Hi David, comments interspersed below. >Distance over Weight... the more above 1.0 the better >David >Why? >RicB David Stanwood writes: Richard, This has to be one of your more succinct responses to a post! Why what a nice and encouraging thing to say ! Indeed it inspires me to try to best my last.... so here goes. Since : (relative to plugging a distance ratio into your balance equation: Quote from your last : "The efficiency will show up in you final Balance Weights.... If your spec BW was 38 and you end up with an average level of 38 then your distance ratio matches your weight ratio and the efficiency ratio is 1.0. If you end up with and average result of 36 then you've got a super efficient setup and your efficiency ratio is above 1.0. If your average BW ends up say 40 then your efficiency ratio is below 1.0 and the setup would benefit with some tweaking." ... then it would appear that plugging a good estimate of the distance ratio into your equation of balance is just the thing to do. That way BW not only serves as a diagnostic for key to key ratio problems but as a diagnostic and indeed yeilds a direct value for the efficiency ratio. In fact... if one is measuring moment arms directly instead of what I do... one could go directly to FW = (((SW*HSR*WR)+WW)*KR)-BW ... the old fashioned D1*W1=D2*W2 way of solving for balance... with FW isolated to solve for it. (HRS -> Hammershank ratio, WR -> whippen ratio, the rest familiar) Accuracy in measuring distance ratios needs to be within a tenth of a ratio to give this kind of meaning to the balance weights.... David Stanwood Yes... A good point..... a refinement of how I take the distance ratio is in order. Thanks for the post. RicB
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC