changes on my own; I just about managed to get everything all sussed out but there's a wee design question that needs to be resolved.
I have a choice between a wide neck or a somewhat scrawny neck-- each one has their own aesthetic appeal but I worry about structural failure as the neck must hold up under the strain of nineteen 0.070" steel strings. If the wood is a good strong wood and the neck suitably thick-- in this case 1-1/2" thick-- does the actual width of the neck matter? Will a "thinner" neck hold up as well as a wider neck? Any help here would be deeply appreciated.
There are two loads you need to consider. The static string load, and the "plucking" load. Lets say your harp is shaped like a "C". The strings static load will try to close the "C", and the dimension of the neck, the side opposite the opening in the "C" (let's call this inboard), I think you want to call "thickness". In and out of the screen, I think you want to call width.
Width keeps the strings from folding the harp in "half" by pulling it into a spiral, and returns the strings to the position that fingers or picks will need to find them to play notes. 1-1/2" will probably be OK here, if you stick with wood.
And / or for artistic effect, you may want to stick with a metal frame, or at least a metal reinforced neck. The sounding box components are most important, the neck is less so. You can possibly get less than 1-1.2" thick, and even use hollow members, if you want.
Elegance is to use your voice. Beyond this, is less elegance (or loss of voice).
------------------ "In the beginning was the rhythm; but I had forgotten and I was waiting for the word."
A lot of older instruments use a single "grade" of string.
The frequency goes up with tension (for a fixed length). Putting higher tension wires further from the "neck", stresses the neck more, than if they were closer.
Well, as Admiral Kirk once said "We learn by doing..."