To All, I was not aware that there were three different definitions of inertia floating around. I am keenly aware that we are all trying to describe the effects of inertia, and the problem is semantics. I did not define inertia. Now I will. Here goes. Inertia is that property of mass which causes it to remain at rest if it is at rest, or to remain in motion in a straight line if it is in motion, if no force acts upon it, or if all forces that may be acting upon it are equal to zero. Does anyone disagree with that? I might be able to refine it a bit, but I think that says it. Inertia is directly proportional to mass. If that's not true, then all my old textbooks I have kept these many years are wrong. The problem is, we have been talking about the effects of inertia, and the moment of inertia - why pieces of the piano action accelerate and decelerate as they do. Inertia, mass, force, acceleration, kinetic energy, etc. are all related in one way or another. The problem with this discussion is semantics. The kids, grand kids, and great grand kids will soon be here for Christmas Eve, and I need to go poke the fire and throw another log on it. I'll see you later. Merry Christmas, Jim Ellis
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC