
 

That seems like a good understanding of what a violin is supposed to do.

It might be helpful to get some opinions on how long a violin is supposed to last.  I've heard somebody say there are only about fifty great Strad violins in still in use so it would be nice to be able to make a violin sound that good and last that long.  On the other hand maybe the other ones which died early even sounded better.

I hope (as a retired mechanical engineer) that my instruments last a little longer than me so I don't have to witness their demise.  So as I get older and older they can last shorter and shorter time which allows me to make them lighter and lighter which makes them louder and louder to make up for my hearing getting worse and worse.

[Don Noon]

46 minutes ago, James M. Jones said:

the actual goal of making a great violin

-Sound and play great

-Look good

-Last a reasonable amount of time before needing restoration

ALL of those are subjective, depending on who's playing or listening, or paying the luthier.  So, while science/analysis/math might be useful as a tool, the tools will not define greatness, nor will there be a formula for greatness.  It is all in who is using the tools.  And maybe a little bit of luck in having the wood cooperate.

[Don Noon]

24 minutes ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

I hope (as a retired mechanical engineer) that my instruments last a little longer than me so I don't have to witness their demise.  So as I get older and older they can last shorter and shorter time which allows me to make them lighter and lighter which makes them louder and louder to make up for my hearing getting worse and worse.

Marty,

while I am sinking in the same boat you're in (and I realize your comment was mostly in jest), I think instruments can be made to last much longer than my estimated remaing lifetime without compromising on performance.  In fact, my initial "lighter is better" orientation is now "right is better"... i.e. not so light.  But even my early light ones have not died yet, so I think I'm good.

[David Beard]

7 hours ago, Marty Kasprzyk said:

That seems like a good understanding of what a violin is supposed to do.

It might be helpful to get some opinions on how long a violin is supposed to last.  I've heard somebody say there are only about fifty great Strad violins in still in use so it would be nice to be able to make a violin sound that good and last that long.  On the other hand maybe the other ones which died early even sounded better.

I hope (as a retired mechanical engineer) that my instruments last a little longer than me so I don't have to witness their demise.  So as I get older and older they can last shorter and shorter time which allows me to make them lighter and lighter which makes them louder and louder to make up for my hearing getting worse and worse.

I believe we will actually see an increasing number of Strad's in use as market demand for them continues.

50 great violinists in the world?  Even at the highest level I suspect there are more great historical instruments available to be pulled into service than there are players at that level.

 

 

[reguz]

Dear Peter K-G. I believe you got it while other live in another world not understanding.

I'm sure you have your experiences. Tell us about!

To David I say, tell us how many instruments these scientists have made. Davis is retired so now he has time making an instrument. You may assist him. 

To Don I say yes when your plates to thin they will deflect and creep. But there is a solution on that problem as you must know by now.

To Hugo I say Congratulations with your results 

Happy weekend to all of you

 

[notsodeepblue]

16 hours ago, reguz said:

Dear Hugo ...

 

15 hours ago, reguz said:

Dear Hugo ...

 

12 hours ago, HoGo said:

I'm not Hugo (I wrote that before but you don't seem to read any of my answers, or don't understand, and just repeat your stuff)...

 

44 minutes ago, reguz said:

To Hugo ...

Mr Zuger,

Putting aside the error-strewn nature of your highly misguided amateur pseudo-analysis, have you ever stopped to consider that it might be the utter contempt you show for other people that stops them engaging with your crackpot ideas?

[David Burgess]

3 hours ago, reguz said:

To David I say, tell us how many instruments these scientists have made. Davis is retired so now he has time making an instrument. You may assist him. 

I don't know how many instruments these scientist have made. But what I do know is that they regularly collaborate with a large number of professional makers, listen and pay attention, are very interested in what these makers know as well as what these makers would like to learn, and are very good at communicating with them in non-technical language, if that is what's required.

I have heard all of them give presentations, have been involved in the question and answer portions at the end, and have spent about five days is a row having breakfast with George Bissinger, talking almost exclusively about fiddles.

[reguz]

This of course is a great experience and I hope it has given you just that extra you need making better instrument. As far as I know only Jim Woodhouse once made one or two instruments in the early beginning of his interrest in the violin.