R&D news (was even balance weight, thread length etc.)

[Stephen Birkett]

David Love writes:
>  I don't really know how to handle the inertia question in a
>quantifiable way--not yet anyway.  There are those who are working on the
>project, though, and it will be interesting to see what comes of it.

to which Bill B commented:
>If you are referring to Stephen Birkett (as you did in the original 
>post), I'll let him speak for himself. Yes, he will produce the 
>Mother of All dynamic grand action mathematical models. No, he 
>didn't the Guild  Foundation funding he'd been asking for five years 
>ago, and the actual source of the funding will be the beneficiary of 
>his work. What I know he told me in a private email, but I don't 
>think I'm abusing his confidence.

Yo. I'm still around lurking in the dark recesses of the ptg list. 
And yes....research is underway to develop the dynamic action model I 
proposed here and elsewhere so many times. There is also quite a bit 
of exciting experimental work going on, much of it quite novel, 
trying to get to the bottom of action dynamics and the old chestnut 
about exactly what a pianist can control vs what they think they are 
controlling [the latter must be taken equally seriously].

We're also working hard on the other monster thread topic of 
bridge/soundboard movement,  in the general context of vibratory 
behaviours in the piano. No model on that one yet - we want to 
understand exactly what is going on physically first. I have some 
confidence we might be able to provide an unequivocal verification of 
the mechanisms involved in string/bridge/soundboard coupling....but 
that would make things a whole lot more dull here without those 
periodic heated debates from the two camps, so maybe I should keep 
quiet about it.

Details on the current piano technology research at 
<http://real.uwaterloo.ca/~sbirkett>. Follow the obvious link. 
There's some related stuff about historical materials which might 
interest some (soft iron wire and hammer leather). Also obvious links.

Bill again:
>But just to keep things sober and in perspective, all of this 
>pertains to the mechanical aspect of the action's "feel". It doesn't 
>directly accomplish anything for the sound of the piano, which is 
>where the art and the gift in our business lies.

Yes indeed. But this mystery aspect can certainly be explored 
experimentally. The piano is ultimately just a machine, albeit a 
complex one with fast-moving, and sometimes very small, components, 
but still a predictable deterministic system. The mystery of its 
behaviour is shrouded more in the difficulty a human observer faces 
in trying to visualize and grasp all the motions and 
inter-relationships dynamically, than in the obvious  complexity of 
the behaviour. Asking the right (non-loaded) questions is the most 
difficult part. Experimentation based on simply extending the 
observational capabilities of the human investigator can be a very 
effective way to become a dispassionate observer without 
pre-conceived theories, an "eye opener" if you like, and I have a 
feeling there will be some eye-opening when we delve deeper into some 
of the fundamental topics.

And the "D" in my thread label "R&D" is definitely part of my 
long-range plan, once we gain some ground on the "R" part.

Stephen
-- 
Dr Stephen Birkett
Associate Professor
Department of Systems Design Engineering
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario
Canada N2L 3G1

Davis Building Room 2617
tel: 519-888-4567 Ext. 3792
PianoTech Lab Ext. 7115
mailto: sbirkett@real.uwaterloo.ca
http://real.uwaterloo.ca/~sbirkett