[CAUT] balancier/wippens report

[Jim Busby]

Ric,

Fwiw, I agree with your disagreement on Wim's points (1,2 & 4). That is
also my experience. I would also like to see an article/collaboration on
the topic. 

Richard Davenport strongly advocates 8-10 grams (I believe) in the
balancier pinning and offers compelling reasons. It might be good to get
his input, since that is one of his big "things".

Also, S&S promotion of 1-3 pinning in the hammer flanges and "Zero is OK
as long as there is no side play..." (paraphrased from their manual)
needs debunking. It's flat wrong IMO. Even though they do have their
"special" impregnated bushing cloth, zero simply ain't good.

Regards,

Jim Busby 

-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
RicB
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 12:16 PM
To: caut at ptg.org
Subject: [CAUT] balancier/wippens report

Hey there David...

Even tho I dont agree with those exact four points he made, the two 
discussions we've had this past month or so were so good that Wim  has 
no doubt assembled lots of material for an article discussing various 
viewpoint and solutions to checking problems.  I didnt quite pick up on 
whether he had once and for all solved his nut  (no reference to pp 
inferred :) ) but if he has then of course we are all just tickled pink 
about it.

As for the collective approach to the article and your reasoning for 
doing so... that also sounds very appealing to me.  And I do like your 
idea of a sub-list for banging heads together for article stuff... And 
not just for this theme... there are plenty of things to be written 
about that CAUT list has provided tons of material for.  Nice idea !

Cheers
RicB


    RicB -
    I'm not sure why, given your disagreement with Wim's conclusions,
you
    are pressing him to write an article.  I myself am happy that he was
    able to resolve this problem before the end of the year so he can
get
    smashed without a lingering sense of self doubt
    and...foreboding?  However, I don't think the solution necessarily
    captures the subtleties of the issue and I think that any article
put
    into the Journal should, at this point, be as definitive as
    possible.  Why don't we all write it?  I don't think we've tried
that
    before.  See if Ron can set up a temporary sub-list of sorts, with
    the specific objective of producing a definitive and accurate
    description of checking function and parameters.  Two alternate
    possibilities are a) someone with the tools and expertise is already
    working on it, and/or b) such documentation already exists, in which
    case, we should locate it and republish it, with due credit, of
course.

    Happy Holidays

    David Skolnik