<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html>   Bill Ballard wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>>What might be helpfull is attempting to define action configurations >with regard to >the already mentioned contributing factors, that result in these kinds of >definitions of action performance. Something beyond the simple SW Ratio value >(number) I agree fully. Now that David has provided us with a comprehensive language for describing the arrangement of weight and leverage, we have standard descriptions which can be correlated to the subjective descriptions of pianists.</blockquote> You know, now that you mention this particular point I'd like to get something off my mind. Seems like there are a lot of folks who are spending a good deal of energy trying to find reasons why the Stanwood system, or his set of standards do not work, or are erroneous in relation to some other perspectives, or why its worthless. Most of the criticisms I've seen are really based on too little understanding of Stanwood Touchweight Design to begin with. Actually, when it comes right down to it, it doesn't really accomplish allllll that much (at least not in its present form).  For that matter, it doesn't do nearly as much as some of its less critical advocates claim, which doesn't help matters I suppose. But what it does do, it does very very well and easily. And in the doing it provides perfectly well a basis for doing exactly the kind of thing you point to above.  Seems to me that it would be best for anyone doing grand action work to thoroughly familiarize themselves with the whole Stanwood process and system, so we can move on to even more interesting possibilities. The validity of the whole thing should be accepted without further a do IMHO. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>>Well... its just that recent realizations have shown me that the SW Ratio is a >different puppy then other ratio measureing conventions, in as much >as it yeilds a >different value. I'm well aware of your explorations on this matter, and very much in favor of such the Grand Unification you seek. For the time being, although David's weight-based leverage measurements may not be toeing the line with all the other puppies at obedience school (and may have a few more fleas), when it comes to setting up an action, I'll stick with a weight-based puppy.</blockquote> It seems a very thorough and exacting treatise on what levers do and do not do under a variety of conditions is necessary to make that step. It would seem obvious to me that the so called weight ratio is simply another way of measuring what can be found by finding the appropriate arm lengths for each lever, but evidently that obviousness escapes more then I was aware of. In any case... once found such a convention should be useable for most of the design issues I've seen tossed around. And those that require either a slightly different perspective would not suffer for the added clarity provided by a more clearly defined set of standards. The term "action ratio" today can in reality refer to at least 3 values that differ quite significantly. And perhaps there are a couple other widely used conventions I hav'nt run into yet. <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  >That being said... if you LIKE being slapped... hehe.. I am sure we >can oblige more >often. I've engaged a personal trainer who comes in on Wednesday evenings for just that. When it comes to getting slapped around, bricks & mortar beat out cyber-text any day. <g></blockquote> Have to ask.... is this a female type physical abuse professional  ?? :) <blockquote TYPE=CITE>  Bill Ballard RPT NH Chapter, P.T.G.   <a href="https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives"></a> </blockquote> -- 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>