Key Leads and Inertia

[Richard Brekne]

Bill Ballard wrote:

>
> I could think of some mechanical studies. At one point I wanted to
> find out if the hammer tail and the backchecks were ever in contact
> during deep and fast repetition. I mean, that's what this kind of
> repetition seems to ask for (among other things). So I fantasied an
> electrical circuit which would be completed by contact between these
> two parts, a brass mesh grid wrapped around the hammer tail and a
> single flattened wire running down the face of the backcheck. Anytime
> the two touch, an indicator bulb would come on. The same set-up could
> monitor decoupling between a capstan and a wippen heel cushion.
>

Sure... and its all really interesting and what not.. but in the end all this
will only provide us with pictures and explainations as to what exactly it is
in terms of mechanics that pianists like when the choose this or that and the
other action.  Certainly providing pianists with new opportunities allows them
new choices to either opt for or against, but in the end, the study of what the
pianist likes is not the same thing as the study of what the action designer
can configure.

> .... I would imagine a solenoid capable of delivering 1kg of
> force, with variable excursion, in continuous cycles of up to 15/sec.
> With knobs to set all of these. The mounting of this in relation to
> the key could include actuating the key, beginning at half stroke.
> (Not just fast but deep repetition, also.)

This is the other area of action design that I wonder about. And it goes along
the lines of providing an action configuration that exceeds what a pianist
needs... or even has the possibility of exploiting. Whose finger can provide 1
kg of force 15 times a second to a piano key ??

> >Some folks are just plain going to like the feel of lead driven
> >counterbalancing
> >compared to springs or magnets.
>
> As we heard of Don Mannino, and as we would expect of many
> generations of pianists raised on pianos with conventional levels of
> inertia.
>

I think we have to be open to the possiblilty, that this doesnt have anything
to do with tradition. Besides... helper springs have been around for a long
time. I just did an action exactly like David Love described and it was 70
years old. I think pianists have been very much exposed to the possiblities of
helper springs over a good long time now. And I think, they consistantly
comment about action play and touchweight concerns in ways that do not point in
the direction of helper springs.

We could always use lots and lots of money to set up all these blind tests...
or we can each choose what we think is best and go for it. I think the later
will in the end do the job just as well. Especially when we can parallell to
this do all the mechanics studies our hearts desire to help us understand just
what it is the pianist likes about one touch or another.


> >Grin... we are going in circles me thinks....
>
> We've been going around in circles for a while. I just don't know
> who's Fred and who's Ginger. <g>

Well... I got the Grin... GRIN !!

>
> >I dont believe there exists a desirable BW/FW combination that
> >cannot be accomplished without the use of assist springs. I also
> >dont believe there exists a desirable SW level that cannot
> >be comfortably counterbalanced with leads and an appropriate ratio.
>
> Yep, we can leave it at that, with user-defined values such as
> "desirable", "comfortable", and "appropriate". No problem.

Thats really what it boils down to.. in the end. The mechanics end of that will
just specify to a greater degree just exactly what it is that is "desirable",
"comfortable", and "appropriate".....

Why do some kids like chocolate ice cream more then strawberry ???.. why does a
cow field smell bad to the average city slicker... ?? why is there air ??

> >In fact,  Stephen's slopes would seem to be telling us that the adjustment
> >of BW should be done from exactly a mass standpoint instead.
>
> What he has said so far is that using mass in the key sick to adjust
> BW should also comply with how that mass is also determining the
> key's moment of inertia. Which is to say that you pick one spot to
> make your mass adjustments (which determines the force on inertia to
> be encountered), and that you vary the size of that mass to determine
> the force of gravity to be encountered. But that's when what you're
> employing to adjust BW is mass, and not say another force, say
> magnetism or deformation of an elastic material.

Thats one way of looking at it... Another way is to understand that if you are
going to use mass, then the more you use to achieve a given counter balance,
the steeper the slope ( or more like the unleaded keys slope) and the larger
the area is that seperates soft play from hard.

There exists no soft zone for an unleaded key. David Stanwoods comments about
Keith Jarrett and his "breakaway" struck me immediatly... especially given the
fact that as soon as Keith had his normal strenght back.. he needed it and the
solution was to add leads.

Cheers

RicB

--
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