<HTML>In a message dated 10/18/02 8:08:50 AM Central Daylight Time, jkanter@rollingball.com writes: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Jorgensen's actual words: "... three pages of calculations were done according to your instructions. As you can see on page number 2, there is an imbalance on DbF. To correct this imbalance, I made the following change in your instructions: Step 13 now specifies that G#3 should be tuned pure from C#4 like you originally had it..." </BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, those were the instructions I asked him to *try*.  I still use that option sometimes when the theoretical model does not work.  I also still use the original model sometimes when the theoretical model does not work.  Yes, the original sometimes does produce the imbalance, sometimes it does not.  Just because the correct theoretical model has been determined does not mean it necessarily works every time.  However, it was a necessary goal in order to find the "correction figures" which was suggested by Kent Swafford and my reason for consulting Owen Jorgensen. This statement which you quoted is erroneous: "The resulting figures are titled by Jorgensen: "The improved Bremmer when G# and D# are both tuned pure from C#". You can't tune D# pure from C#.  What he meant about "improvement" was what I said in my last post, the fact that the Ab3(G#3)-Eb4(D#4) 5th was made pure when it previously had been tempered.  Jorgensen tried tempering the G#3-C#4 4th, found that it did not help, suggested returning it to the original pure interval and also confirmed that my suggestion to make the "improvement" of the Ab3-Eb4 5th would also help.  You should change the wording on your graph to reflect this. "Perhaps Bill would have achieved the improved form on his own."  Probably not.  It took your chart to show the imbalance which does not necessarily occur in practice.  When I saw your chart, I was still not certain whether the problem was with the temperament plan or with your calculations, so I let it stand as it was until that could be determined. . I would never change any of my procedures because of anything Ed Foote says.  All he had to do was look at your chart to see that numerical imbalance.  He did no study or calculations, just found an opportunity to "score".  I immediately saw the problems which your graph presented too but decided that what was good about it overshadowed what still needed to be worked out.  Even though this was explained to Ed Foote more than once, he still wrote a vicious and vindictive post which attacked the credibility of the entire idea. "Sideways Well":  the pit Ed Foote dug for himself to wallow in the day he knowingly published false data for the EBVT on Pianotech. Bill Bremmer RPT Madison, Wisconsin <A HREF="http://www.billbremmer.com/">Click here: -=w w w . b i l l b r e m m e r . c o m =-</A> </HTML>