---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Bill Ballard wrote: > At 10:05 PM -0400 6/10/03, Mark Davidson wrote: > >I wouldn't say that static balancing is meaningless, but for Stanwood's > >system to work, you have to have smooth weights AND smooth geometry. I think > >the latter is understood, but not necessarily emphasized enough. Without > >smooth geometry, the system falls apart pretty quickly. > > Actually I like a system which is based on both smooth weight AND > geometry. And Actually actually, this is just yet another one of those misconceptions that keep getting circulated about what Stanwood is and isnt. Of course.... of course static weight balancing is contigent upon reasonably good, (for not to say optimal) geometry. And of course getting this geometry at least within acceptable parameters is a prerequisite for doing the job, and for checking BW for that matter. If there is anything that is not understood, it is that Stanwood does not, has not, and no doubt will never claim anything else. In point of fact... the whole method provides an excellent tool for finding an smoothing certain aspects of geometric issues commonly overlooked. -- 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 ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/62/48/e7/13/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC