action ratios

[Bill Ballard]

At 6:12 PM -0800 11/3/02, David Love wrote:
>And I agree with you.  I just wanted to clarify that whether measuring by
>distance or weight, assuming the measurement is done accurately, the results
>should be the same.

....Should be the same, but it hasn't actually confirmed yet. The 
best trial we've got so far is Terry's 3-way measurement, and that 
didn't look so good, graphed.

If I had to pick a word, I'd say the measurements are "parallel". But 
the last time we talked about this, I suspected that a discrepancy 
between these two derivations of action ratio (linear and weight) 
remained to be dealt with.

At 2:37 PM -0400 10/7/02, Bill Ballard wrote:
>I agree, but with a reservation. I just suspect that both measures 
>of the ratio have aspects which need cleaning up. In the weight 
>measurement of ratio, it's the unpredictable behavior of friction. 
>In the linear measurement it's the conversion of the length of lever 
>arms (regardless of orientation with "up" and "down") to the angular 
>motions of pivoted lines. I can't guarantee that a correlation 
>between the two wouldn't be skewed because the continuing error in 
>each approach might pull the accuracy of each in different 
>directions.

This is why I echo David S's caution to avoid mix'n'matching these 
measurements.

I can think of one test for the weight measurement which would 
display the focus of its accuracy. As far an an angular reading, I 
tried that yesterday afternoon on a Yamaha action model and came up 
with action ratio of 3.99. I didn't get to try other readings on that 
action model.


Bill Ballard RPT
NH Chapter, P.T.G.

".......true more in general than specifically"
     ...........Lenny Bruce, spoofing a radio discussion of the Hebrew 
roots of Calypso music
+++++++++++++++++++++