Parabolic Bracing?

Joe Sabin · **Joined:** Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:44 am **Posts:** 210

JJ Donohue wrote:

It's actually psychobolic!

Isn't that psychobabbleolic? :lol:

SteveSmith · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 2:56 pm

There was a question?

Steve Walden · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:06 pm

Gosh, I love this place.

Starting the weekend off right!

K.O. · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:09 pm

Does anyone think this is all a bit sniperbolic...

Hesh · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:46 pm

K.O. wrote:

Does anyone think this is all a bit sniperbolic...

Not yet but there is time......

Joe Sabin · **Joined:** Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:44 am **Posts:** 210

K.O. wrote:

Does anyone think this is all a bit sniperbolic...

It just seemed like fun to me. But I'm still a newbie... [uncle]

Mark Groza · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 4:26 pm

I think the subject is parabolicbraceage. laughing6-hehe

Rod True · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:16 pm

Todd Stock wrote:

Joe:

From what I recall of yet another discarded hobby, if the F ratio is sufficiently high, you can get away with a spherical mirror, while a smaller F ratio drives you to a true parabolic mirror (e.g., difference between a planetary scope and deep sky scope).

Same thing with parabolic bracing...if you have a longer scale length (over 25.250"), the variation from a true conic with eccentricity = unity (which is to say parabola) is not a big issue...you can fudge things a bit with no real consequences. On a short scale guitar, this goes out the window, and brace cross section and profile need to be exactly parabolic...

Oh gee, do I sense a tiny bit of sarcasm there? [clap]

Pat Foster · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 5:45 pm

Joe Sabin wrote:

JJ Donohue wrote:

It's actually psychobolic!

Isn't that psychobabbleolic? :lol:

Hello,

My name's Pat, and I'm a psychobabbleholic.

Lars Stahl · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:56 pm

May I just ask WHY the term parabolic is so infected when it comes to bracing ??? I meen there are hundreds of words "even in this thread" used in the wrong way. as an example, If I said " MAN THATS COOL" then I have used atleast 2 words in the wrong way !! its a saying, so why cant Parabolic be a saying. we all know what we meen, and thats the main idea with a language. I once workt in Texarcana, I dont think I hear 1 person use the language in the right way, But i understood what they ment though. laughing6-hehe

.

Lars

Darrin D Oilar · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:58 pm

Howard Klepper wrote:

The most impressive way to describe one's braces would of course be hyperbolic.

I love a good play on words. Very nice.

Darrin

gozierdt · **Posted:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:13 pm

How about "spline curve" bracing- can be distorted to fit almost any shape...patent pending, of course bliss

apologies (but not very sincere) to those that hate bouncing emoticons

Joe Sabin · **Joined:** Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:44 am **Posts:** 210

Todd Stock wrote:

Joe:

From what I recall of yet another discarded hobby, if the F ratio is sufficiently high, you can get away with a spherical mirror, while a smaller F ratio drives you to a true parabolic mirror (e.g., difference between a planetary scope and deep sky scope).

Same thing with parabolic bracing...if you have a longer scale length (over 25.250"), the variation from a true conic with eccentricity = unity (which is to say parabola) is not a big issue...you can fudge things a bit with no real consequences. On a short scale guitar, this goes out the window, and brace cross section and profile need to be exactly parabolic...

Yes I think one needs at least an f/10 to reach 1/4 wave accuracy for a spherical mirror compared to a paraboloidal mirror. But since a guitar usually has a 20' radius curve and is less than 2' in size, it's at least an f/10, so spherical cross sections would be within a 1/4 wave of paraboloidal. Don't make me dig out my mirror making books! pfft

scottvanlinge · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:10 am **Posts:** 1

[quote="Kent Chasson"]

There was an old issue of American Lutherie with an article with 3 or 4 guys (Dana Bourgeois was one) giving their theories about scalloped braces and they also interviewed that guy about his work. I can never seem to find that issue though so if anyone knows it, I'd be curious to read it again just for kicks.

