Distance versus Weight

[Richard Brekne]

Hi David, comments interspersed below.

         >Distance over Weight... the more above 1.0 the better
         >David

     >Why?
     >RicB

        David Stanwood writes:
        Richard,
        This has to be one of your more succinct responses to a post!

Why what a nice and encouraging thing to say !  Indeed it inspires me to 
try to best my last.... so here goes.

Since : (relative to plugging a distance ratio into your balance equation:

    Quote from your last :
    "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."

... then it would appear that plugging a good estimate of the distance 
ratio into your equation of balance is just the thing to do. That way BW 
not only serves as a diagnostic for key to key ratio problems but as a 
diagnostic and indeed yeilds a direct value for the efficiency ratio. In 
fact... if one is measuring moment arms directly instead of what I do... 
one could go directly to FW = (((SW*HSR*WR)+WW)*KR)-BW ... the old 
fashioned D1*W1=D2*W2 way of solving for balance... with FW isolated to 
solve for it. (HRS -> Hammershank ratio, WR -> whippen ratio, the rest 
familiar)

    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

Yes... A good point..... a refinement of how I take the distance ratio 
is in order.

Thanks for the post.
RicB