Stanwood Standards, was Upweight Maximums

[Richard Brekne]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment


Bill Ballard wrote:

> >What might be helpfull is attempting to define action configurations
> >with regard to
> >the already mentioned contributing factors, that result in these kinds of
> >definitions of action performance. Something beyond the simple SW Ratio value
> >(number)
>
> I agree fully. Now that David has provided us with a comprehensive
> language for describing the arrangement of weight and leverage, we
> have standard descriptions which can be correlated to the subjective
> descriptions of pianists.

You know, now that you mention this particular point I'd like to get something off
my mind. Seems like there are a lot of folks who are spending a good deal of energy
trying to find reasons why the Stanwood system, or his set of standards do not
work, or are erroneous in relation to some other perspectives, or why its
worthless. Most of the criticisms I've seen are really based on too little
understanding of Stanwood Touchweight Design to begin with. Actually, when it comes
right down to it, it doesn't really accomplish allllll that much (at least not in
its present form).  For that matter, it doesn't do nearly as much as some of its
less critical advocates claim, which doesn't help matters I suppose. But what it
does do, it does very very well and easily. And in the doing it provides perfectly
well a basis for doing exactly the kind of thing you point to above.  Seems to me
that it would be best for anyone doing grand action work to thoroughly familiarize
themselves with the whole Stanwood process and system, so we can move on to even
more interesting possibilities. The validity of the whole thing should be accepted
without further a do IMHO.

> >Well... its just that recent realizations have shown me that the SW Ratio is a
> >different puppy then other ratio measureing conventions, in as much
> >as it yeilds a
> >different value.
>
> I'm well aware of your explorations on this matter, and very much in
> favor of such the Grand Unification you seek. For the time being,
> although David's weight-based leverage measurements may not be toeing
> the line with all the other puppies at obedience school (and may have
> a few more fleas), when it comes to setting up an action, I'll stick
> with a weight-based puppy.

It seems a very thorough and exacting treatise on what levers do and do not do
under a variety of conditions is necessary to make that step. It would seem obvious
to me that the so called weight ratio is simply another way of measuring what can
be found by finding the appropriate arm lengths for each lever, but evidently that
obviousness escapes more then I was aware of. In any case... once found such a
convention should be useable for most of the design issues I've seen tossed around.
And those that require either a slightly different perspective would not suffer for
the added clarity provided by a more clearly defined set of standards. The term
"action ratio" today can in reality refer to at least 3 values that differ quite
significantly. And perhaps there are a couple other widely used conventions I
hav'nt run into yet.

>
> >That being said... if you LIKE being slapped... hehe.. I am sure we
> >can oblige more
> >often.
>
> I've engaged a personal trainer who comes in on Wednesday evenings
> for just that. When it comes to getting slapped around, bricks &
> mortar beat out cyber-text any day. <g>

Have to ask.... is this a female type physical abuse professional  ?? :)

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

--
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
UiB, Bergen, Norway
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no
http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/7a/b2/39/63/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--