Key Leads and Inertia

[Richard Brekne]

Bill Ballard wrote:

> At 3:41 PM +0200 6/13/03, Richard Brekne wrote:
> >Bill.. on the one hand the use of springs is touted so as to be able
> >to reap the
> >benifits of less mass in the key, then on the other hand one turns around and
> >seemingly takes a position that suddenly states there is no significant
> >difference between using springs, and using leads.... whats it going to be ?
>
> I don't know how to answer this. You might check with the "one" whom
> you quote as saying that "there is no significant difference between
> using springs, and using leads...."
>

I didnt quote anyone... you see any quote marks anywhere ?? I sure dont. I
paraphrased one of the positions I see out there relating to the ongoing arguement
about assist springs. I see folks on both sides of this fence employing less then
purely factual  or rational reasonings. And it seems to me its been going on for a
long time. I am not sure where you are trying to take this Bill. Are you trying to
deny folks have been argueing about this ? or are you simply trying to put
everyone whose preferences do not include the use of assist springs in some kind
of box... or what ?

>
> The significant difference which I was looking for was between
> springs and magnets. I'd stated what, on the surface, they seem to
> have in common, as well as echoing your comment that the former were
> applied to the wippen, the latter the keys. That difference I
> consider to be significant in principle. Its implications for deep
> and fast repetition while much hinted at, have yet to be explored
> with the kind of rigorous experiments which we all trust. (Maybe it
> has, but such explorations haven't been part of the discussions on
> this list.)

And I think I agreed with this position. Along with adding that I thought the
loading the key instead of the whippen might also be significant...and I think I
hinted a bit as to why without going into it too much. Seemed to me like Davids
post made some of that a bit more clear.

> >At least one of the facts relating to this is that replacement of mass by
> >springs means the action will behave differently, or there would be
> >no point in
> >replaceing the one with the other in the first place.
>
> No disagreement here. The same would hold true if the mass was
> replaced by magnets.
>
> >What one prefers, is another thing entirely.
>
> At some point, we'll get around to what is the basis for your (and
> David Love's) preference not to use them. Hopefully the performance
> shortcomings of helper springs can be demonstrated in trials an
> engineer would be happy with.

I've stated this several times, and so has David. I dont see they are necessary to
achieve touch and repetition levels that are within (and beyond with regard to
repetion) the levels pianists use for.

I said nothing about performance shortcomings, I did mention that in fact helper
springs are largely ignored once installed, and when first somebody dinks around
with them... they most often do indeed dink. This seems to applie to the new
whippen as well.

So if they are just going to sit there, or be misused, and arent neccessary in the
first place... whats the point ?... to satisfy some engineer ????


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

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