What matters most ?

[Bill Ballard]

At 2:41 AM +0200 8/24/03, Richard Brekne wrote:
>A440A@aol.com wrote:
>  >    Leverage can really change the perception of heaviness, but not for both
>>  ppp and FFF playing.  A heavy FW might feel smooth and light when played
>>  slowly, but its inertial resistance goes up with the square of 
>>velocity,(I think),
>>  so that smooth,controllable action begins to fight back when you 
>>try to play it
>>  fast and loud.
>
>I am not sure whether you are refering to counterbalancing or 
>leverage in the above....
>could you go more into how leverage itself (without regard to any 
>particular mass
>levels) influence the perception of heaviness ?

What Ed is saying is that while leverage can change the perception of 
heaviness, there is one part of the perception of heaviness which 
remains constant: the advantage of high inertia in Birkett's Soft 
Zone, and its complementary disadvantage in the Hard Zone.

At 2:31 AM +0200 8/24/03, Richard Brekne wrote:
>And since top action inertia
>is by far dominated by the mass of the hammer moving at whatever velocity its
>moving at... isnt the choice of hammer strike weights quite a 
>determinant factor
>relative to top action inertia ?

Agreed. However just not the *only* determinant.

At 2:31 AM +0200 8/24/03, Richard Brekne wrote:
>What kind of <<usual>>
>configuration do you run into that meets the fly away condition above then ?

Usually the fly-away condition is a function of low friction, as 
Susan mentions. However since you were exploring unusual combinations 
and placements of inertia, the possibility exists that a low inertia 
action on top of a key inertia key could produce that......but as 
I've suggested in a later post, not likely. But hey, no one ever got 
thrown in the slammer for being theoretical, or for *only thinking* 
about bank robbery.

At 2:31 AM +0200 8/24/03, Richard Brekne wrote:
>No.. I wasnt really thinking along the lines of Stephens zones... 
>they are for key
>inertia only to begin with.

To the contrary, while it may have been illustrated as a simple 
lever, it could work just as easily for compounded levers, reduced, 
like a piano action.

At 2:31 AM +0200 8/24/03, Richard Brekne wrote:
>  it perhaps is worth
>thinking through in perspective of some of the other points being 
>brought up...
>particularilly David Loves hinting at how individual ratios sum together
>differently to create the same overall action ratio.

I agree. Mechanically it makes no difference in terms of what dip and 
blow will be, where the low ratio lever in the system is, whether the 
key of the shank. Both David Love and Mark Davidson share your 
concern (and Ed Foote has already shared his experience) as to 
whether two such actions with identical SWRs would behave 
identically, viewed dynamically. Steven Birkett has the mans. We 
don't.

At 5:26 PM +0200 8/23/03, Richard Brekne wrote:
>  > "When writing a mental note, first procure a mental piece of paper"
>>       ............mental graffiti
>>
>
>Does this mean more or less... make sure you were in the right line when they
>handed out the brains ?? :)

It means, if you have to ask the question, you were in the wrong line 
to begin with. <g> I'm out of here. I'm taking my oldest boy to his 
freshman dorm at Wentworth I.T. in Boston tomorrow. I'll pick up the 
thread tomorrow afternoon. Y'all play nice now.

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

"I'll play it and tell you what it is later...."
     ...........Miles Davis
++++++++++++++++++++