If the piece of string is longh enought you can try yourshelf.
The mean problem is that the bow slipper on the string.
I tryed to rectify the string in edifferent gradations of grain with no
results.
I sudued also a special rosin with scarce results.
I also added a bit of abrasive filers during the estrusion: no positive
results.
You can try to pluck the polyester PET string and you will recognize
that it is very dull.
My opinion is that it is too early to try conclusions about polyester
strings.
You metioned the Eph's Gutlon... this is not the common PET polyester
but PBT that ctually is basically Nylgut
Need more evicenves, in any case pratical tests shows clearly what
happen
It is 8 years almost that I am trying to replace gut with sintetics for
bowed instruments with no results.
However a 66 nylgut as violin 1st is a FANTASTIC string. it is a pity
that you cannot have a good & stable bow attak...
Mimmo
From: [1]Martyn Hodgson
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2016 5:23 PM
To: [2]Mimmo ; [3]alexander
Cc: [4]Lute List
Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Early 'Synthetic gut'
Yes Mimmo - the piece I have is indeed stiff. But when you say it
doesn't work on bowed instruments, it may not have caught on big time
but it's surely it is surely interesting that an established British
musical (and tennis!) string maker was offering these for violins in
around 1950/60s - so clearly some people thought they were OK.
MH
__________________________________________________________________
From: Mimmo <mperu...@aquilacorde.com>
To: alexander <voka...@verizon.net>
Cc: Martyn Hodgson <hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>; Lute List
<lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Saturday, 4 June 2016, 15:55
Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Early 'Synthetic gut'
It Is easily polyester called PET Whose density is like gut.
It is still today in use on racquet strings because it is very strong .
Unfortunately does not not work like musical,strings. It is too stiff
---
Plastic strings or Monofilaments do not work on bowed instruments.
I done a lot of tests and gived up a certain point
Ciao
Mimmo
> Il giorno 04 giu 2016, alle ore 16:33, alexander
<[5]voka...@verizon.net> ha scritto:
>
>
> Great news! What you have there, is some blend of polyester. This is
> the way it burns (silk will never leave a long burnt section), it's
been
> used for tennis rackets string since 1950s as monofilament, as well
> as multifilament, its' specific gravity is 1.38 against nylon's 1.13
> (1.3 for gut and 1.33 for silk), which fits the suggested diameter.
> Do I recall correctly someone on the list used polyester for some
lute
> strings?..
>
> As far as the smell, you can burn some polyester shirt sleeve for
> further testing...
>
> alexander r.
>
> On Sat, 04 Jun 2016 13:40:42 +0000 (UTC)
> Martyn Hodgson <[6]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I've just done the match test you suggested.
>> The 'synthetic gut' string caught fire reasonably quickly with some
>> smoke but easily gently blown out. It left the length (about an
inch)
>> as a blackened thread which when touched crumpled to dust. There was
>> a distinctive smell which didn't remind me of anything else in
>> particular. I then conducted the same experiment of a plain nylon
>> string: this caught fire almost immediately and burnt much brighter
>> and liquid nylon fell from the end in flaming drops (one drop
>> clumsily onto a finger - v. painful!). Not so much smell. So your
>> guess is as good as mine; is the 'synthetic gut' a type of nylon or
>> not? But, if it is a truly synthetic string, then it's not plain
>> nylon but I suggest a material with density close to gut and indeed,
>> quite possibly slightly higher since the diameter (0.92mm) is
>> slightly less than that of most modern plain gut violin third d
>> string (typically in the range 0.95 to 1.05mm). So was this some
>> form of early 'nylgut'?...... if not the 'acribelle' I thought it
>> might possibly be MH
>>
>> From: alexander <[7]voka...@verizon.net>
>> To: Martyn Hodgson <[8]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> Cc: Lute List <[9]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
>> Sent: Saturday, 4 June 2016, 12:01
>> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Early 'Synthetic gut'
>>
>>
>>
>> Regarding synthetic gut from the 1950s, I doubt they would be silk
>> based. The time and "tennis" strongly suggest that it is actually
>> nylon, rectified on a rough wheel not to slip under the bow (or
tennis
>> ball). I have encountered similar strings from the 50s for bass
viol,
>> claiming "synthetic gut" on packaging, being old yellowing nylon.
>> It is quite easy to find out once and for all. Take a match (or
better
>> yet, gas lighter) to it. A silk based string will result in a
slightly
>> enlarged blackened "ball" on the end, with a clear burnt-wool smell,
>> but will never melt. If silk was treated with some synthetic glue,
>> there would be a chemical smell, but a blackened smallish "ball"
would
>> still result. Nylon would melt, and on persistence, catch on fire,
>> which silk never does.
>> If my memory is not failing me, i recall reading Segovia describing
>> early nylon guitar strings as being called "synthetic gut", and
being
>> rectified (on his advice?) to a rougher surface. The "nylon string"
>> apparently came into use later, as the strings attained some
>> appreciation.
>> Thank you for pointing out Mark Goodwin's article, never read it
>> before.
>>
>> alexander r.
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> [10]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
2. mailto:mperu...@aquilacorde.com
3. mailto:voka...@verizon.net
4. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
5. mailto:voka...@verizon.net
6. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
7. mailto:voka...@verizon.net
8. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
9. mailto:lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
10. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
