At 11:45 AM -0500 12/13/99, David C. Stanwood wrote: >Fri, 10 Dec 1999 "Richard Moody" <remoody@easnet.net> Wrote: >>Why have to mentally divide that by >>two and remember that also? So would it be wrong to say? "since FW of 10 >>is acceptible, then a diff of DW and UW of 20 is acceptable but getting up >>there." Absolutely no problm, if all you're looking for is a measure of friction. Fortunately, the complementary figure provided by the same averaging of DW and UW, Balance Weight, is not affected by such a decision. The ability to separate friction BW is the gateway to an powerful system of action analysis. BTW, friction is not a weight, it's a force. Weight is an expression of the gravitational attraction of clumps of mass relative to the nearest largest clump, in our case Mother Earth. There are physicists and engineers on this list, and they would be happy to see the terms Force and Weight properly used. >In defense of these terms I have to take exception with the comments by >Mark Abbott Stern in his December 1999 Journal Article "Touchweight & >Friction" Mr. Stern probably arrived at his position without the beneifit of a variable friction hammershank, which cleraly shows DW and UW radiating outwards from a central point as friction increases. Maybe David can send him one. Bill Ballard, RPT New Hampshire Chapter, PTG "I go, two plus like, three is pretty much totally five. Whatever" ...........The new math
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC