[CAUT] WAPIN Installation at Brandon University

[Tim Coates]

Dave,

Thank you very much for your post.  I agree with all that you said.   I 
want to avoid "belligerent" prose, as we can not get certain key people 
to participate in this discussion if that occurs.   As Michael Wathen 
stated he has been treated as a "heretic" at times.  He wants to 
discuss this invention, but only if people stop the attacks that have 
occurred in the past.  Les Bartlet's comments really were reminiscent 
of past attacks.  Mark Cramer did a wonderful job of clarifying the 
situation to Les.

David Skolnik's post was a breath of fresh air.   I don't know what is 
going on with Michael's response to David, as he hadn't seen the post 
when I called him last night at 7pm eastern time (I think he was just 
getting home from teaching all day).  It could be a rather involved 
response.  Hopefully there can be some good discussion from David 
Skolnik's post.

I don't know what Michael will address, perhaps some of the different 
tests that were done and why we moved on to different types of testing. 
   How the evolution of the installation process affected (or is it 
effected <g>) the testing process.  It is all related.   How we are 
hoping to "see" better what is happening by working with Dr. Stephen 
Birckett.   We had a taste with the video taken at Rochester.

What Michael really wants is more people involved in the discussion.

Thanks dave,

Tim Coates


On Nov 7, 2006, at 9:29 AM, Porritt, David wrote:

> Tim:
>
> I know posts from me have irritated you in the past so I'll try my best
> not to do that with this one.
>
> When someone invents something that they deem to be significant,
> application is made for a patent.  In the patent process "claims" are
> made.  If the patent office decides that these claims are novel, not
> obvious, and not "prior art" a patent is awarded.  At that time the
> claims are made public and the intellectual property is protected for a
> length of time.
>
> At this point outsiders can evaluate the claims in the patent and
> question them.  The inventor/patent-holder must then defend their
> claims. Once a patent has been made public the inventor can expect
> questions from the relevant community about his/her work.  The old
> playground "because I said so" doesn't suffice.  Questions, requests 
> for
> scientific (repeatable) test results can certainly be expected.  Even
> the testing process is open to discussion as to its validity.  This
> back-and-forth between knowledgeable people is what keeps innovation
> moving.  That's all I've seen here in this discussion.  I haven't seen
> any "belligerent" prose (well, maybe the 'pigeon poo' was a little
> testy)!
>
> As you know I spent two days with you learning the process and paid my
> $100 to become a licensed Wapin installer.  I'm interested in 
> _anything_
> that can improve our chosen instrument.  That doesn't mean that I don't
> still have questions.  Like most in our line of work I always want to
> know how and why something works.  These are questions, not attacks!
>
> dave
>
> David M. Porritt
> dporritt at smu.edu
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
> Tim Coates
> Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 6:21 AM
> To: College and University Technicians
> Subject: Re: [CAUT] WAPIN Installation
>
> Jim,
>
>   I responded to what I thought was appropriate for me to respond to.  
> I
>
> saw nowhere that the questions about the testing shown on the website
> were directed to me.  It appeared to me my post of November 5 prompted
> you to go to the website, but I didn't see the questions were directed
> to me.
>
> I did not do the testing.  Michael Wathen did that particular testing
> you ask about on the website.  He is the person who should respond.   I
> have tried to get him involved in this conversation.  But there are
> times he will not continue a conversation if the tone turns
> belligerent.
>
> Tim Coates
>
> You wrote:
>
> In his November 4 post, Tim Coates said that my post of the same date
> was
> interesting, but that I lacked history and information about the
> process.
> How is that so?  Exactly what is it that I am lacking, Tim?
>
> Pursuant to Tim's post of November 5, I looked up the "Scientific Data"
> on
> the WAPIN web site.  Six spectrum plots were shown, two each of a
> rebuilt
> 1929 Steinway D with WAPIN bridge, two of an original 1984 D without 
> the
> WAPIN, and two of a Kawai concert grand.  A linear and a logarithmic
> plot
> of the spectrum of note D3 of each piano was shown.  I have some
> questions
> regarding those plots.
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2006, at 11:41 AM, James Ellis wrote:
>
>> In his November 4 post, Tim Coates said that my post of the same date
>> was
>> interesting, but that I lacked history and information about the
>> process.
>> How is that so?  Exactly what is it that I am lacking, Tim?
>