#31
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
RainSong GS-FLE - 13/32” Collings OM1T - 13/32” SCGC OM - 13/32” SCGC OM - 13/32” Martin OM18 GE - 14/32” Collings OM1T - 14/32” Collings OM1Mh - 14/32” Collings OM1MhVN - 14/32” Collings OM2HT - 14/32” Collings OM2HT - 14/32 SCGC DBB - 14/32” RainSong CH-OM1000N2 - 14/32” Brunner B-Compact - 29/64” Breedlove Northwest - 15/32” Collings OM1MhVN - 15/32” Martin OM15 CS - 15/32” These were all very nice guitars, by the way. No complaints at all.
__________________
John Allen Frink Bourgeois OM CB/HS Collings OM1T, OM1MhVN, OM3MhVN RainSong CH-OM-N2 Santa Cruz OM, H13 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
So that's why this 1/2in string height at the bridge is not really a golden rule but an average. If a guitar I just built had a perfect 1/2in at the bridge but with 2.5deg rotation then I would adjust the neck angle to get back to 2deg rotation which would lower the string height at the bridge a bit. But I would rather have proper rotation which is actually meaningful then the 1/2in height which is not. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The goal should always center around how a guitar plays and sounds, not adherence to a geometric 'norm'. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The catch with parametric CAD systems is that each uses its own proprietary modelling kernel. What that means, practically, is that exporting the model from the native authoring CAD system strips off the "intelligence" of the parametric model. What you get upon export is only the "dumb", static geometry, losing the ability to change parameters (dimensions) to alter the geometry. Some modern CAD tools have the ability to edit model geometry without the need for the parametric data. Better than nothing, but not the same. The models I have are currently in Fusion 360 and Onshape. If those formats are of use to you, I can make them available. (Fusion 360 now requires a subscription to export models in non-native formats, such as STEP and DXF. Onshape still allows it for free and I can export models in those "dumb" formats.) |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Thank you! Look forward to reading your post and rest of your site.
Yes I have access to Fusion 360. Your model would be great to have as a learning platform. I really appreciate your contribution, thanks |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Bending stiffness is not dependant upon stress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bending_stiffness http://www.wikiengineer.com/Structural/BendingStress |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
The only thing that will change the stiffness of a soundboard is if you change it's dimensions in length, width, or height. It's math, you cannot have an opinion of it, it's a solid fact
Don't confuse stiffness with strength: https://www.setareh.arch.vt.edu/safa..._strength.html Arching has it's own physical proerties too but it's my understanding that we luthiers do it more for dealing with changes in humidity than say building an aqueduct like the Romans did with arched structures for strength. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Concrete (and stone) is relatively weak in tension. Modern Concrete structures are often pre-stressed to compress the concrete, reducing or eliminating tension within the structure when under load. By contrast wood is often weaker in compression than in tension. The architecture of Ancient Greece predated knowledge of the arch as a structural element. Much of their architecture was a result of the limits in strength of straight stone columns and beams. A guitar top has so little arch as to provide very little added stiffness. The arch in acoustic guitars is mostly for decreasing damage due to humidity changes. Last edited by charles Tauber; 01-27-2021 at 08:26 AM. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks for the replies, but I am convinced that what I am describing is of benefit for many reasons, one being tone.
|