Key Leads and Inertia

[Bill Ballard]

At 3:41 PM +0200 6/13/03, Richard Brekne wrote:
>Bill.. on the one hand the use of springs is touted so as to be able 
>to reap the
>benifits of less mass in the key, then on the other hand one turns around and
>seemingly takes a position that suddenly states there is no significant
>difference between using springs, and using leads.... whats it going to be ?

I don't know how to answer this. You might check with the "one" whom 
you quote as saying that "there is no significant difference between 
using springs, and using leads...."

The significant difference which I was looking for was between 
springs and magnets. I'd stated what, on the surface, they seem to 
have in common, as well as echoing your comment that the former were 
applied to the wippen, the latter the keys. That difference I 
consider to be significant in principle. Its implications for deep 
and fast repetition while much hinted at, have yet to be explored 
with the kind of rigorous experiments which we all trust. (Maybe it 
has, but such explorations haven't been part of the discussions on 
this list.)

>At least one of the facts relating to this is that replacement of mass by
>springs means the action will behave differently, or there would be 
>no point in
>replaceing the one with the other in the first place.

No disagreement here. The same would hold true if the mass was 
replaced by magnets.

>What one prefers, is another thing entirely.

At some point, we'll get around to what is the basis for your (and 
David Love's) preference not to use them. Hopefully the performance 
shortcomings of helper springs can be demonstrated in trials an 
engineer would be happy with.

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
+++++++++++++++++++++