Stanwood Standards

[Richard Brekne]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment


Bill Ballard wrote:

> At 11:21 PM +0200 4/9/03, Richard Brekne wrote:
> >And while I most certainly define that to include a wider degree of
> >acceptable parameters then perhaps you do,  I have a hard time
> >imagining the configuration you give here. Quite an example.... high
> >strike weights causing a 12.7 mm key dip..... I wont even bother
> >thinking what kind of SW-ratio we were imagining here :)
>
> Ric, the next time you call it a SW ratio I'm coming after you with a
> wet noodle. <g> Actually, I have no difficulty imagining it
> (outlandish as David later says it is). There are two ways to bring
> the BW down in such a high SW situation without messing up the FWs:
> counter-balance the weight not with lead but with rep helper springs,

Yes.... but Davids example stipulated no helper springs, and I know he
doesnt all that much lead as in our previous disscussion expressed some
concern as to whether going over 90 % of Stanwoods max FW table (the one
made pubic) would compromise the action. So that leaves us with  SW-ratio
(the term used in present distributed documentation) to do the job. Lets
see... that would put us down around the 4.4 area or something ???? which
roughly translated to the way Ron Overs measures the action ratio to 4.0.
Or I suppose we could go for a 30 mm hammer line :)  an equally
interesting proposition eh ??

Ok.. exageration is cool enough. But  it didnt get accompanied with a
clear answer to my question.... also cool enough when it comes down to
it.

> or push the Strike Balance Ratio (SBR) down low enough to carry that
> kind of weight  while keeping the BW and FWs in line. With the
> latter, there's only so high you can set the hammer line under the
> pinblock, and from there you have to head off towards a 1/2" dip (and
> maybe  beyond.)

> As far out in right field as removing all keyleads and grinding away
> at the hammers until the DW is once again visible on the horizon, the
> left field solution. Both of these are logical extensions of a
> particluar priority, in the first, high SWs and the second zero FWs.

Actually.... as long as we are going to lend a note of seriousness to the
example roughly sketched as

     "use high strike weights without assist springs, you end up
     with 1/2" key dip"

It might be fun to work that scenario backwards and take a look at just
what different configurations would result. Lets further assume that FW's
can not exceed Stanwoods FW max and no low limit. And lets also assume
you can do what you want to the hammerline.

I'm off on a tuning overnighter for a couple days, and will check back in
friday evening. After that I am off to Amsterdam to visit Andre' for the
Easter holidays.

>
> Actually David's designs (not the metrology) are based on logical
> extensions. Plot a set of SWs, see a jagged line and decide that, if
> SW is a significant function of the action's set-up,  an even and
> consistent set-up asks for that jagged line to be brought to a smooth
> curve. Same thing with FWs or BWs. Uneveness, challenging us to do
> something about it.

Thats quite a simplification, and one that ignores the implications of
the real uneveness in hammer mass and key mass. We are not simply making
a chart look good here.

>
> David Love is right: perfectly playable actions can be put together
> without such compelling obsessions. But just like any car salesman
> can make money during good times, anybody can get an action to work
> which has a reasonable key ratio and hammer weights. It wouldn't even
> require knowing that these aspect were working in your favor. It's
> there outliers (statistically) where the metrology really shines.
> Without it one is really in the dark.

I aggreed with that point. Tho I believe at this point I would begin to
look at invoking the word "compromise" when the availability of such an
easy to use perspective allows us such an improvment, yet we insist on
doing what has always been done.

Sure... nobody has denied that a decent action job can be accomplished by
other means. Certainly not me. I would like to think that at the same
time, no one is denying the rather radical improvement these protocols
afford both in time, predictability, and performance.

> The metrology really is a language, and sometimes I think that Ric,
> David and I here on the list are like three grizzled old farts on a
> park bench muttering away in a language which no one else knows or
> understands. But whenever someone else on this list says, "I leaded
> the keys for 50g DW, and the pianist now says its heavier", I wish
> there were more of us. DW. What's that? That plus UW are the two
> knobs on the front door. The good stuff is inside.

> Bill Ballard RPT

Here here !!

See you on Friday. Cheers, my freinds !

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


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/58/8f/a9/2c/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--