Official Luthiers Forum!

Solely owned and operated by Lance Kragenbrink
It is currently Mon Jul 23, 2018 12:37 pm


All times are UTC - 5 hours


Forum rules


Be nice, no cussin and enjoy!




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 3:22 pm 
Offline
Koa
Koa
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:21 am
Posts: 1163
First name: Brad
Last Name: Combs
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
Hello,

I’ve been testing a few sets of torrefied Sitka from SM using the plate thickness formula from the Gore book.

The formula is spitting out thicknesses in the less than 0.090 range (as low as 0.086) which is very thin for top wood. I’m assuming the lightweight nature of the torrefied wood is throwing things off. Anyone have experience with using torrefied wood and following the book recommendations? Should any of the variables be tweaked if the wood is torrefied?

Brad


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"Is this the one where I trot downfield and act like I'm lost ?" - Billy Bob


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:13 pm 
Offline
Brazilian Rosewood
Brazilian Rosewood

Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:15 pm
Posts: 5027
First name: Ed
Last Name: Bond
City: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Focus: Build
Status: Professional
Torrefied shmorrefied, material properties should be whatever they actually are, quantifiable.

It could be that the wood you have is particularly dense/stiff. What is the density?



These users thanked the author meddlingfool for the post: bcombs510 (Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:32 pm)
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 5:54 pm 
Offline
Koa
Koa
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:21 am
Posts: 1163
First name: Brad
Last Name: Combs
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
While I agree that the material properties are what they are, the formula that takes that as input and spits out a thickness is derived, at least at some level, from the experience of it's creator. Is that not correct? Don't get me wrong, I have about half understanding of 20% of the majority of this topic. :mrgreen:

I took the recordings again from a set that first indicated 0.93. It's now recommending 0.103. So perhaps I need to retake recordings on the others as well. The mic setup I have here is finicky.

Here is an example.
Attachment:
SnipSmall.jpg


Wow, was fighting with the image attachment for a while, but I think this is the right resolution now.

Brad


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
"Is this the one where I trot downfield and act like I'm lost ?" - Billy Bob


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:15 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
Contributing Member

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 235
First name: Ken
Last Name: Lewis
City: Mt. Pearl
State: NL
Country: Canada
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
Looks good to me. Once you get consistent and easily readable freq. responses the rest is pretty straight forward.
I didn't run the math but at a glance everything looks good, even the .103. 'Bout where mine are.
Ken



These users thanked the author Ken Lewis for the post: bcombs510 (Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:32 pm)
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:16 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
Contributing Member

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 1:59 pm
Posts: 235
First name: Ken
Last Name: Lewis
City: Mt. Pearl
State: NL
Country: Canada
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
Mine aren't terrified tho.
It is very important to get those freq. readings accurate.



These users thanked the author Ken Lewis for the post: bcombs510 (Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:32 pm)
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:23 pm 
Offline
Koa
Koa
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2015 8:21 am
Posts: 1163
First name: Brad
Last Name: Combs
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
Thanks, Ken. I was thrown for a loop with the really low thicknesses I was getting in the spreadsheet. I’ll retake them all again to see if they are consistent. I really need to get a decent USB mic that I can go right into my laptop with. The mixer in my setup now is wonky. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
"Is this the one where I trot downfield and act like I'm lost ?" - Billy Bob


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:32 pm 
Offline
Contributing Member
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:42 pm
Posts: 1284
First name: John
Last Name: Parchem
City: Seattle
State: Wa
Zip/Postal Code: 98177
Country: USA
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
2.62 mm is what most of my spruce SS tops come out to be. So sounds good to me!

_________________
http://www.Harvestmoonguitars.com



These users thanked the author johnparchem for the post: bcombs510 (Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:32 pm)
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 6:00 pm 
Offline
Koa
Koa
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:45 pm
Posts: 1345
First name: Trevor
Last Name: Gore
City: Sydney
Country: Australia
Focus: Build
Status: Professional
First, decide which answer is right. If it is the 2.62mm number, that is a fairly normal number, as others have mentioned, and matches what I get using your input data.

It appears to be a low stiffness, low density sample, so will likely make a low mass top (relatively speaking) and should suit a 000 style guitar.

_________________
Trevor Gore, Luthier. Australian hand made acoustic guitars, classical guitars; custom guitar design and build; guitar design instruction.

http://www.goreguitars.com.au



These users thanked the author Trevor Gore for the post: bcombs510 (Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:32 pm)
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:28 pm 
Offline
Cocobolo
Cocobolo
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 12:41 pm
Posts: 259
Location: Trois-Rivieres
First name: Alain
Last Name: Lambert
City: Trois-Rivieres
State: Quebec
Country: Canada
Focus: Build
Status: Amateur
Please check your oscillation frequency formulas. You have different numbers listed as variables and as SI system. These are Hertz and should be the same in SI system as measured. Or am I getting this wrong?



These users thanked the author Alain Lambert for the post: bcombs510 (Mon Jun 11, 2018 7:32 pm)
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: banjopicks, Bing [Bot], Bryan Bear, DannyV, powdrell, TimAllen, UncleMikey and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
phpBB customization services by 2by2host.com