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
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC