Interesting that you think my guitar building methods are a mistake or that I build guitars based on pure science. You don't know me and have never seen my guitars or watched me make one. Yet you feel qualified to offer this critique.Michael Thames wrote:Dominic, as you can see I've been doing some homework, and is why I posted these wrong specs here, that everyone used as fact.Déjà vu. This is obviously just a math problem that can be solved with the right values for the actual materials used and some work in excel. Some homework for you Michael?
Yes, and Einstein once said, "All great achievements of science must start from intuitive knowledge. I believe in intuition and inspiration.... At times I feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason."Hard science has proved many intuitive ideas wrong over time. Its what keeps things interesting moving forward.
My friend, I think it's a big mistake to build guitars along the lines of pure science.
What I am hearing is mostly polemics dressed up as informed debate. One only has to read the classical forum to see it is perhaps the ugliest online lutherie community out there. I remember the snake-oil-salesman slurs as some of the more polite comments made and decided there was nothing there of interest to me. Fortunately I think most of us here at the ANZLF are not interested in having those kind of debates or the people that raise them.
So, my point is and remains that many/most hunches in guitar building can be tested using recognised scientific methods so why not put them to the test? Put your numbers up so they can be run through Hurd's equations and we will know for a fact, no intuition required, what the impact of cf is.