What's all this I hear about Inertia ?

[Richard Brekne]

Richard,

David, my friend

As already stated, I retract and explain the root of my blunder her, and 
apologize for the lack of carefulness in responding to relevant posts. 
The use of WW visa vi WBW has been up many times and as such things 
usually go they do get mixed up with time. For my part... WW simply 
means the effective weight of the whippen at the front of the key, which 
I believe was the original designation visa vi WRW which was its weight 
before taking into consideration the effect of KR this has on the weight 
of the whippen as felt at the front of the key.

My approach to using your groundwork is to use pre determined SW's and 
Frontweights as givens that when installed reveal discrepancies in 
individual key ratios shown by resultant variances in BW after 
installation. Indeed it was you who pointed out to me that this was what 
you wanted me to see on our walk through the mountains surrounding 
Bergen all those years ago. Since then, this has been my priority 
approach, so to immediately remember that a change in FW is countered by 
a corresponding and opposite change in BW, given the leading train of 
thought that had to do with how assist springs could replace FW and 
yeild the same touch feel simply led me into a quite naturual blunder.  
I dont think along those lines to begin with.  It was however 
appropriate and appreciated to be corrected on this point of course.

I am far from some dummie that simply wants to make trouble as some 
would have it.  My articles in the Journal should suffice to affirm 
that. That does not preclude that I am able to stumble from time to 
time. Nor do I personally find it problematic or particularly 
embarrassing to do so on occasion tho I do resent the repeated 
implication from some parts that I and others like me lack a sincere and 
considered effort to contribute positively to the furthering of our 
understanding of our trade.

I understand quite well what your very clever sidestepping of dealing 
directly with the individual components of the top action ratio is all 
about. As my article of a few years back showed quite clearly. Indeed, 
it lies at the heart of why your approach works. There is no way of 
resolving the individual component ratios of the whippen and shank from 
the other information in your equation of balance. Nor is that necessary 
for it to work. It would be necessary to resolve these two for a direct 
translation formula as far as I can see.

Your own comments as to how you go about arriving at the relationship 
between the Strike Weight Ratio and the Distance Ratio go off in a 
different direction entirely and simply point to a potential desire to 
find some optimal relationship between the two.

And for the record, as to my somewhat crass formulation to David Love 
about not understanding the Balance Equation. That was uncalled for on 
my part, rooted in an overestimation in my own over casual glancing at 
the present discussion, which I have already apologized for and because 
of repeated encounters in the past which have left me a bit more over 
reactive then perhaps I should be to even these two three individuals.

Now, with that, I hope this digression is put to rest and the discussion 
can return to its positive track.... which I tried to point back to in 
my last post. 

Best regards to one and all
Richard Brekne


    Richard

    Your (my) formula is wrong.. WW should be WBW.

    For any piano key FW + BW (Top Action BW) is always the same.   If
    you change reduce FW by an amount the BW will increase by the same
    amount and vice versa so the calculation of R remains the same...

    David S

        <snip> Changing the Front Weight most certainly and undeniably
        does change the (SW) ratio. A most casual of glances at
        Stanwoods formula reveals this. Again...this is part of why you
        will find any direct translation to another protocoll... the
        distance one for example...
        quite difficult at best.

        Review Stanwoods formula.   R =  (BW + FW - WW) / SW

        Clearly a change in FW changes the value of the entire left side of
        the formula, and hence the equivalent  R on the right side.

        Cheers
        RicB