Why is the price of new tonearms so high

Kirkus,
I don't get your last comment (unless Mark's comment that effective mass = moment of inertia divided by square of effective length is wrong). If Mark's equation is right, the two could be different and still result in an identical third (effective mass) value.

Mark,
The reason I asked my question above was that I thought, as Kirkus later suggested, that the compliance is in series with the moment of inertia on any change in aspect of the record (which we know has a VTF delta, but also has a VTA delta). I have forgotten much of my physics (and probably never knew as much as you have forgotten, even though it seems you haven't forgotten anything) but I would have thought the compliance was a significant 'external force' with regard to the d"Alembert principle.

In any case, leaving aside compliance effects, I would have thought that for a given mass of cartridge at the end of a given tonearm length, a spring-loaded system would reduce the effective length of a tonearm vs a gravity-loaded system. Would this not mean, assuming identical mass and tonearm length, that a spring-loaded system had a lower moment of inertia? Hmmm... Am I taking the number out of one side and not both?

I should go read a textbook again...

Furthermore I was referring to the inertia and you are referring to the effective mass.

Yes, we are indeed talking about the same thing. The "effective mass" of a tonearm is the inertial mass of the end where the cartridge bolts on. The interchangability of inertial mass and gravitational mass is fundamental to classical physics . . . as P=mv and F=ma . . . mass = inertia.

I believe (think, know, have had it checked at the technical university Munich in 1995 with precise laser graphics - choose one), - and this is backed by technical papers of the record industry too - that there is a (although tiny in distance) constant vertical movement while playing a record.

Well, yeah . . . any simple analysis of the tonearm/cartridge resonance envelope shows that in the audioband, if there is vertical modulation, there must be vertical movement of the headshell.

But that's not what we're talking about here . . . . we're talking about the reflexion of VTF as it varies with vertical headshell position, which is why Mark is analysing this in terms of record warps. And here the question is exactly about record imperfections, NOT audio-related vertical modulation.

So I think we do see a vertical angular movement - not constant, but even worse alternating in direction - even if not always apparent to the eye.

Yes, angular movement . . . but the force we're talking about is being applied to the end of the tonearm, which is where the effective mass is measured. The angular force vector around the vertical bearing will of course change with all different manner of tonearm-design factors (including effective length) but is irrevelant to the cartridge between two tonearms that have the same effective mass.

Quod erat demonstrandum in realitas mobilis versus modelus in spiritus ?

Oder . . . herrum sitzen und daumen drücken?

I think this is a similar issue that the motorcycle industry had to solve! In the case of shaft drive motorbikes, if they have a simple swingarm for the rear wheel, when power is applied there is what is called "drive shaft jacking" where the rear of the bike will rise up as power is applied. It takes some getting used to.

The solution was a parallelogram swingarm.

Seems to me that the spring that applies the tracking force could be mounted on a parallelogram device (independant of the arm gymbals) that articulated as the arm rides inconstancies in the LP surface. Then the variations in the spring tension could be substantially reduced (not eliminated).

I imagine such a device would raise the cost of the arm :)

*** Yes, we are indeed talking about the same thing. The "effective mass" of a tonearm is the inertial mass of the end where the cartridge bolts on. The interchangability of inertial mass and gravitational mass is fundamental to classical physics . . . as P=mv and F=ma . . . mass = inertia. ***

We are not yet talking about the same thing.
Small derivations, but our models are different.
And I seem to be unable to illustrate what I mean.
We have a force of inertia and we have a moment of inertia.
If we do not set up a model which takes speed into calculation we do not reach the point.

I do not mean audio modulations in the vertical mode - the tonearm is moving vertically - not just the cantilever.

Or better. it should, but due to its moment of inertia it can't follow the counter-movement in zero time but changes the VTF and compresses (and other way around milliseconds later again) the cantilevers suspension and thus moving the attached coil out of the optimal position due to constant increase and decrease in VTF.

**** The angular force vector around the vertical bearing will of course change with all different manner of tonearm-design factors (including effective length) but is irrevelant to the cartridge between two tonearms that have the same effective mass. ****
So the moment of inertia is independent from the distance of the majority of the moving mass to the center of movement ?
Only if the moving mass is homogenous distributed in the whole moving corpus - which is not the case in a tonearm with mounted cartridge.
Brings up again the picture of the Micro Seiki and other turntables which increased their moment of inertia by moving most of the mass towards the outer rim.

We already have different calculations for the force inertia of cylinders, balls and sticks - to name but a few.
I am not questioning your thoughts, I just think we didn't have set up the correct model yet.

**** Oder . . . herrum sitzen und daumen drücken? ****
Well - wer sitz herum und drückt die Daumen wem ?

"Quod erat demonstrandum in realitas mobilis versus modelus in spiritus ?"

Which was to be demonstrated in actual motion (real life), compared to a mental model (i.e. theoretical only))?

Latin can be handy, but mostly in legalistic situations --these days...
Are we now getting ready to go in the dock over: moment, and mass of inertia (effective mass)?

It makes for a degree of interesting and slightly confusing reading, yet we seem no iota closer to the 'true' sonic effects of gravitational vs. spring force VTF...

Wo hängt denn jetzt der Hammer?
A.
PS: AND cart compliance must be part of the equation, I say.