Axel, that is in the general accepted model I mentioned.
To illustrate the point:
an uni-pivot tonearm with no lateral balance and an offset (be it in the way of a S- or J-shaped pipe or an offset headshell mounting area on an otherwise straight arm-pipe) "head" would - if viewed from the front towards the cartridge mounted - "swing" down with its right side over the long axis till it finds a position in gravity.
This "down-swing" over the right side does cause the force towards the inner groove wall (left....- viewed from the front).
Now - if this obvious tendency is (just as a hypothesis...) completely (even the technical books aren't very detailed here, but the general term used - even in old AES literature - is, that the bearing in general does not "completely support (address)" this torque movement) counter-balanced at or in the bearing, we would see no longer an additional friction at the inner groove wall which would be rooted in the offset.
This model would indeed require a design which does feature a lateral balance option which would be able to counter-balance the downforce initialized by the offset.
The "actual friction force" we see on pivot tonearms is (I am careful now...) "maybe" not only a matter of the offset.
As this force is in my 30 years long experience quite different in different tonearm designs (mounted with identical cartridge and stylus and VTF) I believe (I am careful again....) that there is still more to it than just the force initialized by the offset of the pivot tonearm's geometry.
All I want to suggest (carefully....) is that maybe there is more and that we - maybe - settled to soon with an explanation which - maybe - does not address all parameters.
I will get a Wacom touch board next week - then I can draw the whole model and try to illustrate the point by graphics.
Cheers,
D.
To illustrate the point:
an uni-pivot tonearm with no lateral balance and an offset (be it in the way of a S- or J-shaped pipe or an offset headshell mounting area on an otherwise straight arm-pipe) "head" would - if viewed from the front towards the cartridge mounted - "swing" down with its right side over the long axis till it finds a position in gravity.
This "down-swing" over the right side does cause the force towards the inner groove wall (left....- viewed from the front).
Now - if this obvious tendency is (just as a hypothesis...) completely (even the technical books aren't very detailed here, but the general term used - even in old AES literature - is, that the bearing in general does not "completely support (address)" this torque movement) counter-balanced at or in the bearing, we would see no longer an additional friction at the inner groove wall which would be rooted in the offset.
This model would indeed require a design which does feature a lateral balance option which would be able to counter-balance the downforce initialized by the offset.
The "actual friction force" we see on pivot tonearms is (I am careful now...) "maybe" not only a matter of the offset.
As this force is in my 30 years long experience quite different in different tonearm designs (mounted with identical cartridge and stylus and VTF) I believe (I am careful again....) that there is still more to it than just the force initialized by the offset of the pivot tonearm's geometry.
All I want to suggest (carefully....) is that maybe there is more and that we - maybe - settled to soon with an explanation which - maybe - does not address all parameters.
I will get a Wacom touch board next week - then I can draw the whole model and try to illustrate the point by graphics.
Cheers,
D.