Mike and Jane Spalding wrote: > Richard, > > Sorry, must take exception to some of your statements, see below. Grin...by all means.... > > -> Well here we are again Sophie my old girl... > > You can call me Mike :) What about everybody else then... ?? > > Just got this in about a course at the Reno Convention... by > > Stannwood himself. I mentioned that I had done an experiment that > > showed a smoother up and down weight by concentrating more leads in > > the center and somebody who declared himself an ex-genuis type > > Not necessarily ex- , I'm hopeful that whatever chops I had in my previous > life I have retained and can put to use in this new one... Course you realize I am just yanking your leg a bit...<chuckle>...but to be sure.... once a genuis always a genuis... hehe.. > > engineer...grin... said he repeated my experiment and could not > > duplicate the results... I of course re checked a few times and got > > the same results as I first did... but figured ahhhh drop it.... > > grin... Anyways... from David Stannwoods course description this > > year.. > > > > "We will feature a new demonstration with a piano key mounted on a > > metronome to show how more keyleads close to the balance rail take > > less force to move than less keyleads further > > out with a discussion of how key lead patterns may be designed to > > enhance action quality." > > > > Now I know force isnt the same as inertia... but all these are > > interelated when it comes to how the action behaves (in all > > respects) when you put a weight on the key.... In anycase...I still > > note that putting equivalant fw weights with a bit more mass towards > > the center invaribly gives me a smoother UW / DW reading. > > > > So where in David's course description did he use the word "smoother"? He didnt... I did... its just what happens every time I do this little experiment.... have tried to duplicate your results by screwing up the regulation a bit in various ways..but no go... My point is simply that Davids course description seemed to point again in the opposite direction.... or maybe inside out......how did that go now...?? In any case it looks like an interesting discussion...If it takes less force to get it moving...seems like its reasonable to asssume that what I experience as smoothness in my measureing of UW / DW would be a natural enough consequence... > Incidentally, I was killing time this morning waiting for a $75 / Hr > mechanic to finish changin the oil in my car, reading through the journal > reprint book on actions and touchweight. Most of these articles are more > than 10 years old. Several authors, including Alan Vincent, Susan Graham, > and Bill Spurlock took the position that key leads should be place as close > to the balance point as possible, to minimize the inertia. Yes... this would be the jist of things.... but then you have the oposite point about inertia made by Vincent in an article too...where he points out that a perfectly balanced teetertotter that has 10 tons (or some such absurd figure) on each side is going to be much harder to get to reverse directions then the same perfectlly balanced teetertotter with next to no weight....at least I think thats what I read... Guess I will have to dig it all out again and read through once more. > See you in Reno. Looking very much forward to it Mike :) -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC