Fascinating, as Spock would say.
That experiment with the ropes and springs was fascinating. I guessed correctly that the weight would rise after first thinking it might fly to either side instead.
So this mechanism gets smaller when you pull the ends..... How neat?
- Thread starter Gingerbread Demon
- Start date
Fascinating, as Spock would say.
That experiment with the ropes and springs was fascinating. I guessed correctly that the weight would rise after first thinking it might fly to either side instead.
That reminds me of the finger trap toys. You'd put your fingers in and pull your fingers away and they'd tighten. That's what I immediately thought of when reading the title.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly how those work. I just wish I knew where to buy some and that model they made for the video would be a neat 3D print item
I will note that there is a fallacy in the description of the mechanism: the "snap" effect is not universal, at least not within the realm of elastic deformation. Switches, whether they're toggle switches, rocker switches, microswitches, keyboard switches, rotary switches, or whatever, have to be deliberately designed to do it. The added mechanism that provides the snap is called a "detent."
On an organ with tracker (i.e., purely mechanical) key action, there is what is called "pluck": the key resistance naturally peaks at the critical point where the valve in the windchest opens. This is of course the point where the organist can affect the articulation: the speed at which the wind initially enters the pipe controls the transients as the pipe begins to speak. Ideally, the pluck should be just strong enough to where the critical point can be felt, but not strong enough to lose control of the valve. If you have too much pluck, you may as well have an electric action, for all the articulation control you'll get. On the other hand, I've occasionally taken lessons on (electropneumatic action) organs that made no attempt to artificially provide "pluck"; they feel like I'm playing foam rubber. (or a very cheap portable keyboard).
(Note that even with a superbly engineered tracker action, if the pipes aren't voiced to take advantage of it, if they're voiced to suppress all transients [typically by somebody who considers transients to be "speech defects," rather than as essential a part of the timbre as the partials], you won't have any control of articulation, because you can't control transients if there aren't any.)
Yeef. I just spent more verbiage describing a system where "snap" is inherent, and can be engineered to avoid loss of control, than I spent pointing out systems where it's not inherent, and I haven't even voiced an opinion on the video (very well produced), or the advertisement (annoying), or the device the video is about (fascinating). As far as practical applications for a Braess's Paradox device, somebody wiser than me, when asked about the usefulness of a new invention, replied by asking about the usefulness of a newborn baby. It could take a while before we have any idea what applications are practical, and the inventor pretty much said so, in so many words.
On an organ with tracker (i.e., purely mechanical) key action, there is what is called "pluck": the key resistance naturally peaks at the critical point where the valve in the windchest opens. This is of course the point where the organist can affect the articulation: the speed at which the wind initially enters the pipe controls the transients as the pipe begins to speak. Ideally, the pluck should be just strong enough to where the critical point can be felt, but not strong enough to lose control of the valve. If you have too much pluck, you may as well have an electric action, for all the articulation control you'll get. On the other hand, I've occasionally taken lessons on (electropneumatic action) organs that made no attempt to artificially provide "pluck"; they feel like I'm playing foam rubber. (or a very cheap portable keyboard).
(Note that even with a superbly engineered tracker action, if the pipes aren't voiced to take advantage of it, if they're voiced to suppress all transients [typically by somebody who considers transients to be "speech defects," rather than as essential a part of the timbre as the partials], you won't have any control of articulation, because you can't control transients if there aren't any.)
Yeef. I just spent more verbiage describing a system where "snap" is inherent, and can be engineered to avoid loss of control, than I spent pointing out systems where it's not inherent, and I haven't even voiced an opinion on the video (very well produced), or the advertisement (annoying), or the device the video is about (fascinating). As far as practical applications for a Braess's Paradox device, somebody wiser than me, when asked about the usefulness of a new invention, replied by asking about the usefulness of a newborn baby. It could take a while before we have any idea what applications are practical, and the inventor pretty much said so, in so many words.
I found a 12-pack of them on Amazon.
12 Chinese Finger Traps - Assorted Colors : Amazon.ca: Patio, Lawn & Garden
12 Chinese Finger Traps - Assorted Colors : Amazon.ca: Patio, Lawn & Garden
www.amazon.ca
Uh, no. Chinese finger traps (and if the Chinese came up with them first, it's only because they came up with nearly everything first, like pasta and printing) are simply a consequence of how a hollow braid behaves. There are several practical devices that operate on the same principle, from medical devices to wire-pulling devices. No Braess's Paradox here.
Similar threads
