[CAUT] F..riction

David Stanwood stanwood at tiac.net
Sat Dec 4 14:19:46 MST 2010


Hi David,

I've been an avowed balance weighter since 1990 I can offer the 
opinion that it is a squirrely value because it is derived from two 
squirrely measurements.. down and up weight.. both prone to 
misinterpretation, error, and variation of method.  Balance weight 
itself assumes equal friction in either direction.  Emphasis on 
ASSUME.  This adds to the nutty nature of it all.  There is no 
question that using balance weight to separate out friction is a 
useful tool in touch designing.

I've long felt that it is really inaccurate to set lead weights using 
such unreliable measures as down weight, up weight, and balance 
weight.  Using my patented method of calculating front weights that 
assume average levels of ratio eliminates any reliance in 
interpretation of touch weight.  This allows for more accurate and 
consistent ways of setting key leads, namely using a digital scale.
Down Weight and Up Weight...... let'm float.. they always will.

Accuracy to 0.1 gram is negated by the inability to repeat 
measurements to that accuracy.. it just doesn't happen.  Yes we use 
scales accurate to 0.1g and this is appropriate.. I've seen techs who 
use scales accurate to 0.01g... it's a waste of time.

I know there is a comment in the wonderful documentary film "Miracle 
in a Box" which mentions that the Callahan Shop in Alameda California 
builds everything to a tolerance of 0.1g... I've never heard John 
Callahan make the claim and I think the film maker was just 
misinterpreting the use of scales that are accurate to 0.1g.  That's 
Hollywood.

I'm all for spending time refining strike weight and front weights to 
reasonable tolerances.  Fixating on making accurate down weight 
results in diminishing returns very quickly simply because down 
weight is never felt by the pianist because it never goes through let 
off.  It is a much less relevant value than many of us might believe. 
Getting it within acceptable ranges is good enough for me....

Hope this helps.

Regards,

David Stanwood

>One thing it does suggest (assuming no measurement error) is that 
>setting balance weight by taking up and down weight measurements and 
>adjusting lead weights accordingly has its limitations.  The claims 
>of some touch designers that their actions are balanced to the .1 
>grams is obviously limited by the ability to determine accurately 
>the actual UW and DW in a given system (when does the key really 
>start to go down and when does it actually come up) and the 
>potential for variations in friction to skew the data and thus the 
>resulting action taken to achieve those uniform balance weights. 
>Working from the other direction, a calculated front weight curve 
>based on a given strike weight curve and a constant action ratio, is 
>also limited by the actual accurate executions of the contributing 
>levers themselves to achieve a precise action ratio through the 
>scale.  While attempting to set a very precise standard will likely 
>yield better results than targeting a less precise standard, it is 
>somewhat unclear as to where the point of diminishing returns falls. 
>Just a thought.
>
>David Love


More information about the CAUT mailing list

This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC