<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html>   Bill Ballard wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>At 11:21 PM +0200 4/9/03, Richard Brekne wrote: >And while I most certainly define that to include a wider degree of >acceptable parameters then perhaps you do,  I have a hard time >imagining the configuration you give here. Quite an example.... high >strike weights causing a 12.7 mm key dip..... I wont even bother >thinking what kind of SW-ratio we were imagining here :) Ric, the next time you call it a SW ratio I'm coming after you with a wet noodle. <g> Actually, I have no difficulty imagining it (outlandish as David later says it is). There are two ways to bring the BW down in such a high SW situation without messing up the FWs: counter-balance the weight not with lead but with rep helper springs,</blockquote> Yes.... but Davids example stipulated no helper springs, and I know he doesnt all that much lead as in our previous disscussion expressed some concern as to whether going over 90 % of Stanwoods max FW table (the one made pubic) would compromise the action. So that leaves us with  SW-ratio (the term used in present distributed documentation) to do the job. Lets see... that would put us down around the 4.4 area or something ???? which roughly translated to the way Ron Overs measures the action ratio to 4.0. Or I suppose we could go for a 30 mm hammer line :)  an equally interesting proposition eh ?? Ok.. exageration is cool enough. But  it didnt get accompanied with a clear answer to my question.... also cool enough when it comes down to it. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>or push the Strike Balance Ratio (SBR) down low enough to carry that kind of weight  while keeping the BW and FWs in line. With the latter, there's only so high you can set the hammer line under the pinblock, and from there you have to head off towards a 1/2" dip (and maybe  beyond.)</blockquote> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>As far out in right field as removing all keyleads and grinding away at the hammers until the DW is once again visible on the horizon, the left field solution. Both of these are logical extensions of a particluar priority, in the first, high SWs and the second zero FWs.</blockquote> Actually.... as long as we are going to lend a note of seriousness to the example roughly sketched as <blockquote>"use high strike weights without assist springs, you end up with 1/2" key dip"</blockquote> It might be fun to work that scenario backwards and take a look at just what different configurations would result. Lets further assume that FW's can not exceed Stanwoods FW max and no low limit. And lets also assume you can do what you want to the hammerline. I'm off on a tuning overnighter for a couple days, and will check back in friday evening. After that I am off to Amsterdam to visit Andre' for the Easter holidays. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  Actually David's designs (not the metrology) are based on logical extensions. Plot a set of SWs, see a jagged line and decide that, if SW is a significant function of the action's set-up,  an even and consistent set-up asks for that jagged line to be brought to a smooth curve. Same thing with FWs or BWs. Uneveness, challenging us to do something about it.</blockquote> Thats quite a simplification, and one that ignores the implications of  the real uneveness in hammer mass and key mass. We are not simply making a chart look good here. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  David Love is right: perfectly playable actions can be put together without such compelling obsessions. But just like any car salesman can make money during good times, anybody can get an action to work which has a reasonable key ratio and hammer weights. It wouldn't even require knowing that these aspect were working in your favor. It's there outliers (statistically) where the metrology really shines. Without it one is really in the dark.</blockquote> I aggreed with that point. Tho I believe at this point I would begin to look at invoking the word "compromise" when the availability of such an easy to use perspective allows us such an improvment, yet we insist on doing what has always been done. Sure... nobody has denied that a decent action job can be accomplished by other means. Certainly not me. I would like to think that at the same time, no one is denying the rather radical improvement these protocols afford both in time, predictability, and performance. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>The metrology really is a language, and sometimes I think that Ric, David and I here on the list are like three grizzled old farts on a park bench muttering away in a language which no one else knows or understands. But whenever someone else on this list says, "I leaded the keys for 50g DW, and the pianist now says its heavier", I wish there were more of us. DW. What's that? That plus UW are the two knobs on the front door. The good stuff is inside.</blockquote> <blockquote TYPE=CITE>Bill Ballard RPT</blockquote> Here here !! See you on Friday. Cheers, my freinds ! -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway <A HREF="mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no">mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no</A> <A HREF="http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html">http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html</A>  </html>