Low Inertia

[David Love]

The relationship is inexact or has not been established, I don't think
anyone disagrees with that.  Whether finding a relationship is "non-doable"
I can't say.  

With respect to my fist paragraph I stand by what I stated which can be
reduced to simple terms:  If you change the leverage with respect to weight,
you will change the leverage with respect to distance.  That will result in
a change in the way the action regulates.  On a practical level that means
if you change the knuckle hanging or move the capstan, be prepared to accept
a change in regulation.  Whether it's minimal or maximal will depend on the
degree of change.  I don't want to get bogged down in your parsing of words.


God, why do I bother?  (rhetorical question, answer not required)

David Love
davidlovepianos at comcast.net 
www.davidlovepianos.com

-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of Richard Brekne
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 1:55 PM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Low Inertia

Greetings

    As I said, it would nice to establish the relationship because
    weight and distance ratios currently are not the same.  That was
    what I took Jude to be
    referring to.  I assume you meant you weren't sure this was possible
    rather than "accurate" since I made no claim one way or the other.


ref:  http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/2008-October/228063.html  
Actually I would say that I felt your first paragraph was somewhat 
inaccurate, and that your second paragraph expressed a desire for some 
that that is basically non-doable.  The different action ratio protocols 
are only in the most general sense related. And the translation from one 
to the other involves complications due to the nature of the SWR as I 
outlined.

    With reference to change in SW Ratio and change in regulation.  I
    didn't qualify whether the change would be significant or not.  The
    issue is that any change in the action ratio will result in a change
    in regulation specs. You can compensate for that change by adjusting
    the blow distance, the aftertouch or the dip and the amount of the
    compensation may in fact be minimal if the change to the ratio is
    minimal.  So a change in the SW ratio does mean a change in the
    regulation specs, necessarily.  It may not be a significant change
    but there will be a change.  

    David Love

An <<insignificant>> change in blow for a very significant change in SWR 
did not seem to reflect the essence of your rational.  You seemed to be 
stating that changing the SWR would necessitate regulation spec changes 
that were quite significant... tho you indeed did not expressly use the 
word. Sorry if I misunderstood. tho indeed... you do in your response 
say "the amount of the compensation may in fact be minimal if the change 
to the ratio is minimal" which is not really the case. The change in 
SWR  *can*  be significant while the resultant requirement for change in 
regulation specs quite insignificant. Again.. due to the nature of the 
SWR protocol as opposed to the distance protocol.

Cheers
RicB