Talk:String vibration

message: Copied by me--Light current 22:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Resonance, I guess...--Army1987 13:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying there is a node at each end of a string is a simplification.  It would be true if the ends of the string were attached to something perfectly rigid, but they're not.  The whole instrument is vibrating, including the bridge.  Pfalstad 14:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Do we agree that the end of the string is moving (not perfectly a node)?  Well then, the string moves the bridge, and that moves the body... Pfalstad 14:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Pfalstad 14:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not the way I read it.  It seems that both side-to-side and up-and-down motions will get transmitted.  I have another reference which says that the bridge moves in many different ways.  Pfalstad 19:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The analysis on the page is very weird.  I've seen other analyses that make more sense, and they say that they are making many assumptions, including assuming the tension is constant, but I don't think it is.  My guess is that this is the primary means of energy transmission.  I'll check my reference to see if it says more.  (It's a very technical reference so I had trouble finding good quotes in it, but I'l check again.)  Pfalstad 19:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is another way of settling this matter, as E is the base frequency, take into account the placing of the neck pickup. The octaves/frequencies/overtones will be those of B and E, hence the fat tone. Now, the bridge pickup will get E, B. and a lot more octaves/frequencies/overtones resulting in a sharper tone. Another way of looking at this would be that B represents the E string's vibration divided into 3 parts(7th & 19th fret harmonics), the vibration being readily picked up by the Neck pickup. Taking another look at the bridge, tapping the 12th fret will be picked up by both pickups. accessing higher harmonics at the bridge is really a question of the string's vibration being dividing into so many parts that are not easily picked by a neck pickup, for example, the 1st octave-2 parts, 2d octave-4 parts, 3d octave-8 parts, etc,...
If you are still not convinced, reproduce the same situation with a synthesizer, start with a base note and start adding frequencies, specifically the higher octaves-by the way, the presence control on many guitar amplifiers are set at 10khz. The other way is to start in the opposite direction, the second octave of E(4th string, 2d fret) and start adding lower octaves and associated frequencies at lower pitch this will guarantee a fat tone.
Not only do you have a repeatable observation, you have a mechanical working model, everything else is speculation. Feel free to put this to the test, tell me what you think...Radical man 7 06:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bridge

message: Are there any articles on how wind instruments, or their reeds, work? Or does someone know about books on the matter (I have learned physics so it is OK for the books to be academical) so I can maybe write one? --Satúrnus 20:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The physics of wind instruments?

message: If possible, can anybody who has the knowledge to do so, please clarify the string velocity section as it is difficult to follow. The f=feta x t part is especially puzzling. thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen Graham (talk • contribs) 03:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: String velocity

message: The force balance is incorrectly stated in this discussion and the linearization is glossed over.  If applying Newton's 2nd law to the free body shown, the sum of the forces is in fact 2*T*sin(theta) which after linearization leads to 2*T*theta.  Furthermore, the "F-vector" in the diagram is confusing as it is not a body force.  Explanation of the kinematics is also rough.  Suggest using a derivation similar to: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/waves/waveq.html#c2 -bingjeff-71.184.194.138 (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the derivation was incorrect, its use of centrifugal force assumes the wave is an object, or that points on the string have a substantial longitudinal movement.  I've changed it to be like the one you've suggested, and expect that the diagram will need to be replaced. Jonathan48 (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

text: No, the old derivation is not correct. In the linear approximation, each piece of string only moves up and down, not left and right, so its acceleration is not centripetal. You can assume that the force still equals v2/R on dimensional analysis grounds, but that would not be a rigorous argument. -- Army1987 (t — c) 12:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Derivation

message: I don't know how, but I can sometimes see string vibrations during daylight with my peripheral vision. In plain sunlight....   Mike, EU  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.80.161 (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Visible

message: Are there equations relating the amplitude to linear mass density at constant pitch? Thanks.CountMacula (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amplitude 

message: If someone has understood this completely, can you edit it and write what all symbols mean? Amey.bhavsar (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Velocity derivation 

message: At https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/112007/what-is-the-explanation-for-higher-harmonics-not-being-integral-multiples-of-the there is a discussion of why higher piano string overtones are apparently not multiples of the fundamental. The accepted answer refers to this article to justify its claim that tension and density cause this deviation, but if I understand the formula f_n = \frac{n}{2L}\sqrt{\frac{T}{\mu}} right, T and \mu do not depend on n, so that this formula predicts multiples of the fundamental. It would be well worth having an explanation of the phenomenon in this article (or linked by it – I have not checked other articles so far); perhaps the approximations mentioned in the derivation are responsible? Since some approximations break down at higher amplitudes, perhaps it has to do with the attack (music) of the piano note, which is infamously complicated. PJTraill (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of inharmonic overtones?