<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <html><head><style type="text/css"></style><title>Re: shank strike weights</title></head><body> <div><font color="#000000">At 4:09 PM -0500 11/18/05, Erwinspiano@aol.com wrote:</font></div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000">I don't find the patent issue on the salient point of how David leads keys of any concern to me at this time. I have an open mind . Someone feel free to change it. I'm not saying it doesn't have merit & isn't a valuable technique.........</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>You're a case in point, Dale. David came up with his FW Equation of Balance as a response to the challenge that all his measurements were static/gravitational, and had no way of directly measuring the dynamic/inertial. The FW Equation of Balance still only infers the inertial load of a keyset, rather than measuring it directly. But it still does it more precisely than most factories do, And I consider an excellent response to the challenge hitting both a smooth FW curve (static/gravitational) and a smooth inertial curve with the same spacing of keyleads.</div> <div><br></div> <div>That's the only part of David's metrology with is covered by patent (although some of us may have noticed when he gave it to us for free here on PTx).<br> </div> <blockquote type="cite" cite><font color="#000000">......but most Custom balancers are not using it any way, in it's patented intended form.</font></blockquote> <div><br></div> <div>Most custom balancers aren't served with the same challenge that David was, having to prove that his system would not fail at the point of hitting FWs and inertia simultaneously. Few of the rest of us are not currently worried that the way we arrange lead in a keyset doesn't concern itself with smooth inertial content across the keyset.</div> <div><br></div> <div>John Hartman's device can measure inertial behavior (and thus, content). However, to hit both FW and inertia simultaneously would have one hopping back and forth between the set-up for reading inertia and the set-up for reading FW, in a manner of iterations which I'm not going to call practical. Stephen Birkett's of course requires grant funding, and does fit easily in a tool box. <G></div> <div><br></div> <div>Fazioli is using magnetic balancing, and probably under license from the patent of its originator (a Dutchman, I believe). If there is anything to learn on why a piano factory might choose to incorporate the innovation of an individual tech (say, this person or David) and as a result, the greater value of such patents, we could start by exploring Fazioli's decision.</div> <div><br></div> <div>(Yeah, I know, lead is soon to be banned in European pianos, and magnets are the next best substitute......if you're unwilling to consider helper springs. Yeah, and also magnets are no more than a substitute for lead, whereas David's is a comprehensive system to analyze whether the amount of counterbalancing asked for by the action is reasonable, and further to make sure that everything measured as a part of that analysis can be made as smooth as possible.)</div> <div><br></div> <div>It's still an exciting frontier.</div> <div><br> Bill Ballard RPT</div> <div>NH Chapter, P.T.G.<br> <br> Reality is the first casualty of technology<br>     ...........NPR Commentator Daniel Schorr</div> <div>+++++++++++++++++++++</div> </body> </html>