Is this arching wrong ?

[LCF]

22 minutes ago, HoGo said:

I strongly doubt the inner arch was done first. There were many arguments about order of operations and these folks were quite pragmatic. Roger Hargrave describes their working mthosd quite plausibly in his articles.

Many folks think that GdG instrument likely left his hands with quite thicker tops (and backs) than what we see now so it's hard to judge from just this one example.

AFAIK, the dorsal pins were in the back only and Amati and Guarneri families used them as well as Stainer.

Dang, another good armchair theory shot to pieces.      <|:/

[reguz]

To Hgo I say. Why is it you do not read my site ww.zuger.se there you can read all about the complete arching shape. So it is not just the cross arc shape under the bridge feet. What is it you can contribute with Hugo?

[David Burgess]

50 minutes ago, reguz said:

To Hgo I say. Why is it you do not read my site ww.zuger.se there you can read all about the complete arching shape. So it is not just the cross arc shape under the bridge feet. What is it you can contribute with Hugo?

Reguz, I have read your site, and found that it caused brain damage.

[Dr. Mark]

2 hours ago, reguz said:

To Hgo I say. Why is it you do not read my site ww.zuger.se there you can read all about the complete arching shape. So it is not just the cross arc shape under the bridge feet. What is it you can contribute with Hugo?

Well, there ya have it, HoGo -

"Come not between Reguz and his Ego! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shriveled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye."  (with apologies to J. R. R. Tolkien).

All for your own good, btw. 

[reguz]

I thougt we were talking about arch shape and now as usual we are talking about something else.

The reason; Those how answer do not know anything and than it becomes as it does.

Sorry guys. Once again fun for some not for other

[David Burgess]

1 hour ago, reguz said:

The reason; Those how answer do not know anything and than it becomes as it does.

That's the only possible explanation, right?

[reguz]

No it's not the only possible explanation. You are a good violin maker and should be able giving a proper answerr instead of a durty one as you must have any good answer so makers can learn and come foreward. That's what I and other expect from you. KNOWLEDGE

[HoGo]

The proper answer to question about arching is the violin, not theory. Theory doesn't produce any sound. If you ask what arching is proper, build it ind you'll find out (if you manage to match the zillion other variables that create the whole instrument)

I build archtop mandolins and they seem to sound good even without Zuger's STL's present in their arching.

I've read Zugers writings as well as most publicly available texts. Some are interesting some less so.

One should not write cookbook if he can't cook a simple meal. One doesn't become good cook by writing recipes for meals noone wants to eat.

[Dr. Mark]

7 hours ago, reguz said:

You [Mr. Burgess] are a good violin maker and ... you must have any good answer so makers can learn and come foreward. That's what I and other expect from you.

And that's what he's provided.  It seems (and Mr. Burgess can correct me if I'm wrong) his lesson for today is that your approach is irrelevant to good violin making.  Now it's up to you to learn the lesson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85BvT5X6WSo.

 

[reguz]

.It is obvious that neither you are able giving any substancial answer. I am sorry for that.

[martin swan]

On 12/6/2023 at 9:16 AM, reguz said:

Every time I read something about arching it is very poor. Arching is all over the instrument not only at the location of the sound post/bridge. There almost notning happens when string load act on the instrument. This seem to be very poor understood condition.

Clearly it's not necessary to understand this in order to make a great violin. Correspondingly, understanding it doesn't mean you can make a great violin ...

[reguz]

You are completely right Martin. Yes you or any other can makr a violin. If it is great is what interrest me.

So when any about arching shape is shown questions arise. It is also correct that even if you know much about the arching shape you can not predict that you will succeed makining a great instrument. For that reason it is intresting discussing that item. Unfortunatally the answer given thus far only tells me "does any know anything that bring problems foreward" You neither give an answer how arching shape affect the result but if you can for a discussion I will be happey. A main problem is how does the structure deflect become stress and how looks and function the spring functionof arching. Dom you have any to say about that? 

[martin swan]

24 minutes ago, reguz said:

You are completely right Martin. Yes you or any other can makr a violin. If it is great is what interrest me.

So when any about arching shape is shown questions arise. It is also correct that even if you know much about the arching shape you can not predict that you will succeed makining a great instrument. For that reason it is intresting discussing that item. Unfortunatally the answer given thus far only tells me "does any know anything that bring problems foreward" You neither give an answer how arching shape affect the result but if you can for a discussion I will be happey. A main problem is how does the structure deflect become stress and how looks and function the spring functionof arching. Dom you have any to say about that? 

I don't believe anyone here apart from youself is interested in a theoretical analysis.

These are violin-makers, and the way you make great violins is by trial and error, absorption of historical experience, and listening to the results.

[reguz]

I have a technical background and so my approach understanding the function has told me is not what we can read by scientists as C Gough and J woodhouse. Sevaral mistakes understanding also are made by J Curtin when he shows creep on the VSA seminar last years. It is esy making mistakes, not esy to do it right.

All papers produced say the center move up/down. This is a fault and easy to explain. Hoever. people are afraid hearing what they do observe wrong and with that the complete function of the instrument.

 

[Dr. Mark]

I was hoping for a better result because I generally have no animosity towards fringe personalities.  I apologize for helping reguz hijack this discussion, and I'll do my best to avoid doing so in the future.

[David Burgess]

2 hours ago, reguz said:

For that reason it is intresting discussing that item.

It is you who isn't interested in actually discussing things. Instead, whenever you show up, everything inevitably comes down your relentless blind insistence that only your theories can be right, and that anyone who disagrees is wrong or stupid.

It's the same tired old pattern every time.....

[Dave Slight]

18 hours ago, reguz said:

I thougt we were talking about arch shape and now as usual we are talking about something else.

The reason; Those how answer do not know anything and than it becomes as it does.

 

 

1 hour ago, reguz said:

Sevaral mistakes understanding also are made by J Curtin when he shows creep on the VSA seminar last years. It is esy making mistakes, not esy to do it right.

All papers produced say the center move up/down. This is a fault and easy to explain. Hoever. people are afraid hearing what they do observe wrong and with that the complete function of the instrument.

 

There can be no discussion.
You, from your numerous posts over the years, have made it clear that only you, or anyone believing your STL hypothesis, can be correct.
It’s an endless beating, of an already dead horse.

If you can make better violins that anyone else, then crack on, and have at it, enter them into some competitions. Make sure to take a wheel barrow, so you can carry all the medals home afterwards.
Otherwise, stop berating everyone for not agreeing with you, or for having seemingly smaller brains.

In my experience, the properties of the materials have the biggest bearing on the ultimate performance of an instrument, along with knowing how to obtain the best from them.
Over the years, how I have approached the arching, has changed enormously from what we learned at college. Not that it was was particularly wrong, or bad advice.
25 years of restoring 18th and 19th century Italian instruments, amongst others, has shown me that numerous approaches can obtain excellent results. I’m sure you will not agree, but yes, there is more than one way to do something! 

 

[reguz]

David let us discus what happens with the violin body as C Gough and Goli/Carlson do and show.

They support the instrument on the end blocks. By increasing string load as it is by Gough Stoppani and Goli/Carlson  the center become forced down. Yes you can observe this easy  but the question is; Is this what happens with the instrument by increasing string load. The downward action requires a support. The end block that lay on a support thus take that load. The question you must try to give an answer on is "Do the instruiment become havier?" Thiswe must get an understanding on. Is the observation of down movement of the center correct technically? I say NO. such circumstances never arise on any free in space instrument and thus are wrong, in fact impossible. If you do not agree just let me know and why.

To David I say wait and try answer on this writing. I am not talking about medals etc. 

[Marty Kasprzyk]

Did anybody see the movie "Groundhog Day"?

[David Burgess]

2 hours ago, reguz said:

The question you must try to give an answer on is "Do the instruiment become havier?"

My answer is, "There's no such thing as gravity. The earth sucks."

2 hours ago, reguz said:

To David I say wait and try answer on this writing.

I have in the past threads. You either forgot I had already answered, or ignored it, as usual. Why should I do it over and over and over and over? That would be insanity!

[reguz]

David it does not matter what you call it gravitation or suck. the result is the same. But this is not what I am talking about. The produced down load force on the bridge produce an movement on the center as it become measured. This can only happen when the end blocks support. Thus principally there produces a upward force. The two upward forces become equal the downward at the center. The question that arises is what is deforming. Have any an answer on that?

[Peter K-G]

It has to be that the soundpost is becoming longer and pushes down the back.

Robert, vad håller du på med egentligen. Det du skriver är ju solklara saker, som vilken första klass elev som helst fattar.

Ändklossarna stationära, mitten ner.

Mitten stationär ändklossarna upp.

Va e poängen.

 

[martin swan]

If reguz wants to understand how arching is put under stress rather than just troll people who don't give a shit, he could study some very old violins.

The back in the area of the soundpost is pushed out, and the arching of the table sags a bit under the bridge and bulges slightly as it travels uphill from the end blocks. 

We can therefore be sure, without recourse to anything other than observation, that the tension inherent in the system pushes down on the table and the back and brings the top of the end blocks towards each other.

Violin-making seems to be a delicate compromise between 1. resisting this deformation and 2. creating an arching which sounds like a violin.

[David Burgess]

2 hours ago, reguz said:

David it does not matter what you call it gravitation or suck. the result is the same.

No, the result is not the same. Near the surface of the earth, the main directional force of gravity is always toward the center of the earth. Suckage can apply a force in any direction.

I am absolutely astonished that anyone with even the slightest bit of intelligence could have failed to figure out yet that violins are primarily suckodirectional.

[LCF]

4 hours ago, Peter K-G said:

 

Va e poängen.

 

That's exactly what I was thinking.