Inertia

[Dennis Johnson]

        I realize that many people are rushing off to Albuquerque, but I'm
going to throw this in now anyway, and I hope we can pick up where we left
off next week.

        I do not pretend to be a physicist, but I believe I have followed
most of the discussion and David Stanwood has yet to answer for the biggest
consequence of heavy hammers, which is inertia. Inertia is independent of
leverage, and also of strike ratio (as I understand strike ratio).  If
there is some formula to isolate and measure inertia please share that with
us. The consequence of inertia is very evident to the player and anyone who
promotes heavy hammers must confront this issue.
        As with many debates, extremely opposite models are usually held up
by each opposing side to demonstrate weakness. Concerning light hammers,
very few technicians actually go to the extreme that Ed McMorrow does with
his high touch weights and no leads. My touchweights, and that of most
techs I know, fall in line with the traditional specs, as David also
describes. The difference then, is inertia and tone. It must be a personal,
aesthetic judgement whether or not the tone of heavy hammers is worth the
added inertia. Personally, I still am not convinced that it is (at least
for most pianos) but I will read David's argument.

        My understanding of the papers I have read on the pianos'
non-linearity is that if hammers need to be heavier, that is only in the
bass. They should actually be even lighter in the treble. The problem of
course, is creating an  illusion of relative evenness in touch. What if we
somehow incorporated a slight gradation in leverage from low in the treble
to higher in the bass and balanced this with a larger gradation in hammer
mass from top to bottom?-- Just a wild idea, not too serious.

        I hope that we can take up the issue of inertia now as well,
because we have gone far beyond the context of our original discussion
concerning inertia months ago.

Dennis Johnson
St. Olaf College