measuring ratios/ popsicle puzzle

[RicB]

Hi Clark

Yes, I agree. And I think Jon Page does as well by and large.  This has
been my point nearly from the get go with Stanwood.  It is IMHO
primarily an action balancing and ratio diagnostics tool. Stanwood will
counter by pointing out that the range of regulation parameters that can
fit the window of <<acceptable>> Strike Weight Ratios is large enough to
accommodate just about anything from 5.0 to 6.4.  This is true if you
accept being able to vary key dip from 9.5 to 11 mm, blow from 44-- to
48 ++ mm, and letoff from 1.5 to 3 mm.  And indeed many techs (and
pianists) will accept these figures.  But stop and think for a second.
A 11 mm dip, and a 44 mm blow  AND a 3 mm letoff all at the same time so
as too facilitate a low Stanwood ratio ??  Not me at any rate.

I more or less agree with Jon Page on this. Align the action so as to
achieve optimum performance with regard to its geometry, then take
Stanwoods methods into use to balance the resulting ratio.

If you do want to change the overall ratio,  do that first.  Much like
we would always do a good regulation first before attempting to take
good BW measurements required to find the Stanwood ratio.

All this said. Acquainting oneself with Stanwoods methodology is IMHO
one of the best moves any action tech can take.  There is very much
valuable insight into the world of action performance waiting for you there.

Cheers
RicB


    OK, then.  It would seem to me (as a not-too familiar with Stanwood's
    protocols as of yet) that you would need to look at both the distance
    parameters, and after that is determined to be in an acceptable
    range, then
    look at the SW-FW parameters to reach the optimum performance.  In
    the B
    mentioned some time ago, I had to reduce the dip to about 3/8", and
    increase
    the blow to just above the cushions to get a minimal, but still
    adequate
    aftertouch.  This reduced the heavy, unmanageable feel of the
    action.  It is
    still a little heavy, but feels much more responsive.
        So, I would guess that the distance ratios were wrong to start
    with,
    because there were excessive leads in there from the beginning.  And
    things
    got worse when the parts were replaced, as more leads (that were not
    factory
    in appearance) were added at that time.  So both distance and SW/FW
    parameters were compromised, Right?  I wish that I had taken
    measurements at
    the time.  We found someone who liked it, and subsequently bought it.
        I saw in the PTG Leader Letter that a Stanwood class was going
    to be
    held at the Home Office in the spring.  I guess this would be a good
    place
    to start, eh?
    Clark A. Sprague, RPT