Upweight Maximums

[Richard Brekne]

Bill Ballard wrote:

>
> I was referring to it as a trick question because you didn't tell us
> where the SWs were. We were to deduce that, and where we placed our
> bet was going to tell you something. But in fact, the Lady (or is it
> the Tiger) wasn't being specific with you, so you were no better
> informed than the rest of us.

Hmm... lets just go with "the person". Seemed tho that the SW's were a given since
we had to assume a piano that somebody from this planet could possibly think
equated to light play. :) Also... UW of 40 +, and as little key leading as
possible.  But ok... a trick question it was then.... That excuses me from using a
"puzzle" post. :)

>
> High SWs are going to show up as extra friction, well out of line
> with "8-10g". So I bet on low SWs. Which is why low FWs would have to
> be responsible for such high BWs. Which heads off in the direction of
> LHTR. That was the scenario I was assuming you were handing us for
> consideration.

Yes... the friction moment needs also to be plugged into this whole thing... good
point indeed. And you were correct. It does lean heavily towards LHTR, tho Ed does
not speak of such high Up Weights unless I am mistaken.

>
> The two scenarios I handed back illustrated two flavors of
> "lightness". The first one, inertial, doesn't care about BWs, only
> FWs (and yes, SWs and SBRs). Lightness in the gravitational balancing
> of the action doesn't care how heavy the hammers are, nor the FWs:
> all that matters is that the difference between the weight on the
> front side of the key is kept to a specified amount below the weight
> on the backside of the key. IOW, BW.
>
> The more experienced pianists seem to notice lower inertia, as the
> "lighter scenario.

What might be helpfull is attempting to define action configurations with regard to
the already mentioned contributing factors, that result in these kinds of
definitions of action performance. Something beyond the simple SW Ratio value
(number)

>
> >The amount of hammer mass, and the voice of the hammers they have at any given
> >mass level figure quite significantly into the pianists experience of the
> >"heaviness" or "lightness" of the action... as these preceptions are nearly
> >impossible to seperate from  "responsiveness" for nearly anyone who
> >simply plays
> >the instrument.
>
> Once again, it's like how any different versions of "perfect pitch"
> there are. How lightness is measure/perceived depends on who's doing
> the measuring. We techs read with gram weights. Pianists notice how
> quickly a keyboard snaps up to the speed with which they approach it.

>
> >Richard Brekne wrote:
> >So for the sake of keeping us
> >all on the same page, I would suggest that designating this as the "SW ratio"
> >instead of simply the "ratio" is definatly a good idea.
>
> I once got slapped with a wet noodle for not referring to it as
> "Strike Balance ratio" (SBR). Ooooh, it felt so good  <g>
>

Well... its just that recent realizations have shown me that the SW Ratio is a
different puppy then other ratio measureing conventions, in as much as it yeilds a
different value. So  refering to a 5.3 ratio really is meaningless since that could
mean 5.3 SW ratio and at the same time roughly a 5.6 total action ratio based on
some other widely used convention for measureing the ratio.

That being said... if you LIKE being slapped... hehe.. I am sure we can oblige more
often.


>
> Bill Ballard RPT
> NH Chapter, P.T.G.
>
> "When writing a mental note, first procure a mental piece of paper"
>      ............mental graffitti
> +++++++++++++++++++++
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives

--
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
UiB, Bergen, Norway
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html