>Distance over Weight... the more above 1.0 the better >David >Why? >RicB Richard, This has to be one of your more succinct responses to a post! The only answer I can match it with is "because"! But that has more than twice as many letters as your answer...... So I may as well elaborate. If the efficiency ratio is lower than 1.0 this seems to indicate that the geometry is eating up dip and when dip gets eaten up too fast I say the geometry is inefficient. This problem shows itself when we go for low ratio action setups.. for instance if we set a capstan line to a target SWR of 5.5 and it takes 11mm of dip with a 45mm blow to regulate, then the dip is too deep and the geometry is inefficient. This shows itself as an efficiency ratio that is below 1.0. Really great action setups allow for really low SWR level while still being able to regulate with an acceptable dip/blow. The solution to the example above would be to tweak the geometry... change CP elevations, spread, bore distance.... whatever makes it work... sometimes it's easy like raising up the stack... sometimes your stuck with a bore distance that's too long..... and the solution is less easy.... As to your method of plugging a distance ratio into the equation for computing Front Weights..... The efficiency will show up in you final Balance Weights.... If your spec BW was 38 and you end up with an average level of 38 then your distance ratio matches your weight ratio and the efficiency ratio is 1.0. If you end up with and average result of 36 then you've got a super efficient setup and your efficiency ratio is above 1.0. If your average BW ends up say 40 then your efficiency ratio is below 1.0 and the setup would benefit with some tweaking. Accuracy in measuring distance ratios needs to be within a tenth of a ratio to give this kind of meaning to the balance weights.... David Stanwood
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC