>This is geometrically impossible, and you must be talking >about a
different
>angle from the one everyone else is talking about. They're >talking about
>changing the angle of the neck to the plane of the top. >Imagine a
triangle
>in which point A is the bridge, point B is any fret, point C >is the nut,
and
>point D is a point on the string directly above above point >B. You can't
>move point C without changing the distance between >points B and D.
>HP
Howard,
I'm afraid you are wrong! If your referring to a working functional
instrument, extreme neck angles at some point would be dysfunctional.
However, in theory or on paper it works doesn't it ? Just look at Humphrey's
guitar, and keep imagining more and more of an angle, but instead of moving
the neck to change the angle you move the top, which is what he did.
Michael Thames
www.ThamesClassicalGuitars.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Posner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2005 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Built-in action?
> Michael Thames wrote:
>
> > One
> > could angle the neck in any direction, north , south, east, and west, up
or
> > down whatever, and still , in all those angles, one could simply
maintain a
> > constant height of the string over the frets.
>
> This is geometrically impossible, and you must be talking about a
different
> angle from the one everyone else is talking about. They're talking about
> changing the angle of the neck to the plane of the top. Imagine a
triangle
> in which point A is the bridge, point B is any fret, point C is the nut,
and
> point D is a point on the string directly above above point B. You can't
> move point C without changing the distance between points B and D.
>
> HP
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
