|
Bridges
Apr 17, 2014 13:44:38 GMT -5
Post by Marshall on Apr 17, 2014 13:44:38 GMT -5
There ought to be a window to puke through. Why would there be a roof on a bridge like this? You're driving in the open air for hundreds of miles and when you cross a stream, you need a roof? I suppose maybe you don't want any rain water to FALL IN THE RIVER !Ahem... The purpose of the covering is to protect the wooden structural members from the weather. Uncovered wooden bridges have a life span of only 10 to 15 years because of the effects of rain and sun. OK. I get it. Let's add 3 times the required lumber so we it will last twice as long. And while we're at it, let's cover only 1/3 of the span so we can still come back and do normal maintenance on at least part of the bridge. (And we probably ought to run electricity 10 miles out to it so we can install an incandescent light bulb and pay regular utility bills, so it won't be too dark in there).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Bridges
Apr 17, 2014 13:52:15 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 13:52:15 GMT -5
Ahem... The purpose of the covering is to protect the wooden structural members from the weather. Uncovered wooden bridges have a life span of only 10 to 15 years because of the effects of rain and sun. OK. I get it. Let's add 3 times the required lumber so we it will last twice as long. And while we're at it, let's cover only 1/3 of the span so we can still come back and do normal maintenance on at least part of the bridge. (And we probably ought to run electricity 10 miles out to it so we can install an incandescent light bulb and pay regular utility bills, so it won't be too dark in there). I always thought they were covered to protect them from ice.
|
|
|
Bridges
Apr 17, 2014 13:54:11 GMT -5
Post by Bassman on Apr 17, 2014 13:54:11 GMT -5
Usually I just close my eyes when I drive across bridges, I just hope they aren't too long.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 17, 2014 13:55:09 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Bridges
Apr 17, 2014 14:03:31 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 14:03:31 GMT -5
Classical bridge is as low mass as practical while allowing enough gluing surface to make it reliable. Steel strings are going to need more chunk I imagine. Just thinking on this some more, besides being a crucial element for transmitting vibration, it has to be wide enough to resist torsional force as well as straight-line string pull. Also, ebony is way more prone cracking than rosewoods. Getting warm? Evan pretty much got it. It's ll about mass versus footprint. Low mass, large footprint, thinner at the ends and thicker where the saddle and strings apply most of the pressure. Holes decrease the mass but also the footprint leaving the center area of the bridge to bare all the pressure.
|
|
|
Bridges
Apr 17, 2014 14:06:45 GMT -5
Post by t-bob on Apr 17, 2014 14:06:45 GMT -5
There ought to be a window to puke through. Why would there be a roof on a bridge like this? You're driving in the open air for hundreds of miles and when you cross a stream, you need a roof? I suppose maybe you don't want any rain water to FALL IN THE RIVER !The architect doesn't understand the roof? Old open bridges rotten wood plank in the road, if 10 - 15 years old, or rain, sun. All replaced. Covered bridges are effective.
|
|
|
Bridges
Apr 17, 2014 14:09:34 GMT -5
Post by millring on Apr 17, 2014 14:09:34 GMT -5
What I want to see is a mechanical engineer settle which has more holding power -- the Martin bridge, or the "backwards" Gibson. I've always guessed that all other things being equal (wood, proper gluing, etc) that the Gibson would actually be less inclined to pull off than the Martin. I guess that because I think it has the mechanical/leverage advantage of a big foot IN FRONT of the pins (relative to the direction the string tension would be pulling against it). Others believe that the Martin would hold better because (I presume) they see more glued-down surface behind the strings, and they think that would give more holding power.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,869
|
Post by Dub on Apr 17, 2014 14:28:30 GMT -5
If you come to Idiot Jam you're only three hours from Madison County and the storied covered bridges. If you can make the time you can go see them for yourself.
I believe bridges were originally covered so that horses wouldn't be frightened crossing them. They were built before motorized transport so the safety of horses and their passengers was important. After automobiles came into general use, they were maintained as quaint reminders of a simpler past.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Bridges
Apr 17, 2014 14:39:34 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 14:39:34 GMT -5
What I want to see is a mechanical engineer settle which has more holding power -- the Martin bridge, or the "backwards" Gibson. I've always guessed that all other things being equal (wood, proper gluing, etc) that the Gibson would actually be less inclined to pull off than the Martin. I guess that because I think it has the mechanical/leverage advantage of a big foot IN FRONT of the pins (relative to the direction the string tension would be pulling against it). Others believe that the Martin would hold better because (I presume) they see more glued-down surface behind the strings, and they think that would give more holding power. While all bridges are liable to come off at some point due to conditions of heat or humidity I think more footprint behind the bridge pins is less likely to come loose. Some of the belly forward Gibson bridges had very little footprint behind the pins and while they may not come completely off they are usually loose along the back center area.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,869
|
Post by Dub on Apr 17, 2014 14:46:22 GMT -5
What I want to see is a mechanical engineer settle which has more holding power -- the Martin bridge, or the "backwards" Gibson. I've always guessed that all other things being equal (wood, proper gluing, etc) that the Gibson would actually be less inclined to pull off than the Martin. I guess that because I think it has the mechanical/leverage advantage of a big foot IN FRONT of the pins (relative to the direction the string tension would be pulling against it). Others believe that the Martin would hold better because (I presume) they see more glued-down surface behind the strings, and they think that would give more holding power. While all bridges are liable to come off at some point due to conditions of heat or humidity I think more footprint behind the bridge pins is less likely to come loose. Some of the belly forward Gibson bridges had very little footprint behind the pins and while they may not come completely off they are usually loose along the back center area. And even if the glue gives up the bolts will hold.
|
|
|
Bridges
Apr 17, 2014 14:52:25 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by drlj on Apr 17, 2014 14:52:25 GMT -5
Geez, what an opinionated guy you are. I like those Batman bridges that were posted, but I also like the sleek functionality of the Martin bridge and the cool hillbilly mystique of the Gibson mustache bridge.
|
|
|
Bridges
Apr 17, 2014 15:00:02 GMT -5
Post by Lonnie on Apr 17, 2014 15:00:02 GMT -5
The roofs were to protect the trusses and wooden supports of the bridges, etc. In the winter, they would actually cover the floor of the bridge with snow so sleighs could pass. I never said it was efficient or sensible (doctors used to use leeches), I just did some research to find out why they were covered.
|
|
|
Bridges
Apr 17, 2014 15:00:19 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by drlj on Apr 17, 2014 15:00:19 GMT -5
I also like covered bridges and I spent a great deal of time traveling through Iowa photographing them for National Geographic magazine. I met a woman who looks like Meryl Streep there and had a grand time cooking dinner with her and hopping on her bones later that same evening We also.....wait a minute. Maybe that was a movie. I still like covered bridges except on guitars. If you cover the bridge of a guitar, it mutes the sound.
|
|
|
Bridges
Apr 17, 2014 15:03:03 GMT -5
Post by millring on Apr 17, 2014 15:03:03 GMT -5
and hoping on her bones later that same evening Yeah. Wishing and hoping.
|
|
|
Bridges
Apr 17, 2014 15:03:22 GMT -5
Post by Lonnie on Apr 17, 2014 15:03:22 GMT -5
I I still like covered bridges except on guitars. If you cover the bridge of a guitar, it mutes the sound. Covered bridges:
|
|
|
Bridges
Apr 17, 2014 15:04:46 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by drlj on Apr 17, 2014 15:04:46 GMT -5
and hoping on her bones later that same evening Yeah. Wishing and hoping. Not being able to spell has long made my love life difficult.
|
|
|
Bridges
Apr 17, 2014 15:07:00 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by drlj on Apr 17, 2014 15:07:00 GMT -5
I I still like covered bridges except on guitars. If you cover the bridge of a guitar, it mutes the sound. Covered bridges: I knew 3 guys who had the old Teles and all 3 of them took the cover off and used it as an ash tray. Smokers, huh?
|
|
|
Bridges
Apr 17, 2014 15:08:52 GMT -5
Post by Lonnie on Apr 17, 2014 15:08:52 GMT -5
heh... it is known far and wide as the ash tray... just about everybody takes them off, they just pop off.
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Apr 17, 2014 15:09:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Bridges
Apr 17, 2014 15:12:51 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by drlj on Apr 17, 2014 15:12:51 GMT -5
Funny, Bill, but I just got a new bridge from my nephew the dentist. Cost what a really sweet guitar with a lovely bridge would cost. Porcelain and gold just so I can eat me potatoes more comfortably.
|
|