<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>Re: Regulating Without Specs</title>
</head>
<body>
<p>As a recovering mathematics teacher, I'm always interested in this topic. People resist metrics mightily because they think they will have to spend the rest of their lives remember complicated conversion tables, etc. Sigh.<br/><br/>The ONLY way to drag the USA, kicking and screaming, into sync with the rest of the universe would be to (a) Require schools, starting in kindergarten, to teach NOTHING BUT metrics. If the parents want to confuse them at home, that's their business. (b) Offer courses for out-of-school people, make them simple, make them fun. (c) Change--within a VERY short period--all highway signs, markers, maps, and speedometers to have ONLY metric measurements (not dual, ONLY metric) and, most important, (d) Require that all construction and manufacturing, rulers and tape measures, other tools, all specifications be NOTHING BUT metrics.<br/><br/>We've tried educating people first so we could make the change. Didn't work. The change would have to be forced and enforced and done virtually overnight.<br/><br/>The full and complete change would probably take about 3 years, and the school kids would lead the way in asking the parents why they still hang on to the dumb old systems.<br/><br/>Having said that, these measures would be heavy-handed government intervention, to say the least. People (probably including me) would fight them for that reason and also because of the anxiety of relearning, sense of lost tradition, and flat-out cussedness of not liking to be told what to do.<br/><br/>Therefore, though science and much of industry has seen the light, the rest of us are likely to be stuck with hectares and furlongs for a very, very long time.<br/><br/>Kinda sad. Black market yardstick, anyone?<br/><br/>Alan Barnard<br/>Salem, MO<br/><br/></p>
<div style="padding-right: 5px; padding-left: 5px; padding-bottom: 5px; border-left: #000000 3px solid; padding-top: 5px">
<hr/>Original message<br/>From: "Paul T Williams"
<pwilliams4@unlnotes.unl.edu> </pwilliams4@unlnotes.unl.edu><br/>To: "Pianotech List"
<pianotech@ptg.org> </pianotech@ptg.org><br/>Received: 2/5/2008 6:43:56 AM<br/>Subject: Re: Regulating Without Specs<br/><br/>
<p align="left"><br/><font face="sans-serif" size="2">I like using metric as well, but I beleive that US makers in the 20's( and before and after. in the 70's who knows?!?! <G>) used standard measurements, don't you think? Metric is easier to work with. IMHO.</font> <br/><br/><font face="sans-serif" size="2">PW</font> <br/><br/><br/><br/></p>
<table width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td width="40%"><font face="sans-serif" size="1"><b>Jurgen Goering <pianoforte@pianofortesupply.com></b> </font><br/><font face="sans-serif" size="1">Sent by: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org</font>
<p><font face="sans-serif" size="1">02/04/2008 11:14 PM</font>
<table border="1">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div align="center"><font face="sans-serif" size="1">Please respond to<br/>Pianotech List <pianotech@ptg.org></font></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table><br/>
</p>
</td>
<td width="59%">
<table width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<div align="right"><font face="sans-serif" size="1">To</font></div>
</td>
<td><font face="sans-serif" size="1">pianotech@ptg.org</font> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<div align="right"><font face="sans-serif" size="1">cc</font></div>
</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr valign="top">
<td>
<div align="right"><font face="sans-serif" size="1">Subject</font></div>
</td>
<td><font face="sans-serif" size="1">Re: Regulating Without Specs</font></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table><br/>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr valign="top">
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table><br/>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table><br/><br/><br/><tt><font size="2">At the risk of opening a large can of worms and an even larger debate, <br/>I think this is perfect example of why going metric (like Dale Erwin <br/>demonstrated) is such an elegant mode of transport through exercises <br/>such as these. Mixing fractions with decimal inches may work in this <br/>prepped example, but the numbers are hardly ever so fortuitous. I <br/>heartily suggest to all technicians to immerse themselves in <br/>millimeters, stop converting to inches, buy metric rulers, calipers and <br/>whatever other measuring tools they need and discover the brilliant <br/>ease of working in that system.<br/>ducking for cover...<br/>Jurgen Goering<br/><br/><br/>On Feb 4, 2008, at 19:20, pianotech-request@ptg.org wrote:<br/>> snip...<br/>> Let’s just say you want something typical like a 3/8†key dip, 1/8†<br/>> letoff, and .050†aftertouch. (Later I’ll show the equations for <br/>> solving for different variables) Given the 3/8†key dip (.375â€) and <br/>> the .050†aftertouch, we subtract aftertouch from key dip and know <br/>> then that we have .325†of useable key dip to move the hammer. How <br/>> far will it move? It will move 5xs the amount of keydip. 5 x .325†= <br/>> 1.625â€. But that’s not the hammer blow distance, because we haven’t <br/>> accounted for letoff. If we want 1/8†(.125â€) letoff, we need to ADD <br/>> that to the hammer travel of 1.625â€, so the blow distance is then <br/>> 1.75â€, or 1 ¾â€.<br/>> ...snip...<br/>> OK, Lemme know whatcha think!<br/>> <br/>> John Dorr, RPT </font></tt> <br/>
</div>
</body>
</html>