Page 13 of 15
Re: Yet another math question
Posted: Sun Aug 09, 2015 10:12 pm
by Dave Bagwill
I don't know the answer to that question. Bob Taylor likes the idea - now I'm name-dropping :-) - and maybe I'll contact him and see what his thinking is/
Re: Yet another math question
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:02 am
by Herman
Maybe unnecessary, but to avoid confusion: Tilting the saddle does not change the forcevectors, but in a way that they run vertical though the saddle. But to the the forces that affect the top (rotation at the footprint of the bridge) there are no changes at all.
Herman
Re: Yet another math question
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 10:20 am
by Dave Bagwill
Ah - excellent point! Thanks H.
Re: Yet another math question
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:35 pm
by ken cierp
It seems using the provided equation that the vector force at the bottom of a saddle tipped 8 degrees would be 1% less than a perpendicular saddle.
Re: Yet another math question
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:40 pm
by Dave Bagwill
Yeah, I think you're right. The 8-10 degree tilt is helpful for other reasons than that.
Re: Yet another math question
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:01 pm
by ken cierp
This allows string pressure to drive the saddle directly down to the floor of the saddle slot rather than pushing it forward. The result is more effective transmission of vibration, especially beneficial to the use of an undersaddle pickup.
So is this a contradiction of the science?
Re: Yet another math question
Posted: Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:33 pm
by Dave Bagwill
I don't understand what you're saying. I do understand that the statement was that, for UST's, the tilted saddle is more efficient, and that just makes sense.