Hejsan, Richard, > this one caught me a bit off guard Heh. > the closer these two points are to behaveing as a pivot.. Like, if there were some sort of linkage between the parts? ;) > the less friction and perhaps better delivery of present leverage... In that case, yes! > That the pivot is unobtainable doesnt change that getting as close as > one can improves efficiency ?? That depends - if where the path of contact intersects the line of centers the normal of the profiles is not perpendicular to the line, the difference makes a non-zero velocity of sliding at that point - but take a look at the Overs action for a wonderful counterexample. Also, to a small extent the key will flex and the pad will compress during real playing, effectively lowering the profiles in comparison with the bench setting; following Hohf's guidelines, this concentrates more of the motion to the approach phase where Albert & Rogers suggest the local causes further may be aggravated. > this would apply much more to the jack / > knuckle / whippen contact sequence then the capstan / whippen cushion. No contest here, and I notice Ron Overs and Bill Ballard have brought this up. In fact, I think this subsystem is more important since the it has a higher ratio of leverage to the key, and the angular motion of parts is much greater than with our topic. Regards, Clark
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC