June Journal and FW's

[Bill Ballard]

>  Bill Ballard wrote:
>
>>At 9:34 PM +0200 6/1/02, Richard Brekne wrote:
>>>>The wippen assist spring allows you to, in
>>>>effect, change the SBR from note to note by altering the wippen strike
>>>>weight.
>>>>
>>>
>>>????  dont follow you here Dave... The only way the ratio can really
>>>be changed
>>>is by changing the length of one or more of the levers. .... or what ?
>>
>>It's really a neat phenomenon. When you transfer the load balancing
>>from the FWs to the WAS (and remove the now "unemployed" leads), SBR
>>will seem to change, because all of a sudden the same SW can be
>>counter-balanced with less FW. It's an illusion of course.
>
>Ok.. I see that if you simply leave the numbers in the formula alone,,, and
>just change FW to a lower value then you are going to change something
>else...... but to simply change the ratio ... ??.. actually  there is a real
>change in the "weight" component of Whippen Radius.... which as I said last
>would affect the WBW as a whole and could easily turn this into a negative
>number. But doing so wont change the Ratio...
>
>And besides... the Ratio isnt really changed anyways.



>Why do you say then that this is a neat,  (and illusionary) phenomenon ? I
>mean.. of course SW can be counter balanced with less FW... because you have
>substituted for FW... not changed R.

But aint it neat that you can get something to do a continuously 
adjustable range of counterbalancing work up to 20g with something 
which adds no more that 0.2-4g to the system. (That is a couple of 
tenths  of a grams, measured as a dead wight, negligible when 
measured as part of the Wippen Balance Weight.) Pardon my wide-eyed 
wonderment.

>Scratching my head her a bit.

Just scratching the surface, I hope. Scratching or otherwise 
disturbing the gray stuff underneath is counter-effective. <g>

>>More to the point it's a similar effect as increasing the stiffness
>>of the board by adding ribs. Instead of getting the extra stiffness
>>by thickening the panel, you get the same increase of stiffness,
>>without all the extra mass. Sort of like, if you wanted a NY Steinway
>>hammer to sound our favorite premium brick hot pressed hammer, how
>>much extra mass would you have to add. Well, if that mass was in the
>>form of reinforcers like lacquer resins or plastic, not much.
>
>Hmmm.... I dont know about this analogy...grin... sounds more like confusing
>Water Buffaloes with Argentian Whitzie Flies to me. :)

This example is actually easy to keep straight. The latter are always 
found swarming around the backside of the former, not visa versa.

The hammer analogy was more pertinent 18 years ago when I took the 
fork in the road, choosing NY Steinway hammers instead of Renner 
hot-pressed hammers. Nowadays, most hammer makers offer a lo-fat 
hammer but back then, the available Renner hammer was the Gross-5, 
which was considerably heavier than the contemporary NY Steinway. As 
always, NY Steinway started soft and got reinforced up, the Renner 
started hard and got needled and squeezed soft. The Renner certainly 
didn't lose any weight in that process, and what the NY Steinway 
gained in weight while picking up strength amounted to (once again) a 
tenth or two grams of lacquer resin, a few % points of the difference 
in weight between these two makers' hammer weights.

Bill Ballard RPT
NH Chapter, P.T.G.

"I gotta go ta woik...."
     ...........Ian Shoales, Duck's Breath Mystery Theater
+++++++++++++++++++++