> >I'm not sure why that wouldn't improve the key ratio. You have a >straight up capstan with a key ratio of, say .52 (using the Stanwood >method). You relocate the capstan keeping the contact point with the >wippen heel the same but moving the capstan key contact point closer to >the balance rail by angling the capstan. The measured key ratio will >now be less than .52 and the overall SWR will have decreased as will. > >I'm not sure I even understand what is meant by > >"What they have accomplished is to move the >contact point between the top of the capstan and the >wippen heel a little closer to the balance point, so >that the key ratio has changed." > >Do you mean by virtue of the capstan leaning it now contacts the wippen >heal on the front edge of the top of the capstan? I would say that is >probably insignificant. Much less, anyway, than the repositioning of >the capstan/key contact point. > > > >David Love I'm not sure if this clarification is still needed, but I thought I would follow up anyway. Yes, I am saying that the leaning of the capstan is causing the contact point to be more to the front edge of the capstan top, which is bringing the point of force application on the capstan a little closer to the balance point of the key. It seems like it should be insignificant, but as your experiment shows, what matters is the point of force application, so this small change is significant enough to affect touchweight. I mentioned this because I have heard a few people say that they have decreased touchweight by leaning the capstans back and they seemed to be assuming it was because of the capstan leaning. It wasn't. It was because, in the process, the point of force application was moved somewhat. Phil Ford
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC