Hello all, RE: RicB's statements: 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. Review Stanwood's formula. R = (BW + FW - WW) / SW Nick says: I have been following this thread with interest. I am casually familiar with David Stanwood's protocols, but not intimately to where I can rattle the terms off the top of my head. (My own work is primarily based on Pfeiffer's work in tandem with standard leverage physics and with more of an eye to downweight and hammer weight. The distance and force ratios should stand on their own regardless of the actual weight of the components, as instructive as these may be). In the interests of accuracy and fairness, though, may I post the following? As the above mathematical formula stands, RicB is correct in his observation that the dependent variable R (whatever that is) is a function of FW. In fact, any change to the values of either BW or FW or WW will change R. Inversely, any increase to SW will decrease R. To demonstrate I have arbitrarily chosen values that have nothing to do with action values. Here we see FW as 25, then 15, then 5. Note that R changes directly with each change to FW. 1) R = (10 + 25 - 5) / 20 = 1.5 2) R = (10 + 15 - 5) / 20 = 1 2) R = (10 + 5 - 5) / 20 = 0.5 In fact, note the direct ratio of 10 to 0.5 in that a decrease in FW of 10 causes a decrease in R of 0.5 (technically this ratio would be 1 to 0.05). Increasing SW reduces R: 4) R = (10 + 15 - 5) / 25 = 0.8 If it is true as David points out, that when "you reduce FW by an amount then BW will increase by the same amount and vice versa so the calculation of R remains the same...", then the above formula as it stands does not directly reflect this. So there must be prior considerations that demonstrate the proportional and self-balancing relationship of BW to FW. If the formula cannot stand out of context without prior explanations, then my sense of things is that the term (BW + FW) might be independently calculated, then referenced as a single term such as Wbf. This way the formula would state R = (Wbf - WW) / SW. Such a formula can never be taken out of context. I realize how presumptuous this may sound, not only given the years of dedication that David has devoted to the subject, but given my admittedly less than complete knowledge of David's work relative to the sequence of design investigations. Please accept this in the spirit in which it is presented. Although for years we have accepted terms such as BW and DW as balance weight and downweight respectively, to a third-party mathematician or engineer these seem to be products of B times W or D times W. Mathematical convention would reference these values as Wb and Wd (the lower case b and d would appear as subscripts). So, regarding David's correction to the formula in that WW should really be WBW, if this is simply a reference correction but not a value correction then RicB may have been mistaken referentially but not conceptually (at least regarding the formula which is my focal point here). In the broader picture of the thread, if Ric and others have correctly represented Stanwood's concepts and protocols (or not), I cannot speak to that. Again, so as not to be misunderstood, the foregoing has been posted in the interests of accuracy and balance, not to open the floodgates of touchweight investigations and minutia. The List may wish to pursue this, but it has not my intention to initiate it. It is not necessary to supply a complete rundown of David Stanwood's protocols or sources of same (unless one wishes to) as I think I can re-familiarize myself with these on my own. Thanks to all participants for their input. It's always interesting! Respectfully, Nick Gravagne, RPT Piano Technicians Guild Member Society Manufacturing Engineers
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC