Is this arching wrong ?

[Peter K-G]

4 minutes ago, LCF said:

I'm too old I can't be keeping up with  these newfangled non-ideas.

 

[reguz]

I am talking about what happens with the object. Youall seem to be in space. No answers at all just talk around.

[Peter K-G]

Just now, reguz said:

I am talking about what happens with the object. Youall seem to be in space. No answers at all just talk around.

When you are on an open forum and people are bored that happens it's not talk around.

At least I can get back to the subject anytime. If you like you can continue at my latest post on the subject.

 

[David Burgess]

17 minutes ago, LCF said:

Seems right except maybe 15,000kM too far East and a bit North.

17 minutes ago, LCF said:

Also the faint echoes of the big bang and the signals from the early universe rotate about the same point.

True, so why isn't Zuger using that more universally-correct stationary point as his stationary point of reference???

(By the way, you aren't giving me much help in establishing that suckodirectionality is the over-riding force)

[Dr. Mark]

26 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

This depends entirely on what point(s) on the violin one is using as the static frame of reference. You keep insisting that there is only one which is correct, which is, of course, incorrect.

Mr. Burgess is correct.  For any given system, for example a strung-up violin under static load, it's easier to do the calculations in some frames than in others.  For a simply-supported instrument this would usually be the frame of the supports.  For a free-floating instrument I would use a center of mass system.

[David Burgess]

8 minutes ago, reguz said:

No answers at all just talk around.

Of course, that's the way it will appear to you, when you have already decided that any answers other than your own have no merit. That is a problem with you, not with us.

[LCF]

4 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

True, so why isn't Zuger using that more universally-correct stationary point as his stationary point of reference???

(By the way, you aren't giving me much help in establishing that suckodirectionality is the over-riding force)

Everything boils down to suckology. 

 

[David Burgess]

2 minutes ago, LCF said:

Everything boils down to suckology.

Thanks, I feel better now.

[reguz]

Peter, om jag fatter dig rätt så hänvisar du till en video. Varför kan du med din bakgrund inte svara på min fråga. Vad händer med violin strukturen när strängar startar deformera instrumentet. VAR?

[Peter K-G]

11 minutes ago, reguz said:

Peter, om jag fatter dig rätt så hänvisar du till en video. Varför kan du med din bakgrund inte svara på min fråga. Vad händer med violin strukturen när strängar startar deformera instrumentet. VAR?

Videon på denna sida har inget att göra med var vi lämnade. Det är ett sidospår i nonsens med David och LCF.

Här är senaste av mig relaterad till ämnet

 

 

[Peter K-G]

Din fråga:

Which structure is moving structure caused by string load and alternation string load thus the dynamic condition.

This is thus two quaestions related to each other

Mitt svar:

Setting everything else written aside:

This was two questions and I don't think the answer would be a simple which structure is moving to any of them.

The question should start with how the violin is supported.

 

[reguz]

The most important to understand is that all applied forces by string load stay in the structure it selve.

From that condition you must ask yourselves what does string load. what is moving on the structure.

This is the simpel (????) to give an answer on asked by me. Forget supporting the structure. Think of no gravitation. Hold the instrument up por down vertical or horizontal or any direction you like. It always must be the same solotion at the end produced by the string load.

[Peter K-G]

11 minutes ago, reguz said:

The most important to understand is that all applied forces by string load stay in the structure it selve.

From that condition you must ask yourselves what does string load. what is moving on the structure.

This is the simpel (????) to give an answer on asked by me. Forget supporting the structure. Think of no gravitation. Hold the instrument up por down vertical or horizontal or any direction you like. It always must be the same solotion at the end produced by the string load.

You have asked, if I understand it right:

Which structure is moving under string load compared to slack strings?

One of my answer is that the middle is moving down when I tune the violin, as I'm about to start playing, holding the violin at the scroll and at the chinrest.

Another answer is. When I started playing I used to tune the violin resting the back on a table. The middle section stayed stationary.

[Peter K-G]

A third answer would be, which is more difficult to grasp.

If you imagen no gravity and the violin is imaginary tuned from slack strings.

The answer would be:

It depends on the observing point of the violin

[Dr. Mark]

1 hour ago, Peter K-G said:

If one thinks that one is the center of everything, one becomes static.

That's  not correct either - regardless of what frame you select there is still an infinite number of other equally valid coordinate frames.  The missing step is that you will want to dismiss effectively all of of the foundations of physical science - Galilean reference frames, invariance, the universality of Newton's laws, ....

The most difficult challenge facing most people who talk about stuff like this (and regardless of level of education) is to figure out what they are actually trying to say.  Next in order is to deal with some know-it-all who gets his kicks nitpicking your humorous repartee, like this case in point.

[Delabo]

3 hours ago, martin swan said:

Problem is that reguz is addicted to conflict.

Yep, he would make an excellent politician. The word "obfuscation" was invented for him.

[Delabo]

@Reguz, you have not answered my very simple question:  "what is the problem"?

Why does your website not make crystal clear what the problem is?

You seem to be suggesting you have a solution for a non-existent problem.

Let me help: is your problem that violins deform over time?

And is your solution that you can stop that happening?

[Peter K-G]

1 hour ago, Peter K-G said:

Something like that.

If one thinks that one is the center of everything, one becomes static.

And think about it.

It's even hard to imagen that the earth is wobbling around you, even more difficult to imagen that this sets the sun in motion and also the entire universe.

Not meaning I think you think you are the center of the universe!

Imaginary thinking can be healthy or not. 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Dr. Mark said:

That's  not correct either - regardless of what frame you select there is still an infinite number of other equally valid coordinate frames.  The missing step is that you will want to dismiss effectively all of of the foundations of physical science - Galilean reference frames, invariance, the universality of Newton's laws, ....

The most difficult challenge facing most people who talk about stuff like this (and regardless of level of education) is to figure out what they are actually trying to say.  Next in order is to deal with some know-it-all who gets his kicks nitpicking your humorous repartee, like this case in point.

Yeah, well I'm not sure if you are trying to lecture me (hope not). But I appreciate your intellect!

[Peter K-G]

This is a silly statement from me:

If one thinks that one is the center of everything, one becomes static.

Try to look at it from a philosophical point of view?

[Violadamore]

On 11/30/2023 at 6:39 AM, FiddleDoug said:

Arching comes in all different flavors. Stainers are very full arching.

Anybody have a linkable source of more of these CT cross sections?  

[David Burgess]

What a fascinating thread this has become. A person who has never made a violin is trying to inform readers (some of whom are very successful makers), how a violin must be made, by using juvenile-level force diagrams, and rejecting all responses which don't agree with his notions.

Stay tuned for reguz (Zuger) telling Don Noon how to make a Mars rover, or telling Charles Beare how to identify old Italian violins.

[Dr. Mark]

2 hours ago, Peter K-G said:

Yeah, well I'm not sure if you are trying to lecture me (hope not). But I appreciate your intellect!

Hardly - I was referring to myself nitpicking your response.

[Peter K-G]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Mark said:

Hardly - I was referring to myself nitpicking your response.

Thanks, I thought so but couldn't be sure.

I don't mind someone nitpicking my posts, it's actually a good thing.

[Violadamore]

5 hours ago, Peter K-G said:

 

FTR, that redolent chunk of clickbait misrepresents Kaku and his position on cosmology.  He is primarily a science popularizer who's written many best-selling explanatory books, and {AFAIK) supports the Big Bang having been a fission from a pre-existing universe, which is probably wrong from the evidence, but is respectably controversial instead of crackpot. 

For an informed critique (containing some criticisms and pejoratives which could also be applied to a certain violin arching theory we're now unpleasantly familiar with    ) of the totally crackpot anti-Big Bang stuff that's surfaced lately, look here: 

 

[LCF]

2 hours ago, Violadamore said:

Quoting you out of context:

 "a certain violin arching theory we're now unpleasantly familiar with " 

After consuming a pile of pizza I have come to the view that we are at an historically significant branching point  between the old conservative faction who believe that volins are curvey wavey bulbous things versus the young radicals who insist they are flat in every direction. We may need to burn some violins to test the truth of these competing views.

Edited December 9, 2023 by LCF
-"a"