Key Leads and Inertia

[Mark Davidson]

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment
I think perhaps I shouldn't have used the work "geometry" as I
did not mean to suggest "action geometry" in the usual sense. 
I was referring to the note to note evenness of dimensions 
of all the parts in the action.  Since inertia is a function of
mass and position, smooth inertia is implied by smooth mass and
smooth position.

-Mark

>Bill Ballard wrote:
>
>At 10:05 PM -0400 6/10/03, Mark Davidson wrote:
>>I wouldn't say that static balancing is meaningless, but for >Stanwood's
>>system to work, you have to have smooth weights AND smooth >geometry.  I think
>>the latter is understood, but not necessarily emphasized >enough.  Without
>>smooth geometry, the system falls apart pretty quickly. 
>Actually I like a system which is based on both smooth weight >AND
>geometry.
>
>Richard Brenke wrote:
>
>And Actually actually, this is just yet another one of those >misconceptions that keep getting circulated about what Stanwood >is and isnt. Of course.... of course static weight balancing is >contigent upon reasonably good, (for not to say optimal) >geometry. And of course getting this geometry at least within >acceptable parameters is a prerequisite for doing the job, and >for checking BW for that matter.
>
>If there is anything that is not understood, it is that >Stanwood does not, has not, and no doubt will never claim >anything else.
>
>In point of fact... the whole method provides an excellent tool >for finding an smoothing certain aspects of geometric issues >commonly overlooked.


---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/ab/0c/25/3d/MESSAGE.HTML

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment--