shank strike weights

[William Ballard]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
At 4:09 PM -0500 11/18/05, Erwinspiano@aol.com wrote:
>I don't find the patent issue on the salient point of how David 
>leads keys of any concern to me at this time. I have an open mind . 
>Someone feel free to change it. I'm not saying it doesn't have merit 
>& isn't a valuable technique.........

You're a case in point, Dale. David came up with his FW Equation of 
Balance as a response to the challenge that all his measurements were 
static/gravitational, and had no way of directly measuring the 
dynamic/inertial. The FW Equation of Balance still only infers the 
inertial load of a keyset, rather than measuring it directly. But it 
still does it more precisely than most factories do, And I consider 
an excellent response to the challenge hitting both a smooth FW curve 
(static/gravitational) and a smooth inertial curve with the same 
spacing of keyleads.

That's the only part of David's metrology with is covered by patent 
(although some of us may have noticed when he gave it to us for free 
here on PTx).

>......but most Custom balancers are not using it any way, in it's 
>patented intended form.

Most custom balancers aren't served with the same challenge that 
David was, having to prove that his system would not fail at the 
point of hitting FWs and inertia simultaneously. Few of the rest of 
us are not currently worried that the way we arrange lead in a keyset 
doesn't concern itself with smooth inertial content across the keyset.

John Hartman's device can measure inertial behavior (and thus, 
content). However, to hit both FW and inertia simultaneously would 
have one hopping back and forth between the set-up for reading 
inertia and the set-up for reading FW, in a manner of iterations 
which I'm not going to call practical. Stephen Birkett's of course 
requires grant funding, and does fit easily in a tool box. <G>

Fazioli is using magnetic balancing, and probably under license from 
the patent of its originator (a Dutchman, I believe). If there is 
anything to learn on why a piano factory might choose to incorporate 
the innovation of an individual tech (say, this person or David) and 
as a result, the greater value of such patents, we could start by 
exploring Fazioli's decision.

(Yeah, I know, lead is soon to be banned in European pianos, and 
magnets are the next best substitute......if you're unwilling to 
consider helper springs. Yeah, and also magnets are no more than a 
substitute for lead, whereas David's is a comprehensive system to 
analyze whether the amount of counterbalancing asked for by the 
action is reasonable, and further to make sure that everything 
measured as a part of that analysis can be made as smooth as 
possible.)

It's still an exciting frontier.

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

Reality is the first casualty of technology
     ...........NPR Commentator Daniel Schorr
+++++++++++++++++++++
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/1f/a4/27/d0/attachment.htm

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