Phillip Ford wrote: > >>Phil F wrote: This gives us a predicament. We then have to choose > >>between biasing towards optimizing soft zone play or optimizing hard > zone play. > > > >Bill Ballard wrote: The original choice is not between steep or shallow, > > >it is between choosing or not choosing. Like the original sin, it's not > >which sin you'd pick, but whether you're going to be a "sinner". > > Or perhaps whether you're going to knowingly be a sinner. If this concept of soft zone and hard zone turns out to be important then by putting leads in the key in a somewhat arbitrary fashion we have already sinned, but we may not be aware of it. I suppose this study will be the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Once you partake thereof, you can't go back. > Hmmm ... I wonder. Stanwood now suggests counterbalancing be centered around a position roughly the same distance from the fulcrum as the capstan is on the other side. This give basically the condition of a partially balanced key with the breakpoint where input force = 3W1 and acceleration is at 2g. The quantity of BW (i.e. the degree of balancing) would yield the slope of the line. If the BW is even, and the breakpoint is consistant, then this should yield pretty consistant dynamic action balance. Or what ? -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC