Thanks, Martyn
> Stress is independent of diameter for a gi= ven string length and
pitch
> so a string of 0.45mm will break at the same pitch as one of 0.50m= m
or
> 0.40 (or any other diameter). Clearly tho' a thicker string will >
require a greater tension to bring it up to the same pitch as a
> thinner.
>
Yes, I always fi= nd that very difficult to come to terms with
intuitively. The thicker strin= g (by its very thickness) will
presumably accept the supplement of stress n= eeded for it to come up
to the same pitch. However, I think there is a diam= eter over which
this may no longer be true (possibly because thicker string= s are
higher twist).
But basically, I could stay at 407 and change to 0.= 46 with an
increase of tension, but no more likelihood of the string breaki= ng.
However, at 392 there is a drop in pitch, so a much better chance t=
hat the string will last longer,
and no encrease in tension, which is pr= obably good for my lute, and a
drop in resistance, which, in my case, would= be desirable for my
fingers.
Regards
Anthony
---- Message d'origine ----
>De : "Martyn Hodgson" <[email protected]>
>=C3=80 : "Anthony Hind" <[email protected]>
>Objet : [LUTE] Re: tying two strings together (in process of changing
= from 407Hz to 392)?
>Date : 26/11/2010 16:11:14 CET
>Copie =C3=A0 : [email protected]
>
>
> Stress is independent of diameter for a given string length and pi=
tch
> so a string of 0.45mm will break at the same pitch as one of 0.50m= m
or
> 0.40 (or any other diameter). Clearly tho' a thicker string will >
require a greater tension to bring it up to the same pitch as a
> thinner.
>
> MH
> --- On Fri, 26/11/10, Anthony Hind <[email protected]> wr= ote:
>
> From: Anthony Hind <[email protected]>
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: tying two strings together (in process of
> changing from 407Hz to 392)?
> To: "Martyn Hodgson" <[email protected]>, "Sam Cha= pman"
> <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Date: Friday, 26 November, 2010, 14:40
>
> Dear Martyn, Sam and All,
> $
> Trebles:
> > Regarding pitching of lutes, we have good historic evidenc= e that
> this
> > is closely related to the tensile strength of gut. Thus wh= atever
> the
> > pitch one generally tunes the highest course to just under=
> breaking. (Martyn)
> $
> Yes, certainly Dowland's remarks seem to indicate this. However= , I
> suppose it depends how literally you take "just under breaking"= ,
and
> just how strong historic strings were.
> The other day, I saw a lutenist use a 0.50 HT string on F1 (as = he
> didn't have anything else) and with no apparent problem.
> I tend to agree with Sam, "while I think the top string should = be
> tuned
> up until just below breaking point, I think that there is also = a
> minimum sensible diameter for a top string - for me it is about=
> 0.45mm."
> $
> Indeed this is why, I am dropping my lute from 407 with F1 at 0= .44
> at
> 4Kg to 392 with F1 at 0.46 at 4Kg.
> >
> > One corollary to this: there's a little evidence that some= 17th
> century
> > French solo lute music, especially the earliest, might not= pitch
> > trebles quite so close to breaking stress, in which case y= ou
might
> > pitch with the top course one, or even two steps, below th= ose
> indicated
> > above. (Martyn)
> I imagine you are thinking that Dm might simply have developed = from
> dropping the top string down from G, possibly implying a loweri= ng
of
> tension on the longer diapason lutes.
> $
> If 0.50 is the maximum for F1 at 392, then 0.46 is two = steps
> down and is my target value (0.48 at 4K5 might be a little too<= br>
> high).
> However, my main aim is to increase the thickness of A3. I feel= the
> 0.60 at 3Kg for my lute at 407 is insufficient. I would like 0.= 64
or
> 0.66 which 392 should permit.
> $
> I have been wondering what the reasons were for the French Baro= que
> lutenists preferring "middle size" lutes (Burwell), and althoug= h
> this
> may mainly be because they were spurning the frequency extremes= ,
and
> their search for elegant economy of means in the music could al= so
> have
> favoured smaller easier to play and hold lutes; yet thicker top=
> strings
> could also be a positive result of a diapason of around 68cm (a= ll
> things being equal). My 70 cm lute being on the outer limit, I = can
> only
> play with lowering the diapason to achieve this.
> Of course the thicker basses on these middle size lute present = a
> tricky
> problem, for which loaded strings present the most obvious answ= er,
> and
> correspond well with the iconography which does not show thick<= br>
> basses
> on this type of lute (Charles Mouton).
> $
> Meanes
> I think that the flexibility of twine such as Venice (and=
> others), rather than HT, resolves a potential thickness issue o= n
D5.
> That problem could increase at 392Hz.
> $
> Basses
> Equal tension to touch:
> Once the top string has been chosen, then lower courses could b= e
> tuned
> in relation to this in order to give equal tension to feel (as<= br>
> suggested by Dowland, Mace etc); but this might also be open to=
> interpretation according to whether all the strings are struck = at
> the
> same or different distances from the bridge.
> $
> Bass tension:
> Here again I agree with Sam. "If the tension on the basses is t= oo
> low,
> then it is hard to really lay into the string with the thumb, = which
> I
> think is absolutely necessary when playing on plain gut basses.= "
> However, I have found that it is the overall tension of the cou= rse
> that
> is most important. My basses have been quite flexible at 2K7 an= d
> these
> give way to the thumb, but then the 3K2 Venice Meane octaves co= me
> into
> play. a"The higher tension octaves then become the lead string = and
> contribute their tonal qualities. As I use Venice meane octaves= ,
> this
> also gives a synergy with the Venice Meanes, and the Venice loa= ded
> basses.
> I would perhaps like a little more tension, say 2K9 on the bass= es,
> and
> 3K3 on the octaves, which is what I would obtain if I shift my = bass
> courses up one step C11 to D10 (etc) at 392Hz.
> I would then of course be clearly in the high tension camp.
> $
> 3Kg on basses is quite high tension, but some low impedance str= ings
> work better at higher tensions. It would seem that George Stopp= ani
> may
> make Lang lay basses (the strands and the rope itself are twist= ed
in
> the same direction). If this is so, as indicated in his talk at= the
> lute society meeting, then the resulting string would be more >
flexible
> than an equivalent normal lay twine, and would therefore have >
excellent
> harmonicity and work well at highish tensions. This is perhaps = what
> Sam
> is describing:
> "Even when these strings are very thick, they are still flexibl= e
and
> produce enough overtones which can then be beefed up by the oct= ave
> string"
> $
> (Charles Besnainou's Lang lay spring ropes take the the low
> impedance
> string one stage further)
> The use of stiff HT strings or even tresses, however, necessita= te
> low
> tension bass stringing to lower the impedance and improve
> harmonicity
> (see T. Satoh).
> I tend to lean to the higher tension theory, which seems implie= d in
> the
> notion of equal tension to touch.
> $
> The basses on 13C lutes:
> From the bass course point of view, there is also a limit= ation
> coming from the maximum thickness that gives acceptable harmoni=
city.
> This will vary according to whether one uses pure gut (and the = type
> of
> twist), or loaded gut.
> However, even with loaded gut, Mimmo seems to put the acceptabl= e
> limit
> at 240C (=3Dthe tension of a 224HT string) and about 1.6mm real=
> thickness. Above this, with a plucked string, the loading will = tend
> to
> overdamp the string. Of course the tension on a 240C course can= be
> increased by using a higher tension Meanes Octave, but there is=
> still a
> limit to this Octave compensation.
> $
> Now if we adopt the loaded hypothesis, It would seem possible t= hat
> this
> limit of 240C made stringing a 13c rider lute difficult. In whi= ch
> case,
> the demi-filA(c) (which had been around for some time) might ha= ve
at
> last seemed a good option.
> $
> I recently read your words, Martyn, on Baroque lute stringing, = on
> page
> 8 of FoMRHI Quarterly No 44 July 1986, where you argue that "al= l
gut
> basses were always used on the lute even in the 18th century".<= br>
> I have no experience with DemifilA(c), but in that article you<= br>
> suggest
> that the "florrid writing in the bass seems to prohibit overwou= nd
> strings" (You are speaking of the music of Hagen, Straube, and<= br>
> Kohaut).
> I presume you mean that the necessary clarity and speed to perf= orm
> this
> music would prohibit the use of any string that over-rings?
> Presumably,
> string damping would not be a fast enough process?
> You argued that Theorboed lutes (swannecks?) had been developed=
> exactly
> for this music-type ("Iconographic as well as internal musical<= br>
> evidence"), so as to be able use a pure gut bass alternative to=
> demi-filA(c), exactly for this music.
> $
> Some others here have argued that it is simply the development = of a
> revelling in the bass ("continuo-type") line, which encouraged = the
> use
> of demi-filA(c), together with the bass extension, and the swit= ch
> from
> J to Fan barring.
> I prefer the slightly more complex pattern of evolution suggest= ed
in
> your explanation.
> (a few lute makers have suggested to me that fan barring simply=
> developed to compensate for the greater tensions big 13c lutes =
exert
> on
> the lute table.)
> $
> Regards
> Anthony
> ---- Message d'origine ----
> >De : "Martyn Hodgson" <[1][email protected]><= br> > >A :
[2][email protected];
> > "Anthony Hind" <[3][email protected]>
> >Objet : [LUTE] Re: tying two strings together (in process o= f
> changing
> from 407Hz to 392)?
> >Date : 24/11/2010 10:26:08 CET
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Anthony,
> >
> > Regarding pitching of lutes, we have good historic evidenc= e that
> this
> > is closely related to the tensile strength of gut. Thus wh= atever
> the
> > pitch one generally tunes the highest course to just under=
> breaking.
> >
> > As a rough guide I use the following
> >
> > HIGHEST PITCH OF TREBLE
> > String length, cm @ A392 @ A415 @ A440
> >
> > 76 f' e' eb'
> > 72 f#' f'' e'
> > 68 g' f#'' f'
> > 64 g#' g' f#'
> > 60.5 a' g#' g'
> > 57 a#' a' g#'
> > 54 b' a#' a'
> >
> > One corollary to this: there's a little evidence that some= 17th
> century
> > French solo lute music, especially the earliest, might not= pitch
> > trebles quite so close to breaking stress, in which case y= ou
might
> > pitch with the top course one, or even two steps, below th= ose
> indicated
> > above.
> >
> > Martyn
> >
> > --- On Tue, 23/11/10, Anthony Hind <[4]agno3ph...@yahoo= .com>
> wrote:
> >
> > From: Anthony Hind <[5][email protected]>
> > Subject: [LUTE] Re: tying two strings together (in process= of
> > changing from 407Hz to 392)?
> > To: [6][email protected]
> > Date: Tuesday, 23 November, 2010, 16:06
> >
> > Dear All,
> > I suppose I should add an explanation for why I need this<= br> > >
gluing
> > technique.
> > I have always regretted that my Baroque lute was strung fo= r 415Hz
> > rather than for 392 (for which I had actually asked my lut= e
maker,
> > but
> > he had forgotten this). The main reason for 392 would have= been to
> > achieve thicker trebles for my 700mm lute, allowing the fi= ngers
to
> > "dig
> > more deeply" into these strings. Diapason 392 could allow = f1:046,
> > d2:0.54, and A3:0.64 (instead of f1:0.42, d-2:0.50 and A3:= 0.58 at
> > 415Hz).
> > Historic arguments in favour of this, for the French Baroq= ue
lute,
> > might be the relatively small diapason of historic French = lutes
> > (around
> > 68 according to Martyn, and others), which would imply rel= atively
> > thick
> > trebles, unless the diapason pitch was above 415Hz. I rath= er
> assume
> > this is part of the French aesthetic. What do you think? > > $
> > I managed to lower the diapason to 407 (and slightly raise= the top
> > string tensions); this was the lowest point at which these= loaded
> > strings would work well (I kept the original tension by
> > simulataneously
> > raising the tension of the octaves). I believed the origin= al
> tension
> > on
> > the basses was 3Kg and on the octaves 2K8 (as indicated by= my
> > lutemaker). I therefore thought that after lowering to 407= and
> > changing
> > the octaves to 3K1 for that frequency, I would maintain th= e
> > lutemakers
> > suggested tension, but have 2K9 on the basses and 3K1 on t= he
> octaves
> > (I
> > roughly confirmed this with Dan Larson's string calculator= ).
> > However, I did notice that the Venice Octaves were clearly= now the
> > lead
> > voice, which I felt was highly desirable, but which did no= t quite
> > fit
> > in with the small difference of tension. Also Martin Sheph= erd
told
> > me
> > that 2K9 was quite high tension on the basses. However, th= is was
> not
> > at
> > all how they felt, but I just put that down to the flexibi= lity of
> > the
> > loaded basses.
> > $
> > Recently, however, I wondered whether I could achieve 392 = with
> > basses
> > close to 2K9 by moving C11 to D10 and D10 to E9, and so fo= rth (in
> > other
> > words by a simple shift of each string up one). I did fear= I might
> > get
> > a more irregular tension pattern, and also that the tensio= n might
> be
> > too high.
> > $
> > At this point, I played around with Arto's string calculat= or, and
> > finally understood how it worked (I am a little computer p=
rogramme
> > challenged, and previously gave up when not quite understa= nding
> > which
> > field corresponded to what parameter) .
> > With Arto's calculator now uderstood, I was able to set th= e
> > diapason
> > explicitly to 407Hz and remove the guess work. I was surpr= ised to
> > find
> > my basses at 407Hz were actually at a lowish 2K7 (taking a= ccount
> of
> > true thickness of the flexible loaded Venices by dividing = their
> > value
> > by 1.07, as explained by Mimmo on the Venice string page).=
> > Dropping them to diapason 392 (according to "Arto-calc" wo= uld
> bring
> > them effectively to around the 2K9, I thought I had origin= ally. I
> > believed this would be acceptable, although I could still = drop
the
> > diapason slightly to 380Hz or so to compensate if necessar= y.
> > I would of course have to change most of the other strings= , but I
> > didn't want to throw out my "expensive" and well worn in l= oaded
> > basses
> > (unless they prove already to be a little too old, I have = had
them
> 2
> > years or more?)
> > $
> > Anyway I thought I could use these, at least, to check the=
> resulting
> > values would work well at 392 with 2K9 tension. I made jus= t one
> > check
> > by tuning the C11 string D10 at 392Hz, and it seemed accep= table,
> so
> > I
> > think I can go ahead with the experiment.
> > $
> > I then remembered that as my loaded strings had been cut v= ery
> short
> > to
> > prevent them rubbing against the decorative panel of the p= eg-box.
> I
> > might need to "lengthen" some loaded basses and perhaps so= me
> Venice
> > octaves to reach the peg two above, which is why I have as= ked for
> > your
> > knotting advice. Thank you everyone for your help.
> > I will of course need at least one new loaded string for C= 11 to
> > carry
> > out the experiment.
> > $
> > I am just wondering whether other loaded gut users have te= nsions
> > around
> > my target 2K9, higher or lower? 2K7 did work alright, I mu= st
> admit.
> > Do most of you try to lower your basses by compensating wi= th
> higher
> > tension octaves (or are they the same, or lower)?
> > Do most pure and gimped gut users have basses around 2K5 (= Dan
> > Larson),
> > lower (Satoh), or higher?
> > $
> > Practical considerations:
> > I am aware that pure gut string users will probably consid= er
> > 2K9 as a high tension. Dan Larson's standard is 2K5, but t= his is
> for
> > pure gut, no doubt to compensate for its natural thickness= (and
> > inharmonicity, or high impedance, at high tension), and al= so to
> > account
> > for the relative stiffness of Dan's gimped strings.
> > With loaded Venice strings the flexibility, especially for= the
> lower
> > basses, is even greater than that of a Venice (as the core= is
> > relatively thin, the weight determined more by the loading= ).
> > Therefore the impedance at the bridge, even with highish t=
ensions,
> > remains low.
> > $
> > Theoretical consoderations:
> > Of course, low tension as a hypothesis of historical strin= ging is
> > mainly advanced to account for the tiny historic bridge ho= les
> > contrasting with the naturally thick pure gut string (and = the
poor
> > harmonicity of such strings when at higher tension); but a= lso to
> > relate
> > to the relatively thin bass strings represented in the ico=
nography
> > (see
> > for example the Charles Mouton lute).
> > Further arguments for low tension are that most iconograph= y and
> lute
> > marks (see Mimmo Lute news NADEG 94) indicate an RH positi= on near
> > the
> > bridge, which could indicate an attempt to compensate low = tension
> by
> > finding a string point with greater tension (see T. Satoh)=
> > $
> > If one adopts the loaded string hypothesis, however, highe= r
> tensions
> > can be achieved, while maintaining thin string diameter co=
mpatible
> > with
> > small bridge holes and the iconography; while the RH posit= ion
> could
> > indicate an attempt to achieve a point of higher resistanc= e with
> low
> > impedance strings.
> > (An alternative high tension theory is put forward by Char= les
> > Besnainou
> > involving a special low impedance spring bass string, more= of this
> > later. Perhaps, George Stoppani's lang lay ropes might hav= e a
> > similar
> > but less low impedance potential).
> > Regards
> > Anthony
> > __________________________________________________________=
________
> > De : Guy Smith <[1][7][email protected]>
> > A : Anthony Hind <[2][8][email protected]>
> > EnvoyA(c) le : Lun 22 novembre 2010, 18h 33min 07s
> > Objet : RE: [LUTE] Re: tying two strings of different thic= kness
> > together?
> > I agree. The grapevine knot works best when the sizes are = roughly
> > equal. Fortunately, I've never had to extend a loaded stri= ng.
> >
> __________________________________________________________________=
__
> > ___
> > From: Anthony Hind [mailto:[3][9][email protected]]
> > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 8:58 AM
> > To: Guy Smith
> > Subject: Re : [LUTE] Re: tying two strings of different th= ickness
> > together?
> > Thanks Guy
> > One of the two ropes could be a loaded one, and so probabl= y
> > not
> > supple enough to participate in a double knot. The sheet b= end
knot
> > might be all I can manage, but for other strings I will tr= y your
> > suggestion.
> > Regards
> > Anthony
> > PS I see there animated knot examples, that make things fa= irly
> > foolproof.
> >
> __________________________________________________________________=
__
> > ___
> > De : Guy Smith <[4][10][email protected]>
> > A : [5][11][email protected]; Anthony Hind
> <[6][12][email protected]>
> > EnvoyA(c) le : Lun 22 novembre 2010, 17h 18min 57s
> > Objet : RE: [LUTE] Re: tying two strings of different thic= kness
> > together?
> > I use a grapevine knot. I learned that in my rock-climbing= days as
> a
> > bombproof way to tie into a rope. Probably overkill, but i= f it
can
> > hold
> > a
> > twenty foot leader fall, it should be able to handle a lut= e
> > string:-)
> > FWIW, the traditional knot for joining two lengths of fish= ing
line
> > is a
> > blood knot, which would be another possibility. I tend to = avoid
> > square
> > knots. They can easily be turned into a cats paw knot, whi= ch
isn't
> > secure at
> > all.
> > Here's a good reference for all sorts of knots:
> > [1][7][1][13]http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsInde= x.htm
> > Guy
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [2][8][14][email protected]
> > [mailto:[3][9][15][email protected]] On Behalf
> > Of Martyn Hodgson
> > Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 8:05 AM
> > To: [4][10][16][email protected]; Anthony Hind
> > Subject: [LUTE] Re: tying two strings of different thickne= ss
> > together?
> > I use a reef knot - but secured with a drop of super glue.= ...
> > --- On Mon, 22/11/10, Anthony Hind
> <[5][11][17][email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > From: Anthony Hind <[6][12][18][email protected]>=
> > Subject: [LUTE] tying two strings of different thickness > >
together?
> > To: [7][13][19][email protected]
> > Date: Monday, 22 November, 2010, 15:28
> > Dear All
> > I may need to lengthen a string which does not quite
> > reach
> > the
> > peg, but goes well beyond the nut. I would like to attach = it
> > to a
> > slightly thinner short piece of gut to reach the peg in
> > question.
> > I
> > remember that Stephen Gottlieb had done that for several > >
strings
> > on
> > my
> > lute; but I can no longer remember the type of knot he use= d.
> > Can
> > anyone
> > advise me, or tell me of a page where this knot is describ= ed.
> > Regards
> > Anthony
> > --
> > To get on or off this list see list information at
> >
> [1][8][14][2][20]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index=
html
> > --
> > References
> > 1.
> [9][15][3][21]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.ht=
ml
> > --
> > References
> > 1. [16][4][22]http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsInd= ex.htm
> > 2. mailto:[17][23][email protected]
> > 3. mailto:[18][24][email protected]
> > 4. mailto:[19][25][email protected]
> > 5. mailto:[20][26][email protected]
> > 6. mailto:[21][27][email protected]
> > 7. mailto:[22][28][email protected]
> > 8.
> [23][5][29]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.htm= l
> > 9.
> [24][6][30]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.htm= l
> >
> > --
> >
> > References
> >
> > 1.
> [7][31]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3Dguy_m_smi=
t...@comc
> ast.net
> > 2.
> [8][32]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3Dagno3phil=
e...@yahoo
> com
> > 3.
> [9][33]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3Dagno3phil=
e...@yahoo
> com
> > 4.
> [10][34]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3Dguy_m_sm=
i...@com
> cast.ne
> t
> > 5.
> [11][35]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dl...@cs.=
dartmou
> th.edu
> > 6.
> [12][36]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3Dagno3phi=
l...@yaho
> ocom
> > 7. [13][37]http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.= htm
> > 8.
> [14][38]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3Dlute-arc=
@cs.dar
> tmouth.
> edu
> >
> > 9.
> [15][39]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3Dlute-arc=
@cs.dar
> tmouth.
> edu
> >
> > 10.
> [16][40]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dl...@cs.=
dartmou
> th.edu
> > 11.
> [17][41]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3Dagno3phi=
l...@yaho
> ocom
> > 12.
> [18][42]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3Dagno3phi=
l...@yaho
> ocom
> > 13.
> [19][43]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dl...@cs.=
dartmou
> th.edu
> > 14. [20][44]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/in=
dex.html
> > 15. [21][45]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/in=
dex.html
> > 16. [22][46]http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex= htm
> > 17.
> [23][47]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3Dlute-arc=
@cs.dar
> tmouth.
> edu
> >
> > 18.
> [24][48]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3Dlute-arc=
@cs.dar
> tmouth.
> edu
> >
> > 19.
> [25][49]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dl...@cs.=
dartmou
> th.edu
> > 20.
> [26][50]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3Dagno3phi=
l...@yaho
> ocom
> > 21.
> [27][51]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3Dagno3phi=
l...@yaho
> ocom
> > 22.
> [28][52]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dl...@cs.=
dartmou
> th.edu
> > 23. [29][53]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/in=
dex.html
> > 24. [30][54]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/in=
dex.html
> >
> >
> --
> References
> 1. [55]http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm
> 2. [56]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html=
> 3. [57]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html=
> 4. [58]http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm
> 5. [59]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html=
> 6. [60]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html=
> 7.
> [61]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dguy_m_sm...@com=
cast.ne
> t
> 8.
> [62]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yaho=
ocom
> 9.
> [63]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yaho=
ocom
> 10.
> [64]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dguy_m_sm...@com=
cast.ne
> t
> 11.
> [65]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
th.edu
> 12.
> [66]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yaho=
ocom
> 13. [67]http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm
> 14.
> [68]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
tmouth.
> edu
> 15.
> [69]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
tmouth.
> edu
> 16.
> [70]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
th.edu
> 17.
> [71]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yaho=
ocom
> 18.
> [72]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yaho=
ocom
> 19.
> [73]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
th.edu
> 20. [74]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html=
> 21. [75]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html=
> 22. [76]http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm
> 23.
> [77]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
tmouth.
> edu
> 24.
> [78]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
tmouth.
> edu
> 25.
> [79]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
th.edu
> 26.
> [80]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yaho=
ocom
> 27.
> [81]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yaho=
ocom
> 28.
> [82]http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
th.edu
> 29. [83]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html=
> 30. [84]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/%7Ewbc/lute-admin/index.html=
>
> --
>
> References
>
> 1. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dhodgsonmar...@ya=
hoo.co.uk
>
> 2. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
h.edu
> 3. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 4. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 5. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 6. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
h.edu
> 7. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dguy_m_sm...@comc=
ast.net
> 8. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 9. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 10. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dguy_m_sm...@comc=
ast.net
> 11. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
h.edu
> 12. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 13. http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm
> 14. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
mouth.edu
>
> 15. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
mouth.edu
>
> 16. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
h.edu
> 17. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 18. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 19. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
h.edu
> 20. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 21. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 22. http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm
> 23. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
mouth.edu
>
> 24. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
mouth.edu
>
> 25. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
h.edu
> 26. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 27. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 28. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
h.edu
> 29. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 30. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 31. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dguy_m_sm...@comc=
ast.net
> 32. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 33. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 34. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dguy_m_sm...@comc=
ast.ne
> 35. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
h.edu
> 36. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 37. http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm
> 38. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
mouth
> 39. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
mouth
> 40. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
h.edu
> 41. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 42. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 43. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
h.edu
> 44. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 45. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 46. http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm
> 47. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
mouth
> 48. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
mouth
> 49. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
h.edu
> 50. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 51. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 52. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
h.edu
> 53. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 54. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 55. http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm
> 56. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 57. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 58. http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm
> 59. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 60. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 61. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dguy_m_sm...@comc=
ast.net
> 62. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 63. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 64. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dguy_m_sm...@comc=
ast.net
> 65. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
h.edu
> 66. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 67. http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm
> 68. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
mouth.edu
>
> 69. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
mouth.edu
>
> 70. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
h.edu
> 71. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 72. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 73. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
h.edu
> 74. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 75. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 76. http://www.layhands.com/Knots/Knots_KnotsIndex.htm
> 77. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
mouth.edu
>
> 78. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
mouth.edu
>
> 79. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
h.edu
> 80. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 81. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=3dagno3ph...@yahoo=
com
> 82. http://de.mc263.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected]=
h.edu
> 83. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 84. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
>
