[Harp-L] The "newest" Stradivarius of Harmonicas!

[Joseph Leone]

Hi 'Michelle my Belle'. I keep reading these words "Scientific evidence". My position is: There IS no evidence. Scientific or otherwise. It wouldn't hold up in a court of law.
Just saying scientific evidence proves nothing unLESS said scientific evidence is submitted and proven to be true. I see no (certifiable) expert witnesses, nor any 
undisputable data. So I will drop out for now.

Btw, several weeks ago Mr. Tom Halchak and Professor Vern Smith were talking about compression.  The basic nexus was that if you enlarged the volume of a chamber and then 
compressed it, you would increase the compression. Because the compressed 'head' area remained the same and you were forcing MORE into that volume. They were CORRECT
and I was wrong. I had everything backwards. Dislexia? lol. So, anyway, cudos, salutations, and appologies to mr. Halchak and Prof. Smith. They got me. They got the infamous smo-joe. 
Enjoy. 

the artist formerly known as smokey joe 

JoeL



On May 9, 2016, at 6:02 AM, Michelle LeFree wrote:

> Tom Halchak wrote:
>> The subject of comb material pops up frequently and the workshop I hosted
>> at SPAH 2013 (The Great Comb Debate) is often cited.  I always find it
>> interesting that people who were not there, did not participate and have no
>> idea how the testing was set up and done feel free to dismiss the results.
> 
> Well then why don't you educate those of us who weren't able to be there, Tom? Tell us about your experimental design ~before~ you tell us your results.
> 
>> ...I had a conversation with Steve Baker at SPAH back in 2013 on the subject
>> of comb material.  I was able to find something he posted on these pages
> < back in 2009.
> 
> Tom, with all due respect, quoting conversations and more anecdotal evidence from a commercial company's internal "test" does little to support your claims.
> 
> I'd like to know more about the objective, scientific evidence that supports your claims.
> 
> Michelle
> 
> 
> 
>