Kent,

The issue you're referring to is #47, Fall, 1996. I also wrote an article on bridge design which was published in American Lutherie's Spring, 2001 issue, #66.

If anyone is interested in copies, send a S.A.S.E. to Box 3044, Silver City, NM, 88062.

If anyone is interested in a serious discussion of this topic:

http://www.luthiercom.org/phpBB3/viewto ... &sk=t&sd=a

Enjoy your games,

Scott

Alain Desforges · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 12:54 pm

Darrin D Oilar wrote:

Howard Klepper wrote:

The most impressive way to describe one's braces would of course be hyperbolic.

I love a good play on words. Very nice.

Darrin

Seconded. Well played!

Joe Sustaire · **Joined:** Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:17 pm **Posts:** 534

I agree with Lars, I don't quite understand why "parabolic" and Scott van Linge's ideas seem to push so many buttons. Now I'm only working on build #7, so I don't know it all or have it all figured out like so many apparently have. I can only say that thanks to the bracing discussion that Scott refers to above, I learned a lot. And by following his descriptions of his methods and comparing bracing and bridge photos, I went back into 3 of my guitars and was able to improve the volume and evenness, from bass to treble.

Now many of us follow the building idea that, the next one will be better, and if we're paying attention, hopefully it will. But I find it great to have some tools that enable me to go back into a finished guitar, and by refining the bracing and bridge shape, help an existing guitar reach it's potential. And by directly seeing how these changes improve an existing build, I can incorporate these into my next build, so that indeed, the next one will be better.

Thank you Scott for your help,
Joe

James Orr · **Joined:** Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:37 am **Posts:** 4820

Joe, in the thread mentioned earlier in the thread, Mario questioned some of his reasoning and Scott got pretty volatile about it and didn't appear to be able to support himself. It isn't the renaming of tapered braces. He presented himself as the guy who knew what nobody else did about the way the top really works. Mario questioned him, and he couldn't respond.

Frei · **Joined:** Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:16 pm **Posts:** 718

It would be parabolic brace if you tipped the long end UP....

Sheezzz....

$5.00 please. Eat Drink

Howard Klepper · **Joined:** Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:16 am **Posts:** 2692

I have said nothing about Scott in this discussion.

Mike OMelia · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:24 pm

Pat Foster wrote:

Mike O'Melia wrote:

Please contact my lawyer(s) should you want to license the use of logarithmic bracing (log bracing) in your new designs.

My licensing fees are very reasonable. I may even try this on my next guitar.

Mike

Too late.

Attachment:

log.jpg

Tis never too late to send me my license fee...

Alain Desforges · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:19 pm

My bracing shapes are so diabolically clever, that once strummed, if you listen carefully, you can hear a choir of angels serenading nubile nymphs amid the sweet trebles and the earth moving bass. Aural ograsmic explosions, really.

The shape you ask? Phallic, of course...

WaddyThomson · **Posted:** Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:07 am

Uh Oh! Now someone will have to figure out how to make Pair-O-Phallic Bracing!

It'll be twice as good!

Alain Desforges · **Posted:** Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:23 am

Waddy, thanks bro! I thought I was going to have to change my name to 'Thread Killer'.

It seems almost every time I post in a thread, I kill it dead, and then I'm left wondering, 'Jeez...was it something I said?' Ha!

Actually, I'm just being fecetious and trying to illustrate Howard's point.

Howard Klepper · **Joined:** Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:16 am **Posts:** 2692

Alain Desforges wrote:

Actually, I'm just being fecetious and trying to illustrate Howard's point.

Please don't be fecetious here if you can help it.

Pat Foster · **Posted:** Sun Jan 25, 2009 3:23 pm

Filippo Morelli wrote:

Alain Desforges wrote:

fecetiousand trying to illustrate Howard's point.

Now Lance, if there should be a word on the ban list ... this should be it! laughing6-hehe

Filippo

Oh, I dunno. Could be useful. On my first instrument, a banjo, the fretwork could have been accurately described as fecetious.

Pat

Official Luthiers Forum!

Forum rules

Parabolic Bracing?

Who is online