Hi David, Stanwood uses weight measurements to determine his Kr, because it is a convenient way to get repeatable numbers that one can plug into the equation. Since Stanwood is concerned with touch weight, this is a very practical method to use. In contrast, Phil used the radii of the arcs described by the capstan and heel. This method of measuring the key ratio is more convenient if you are interested in ratios of arcs (angle of the arc described by the hammer vs. the angle of the arc described by the front of the key). It's important not to switch from one method to the other while discussing this. Both methods are valid, but the ratio numbers you will get are different. In either method, the point where the capstan enters the key is not significant as long as the contact point with the heel is unchanged. Vladan ============================== David Love wrote: If I understand Phil's explanation (and my small experiment), the KR is a function of the combination of the contact point with the key and contact point of the top of the capstan with the wippen heal. On a straight up capstan there is not difference. If the capstan is angled back at a 45o angle, the KR as measured from the very top of the capstan will not be equal to the KR as measured from a point on the key directly below the point of contact with the wippen heal. It will be something between the contact point with the key and the point directly below the contact point with the wippen heal. Therefore, angling the capstan does lower the ratio (assuming the the same contact point on the wippen), you just don't get the full benefit of the new position vis a vis the contact point with the key. But maybe someone can provide the math. David Love __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides! http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC