From me Reg to Randy.
> Damping of a moving body such as the vocal folds, is a
> function of its frictional losses and the load presented to it by the air
> column upon which it acts.
from Randy
>Well, Reg I guess the objectivity you claim I'm claiming is based upon many
>hours in the voice lab viewing stroboscopic exams ... dampening does exist;
Dear Randy,
You are too easily on the defensive. I did not imply that
damping did not exist, merely that your description of the process by
which it occurs is at the very least in need of expansion.
Now in my mind, the opposite of imagery, or, NOT resorting
to the imagination, is objectivity, and so I assume you have the detail in
mind
of the process you uphold, so why do you keep us in the dark?
Your claim of objectivity, which you proffer once more in your
recent response, stands as the salient guarantee of SLS.
>I've seen it, therefore what more do you want from me as an individual to
>back this claim. Also, I don't think it is a secondary effect but a result
>of prephonatory tuning.
Randy, what you've seen, and what you think, is not objective, it is
observation, conjecture or hypothesis. The damping process I have
offered is a fact of physics, just as your Bernoulli is. If you have a process
of vibrational damping in mind upon which you place all your hope and
faith, it is for you to present it in all the lucidity you can muster. But,
if it
does NOT include the effects of the air column and its modifying filtering,
then at the very least it is incomplete.
Referring once again to your reference to "prephonatory
tuning": there is no reason to doubt the existence of prephonatory
tuning, but if damping occurs as a result of it, as you surmise, then it
is both secondary and because of unwarranted cordal rigidity.
Physical proof exists that back pressure and suitable
filtering is vital to the survival of the vocal folds, as so many cheer
leaders have found to their sorrow.
Hoping for a detailed description of your damping hypothesis,...
Regards Reg.
|
|  |
