Keylead inertia and leverage

[Carl Meyer]

I must get in here!  I haven't been hampered by a formal education, but I
have been exposed to alot of this technical stuff.

Please excuse my lack of understanding of the finer points of inertia and my
use of made up terminology.

Let me hypothesize that an infinite weight applied to an infinitely small
radius, would have no inertia in the rotational mode but have lotsa inertia
in the horizontal mode.  Vertical mode would introduce gravity and confuse
the issue.  ( we all know that there is no such thing as gravity.  The earth
sucks.)

Now, since more weight closer to the balance rail will still give the same
dw/uw the inertia will be less due to the radius of the weight. Now, someone
said that the smoothness of the uw/dw is affected.  Let me suggest that the
friction is increased due to the dead weight of the increased weight closer
to the balance rail pin.  Now the rotational movement of the key is
restricted due to the additional weight, resulting in erratic dw/uw
measurement.  Additional (dead weight) at the balance rail will compress the
balance rail felt punching and add up/dw due to the added weight.

Now, my question is:  Is that why the patent for the accelerated action
includes the round surface of the balance rail to compensate for the
increased weight of the lead in the keys nearer to the balance rail.
I haven't read the patent so I might be out in left field.

I believe someone said that S&S doesn't use this anymore.  Would that be
because the price of lead went up or it wasn't such a good idea anyway or
nobody appreciates or understands it?

I don't have a clue.???????

Carl Meyer






----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Moody" <remoody@midstatesd.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 12:11 AM
Subject: Re: Keylead inertia and leverage


>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mike and Jane Spalding <mjbkspal@execpc.com>
> To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 3:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Keylead inertia and leverage (was Re: Ideal leading
> pattern:)
>
>
> > Ric,
> >
> > This is one of those counterintuitive concepts:  how can more weight
> result
> > in less inertia?
>
> Please tell me where I said "more weight will result in less interia".
> I believe I said.
> QUOTE  "More weight will require MORE interia"
>
> Once again let me say,  It seems to me the heaver the key the more
> inertia required to move it.   The more mass the key has the more
> EFFORT  it will "SEEM" to be required to move it.
>
> Now Please tell me how I am saying
>
> >how can more weight result
> > in less inertia?
>
> Especially considering I asked.......
>     >>but isn't
> > > more force is needed to accelerate the heavier key to the same
> speed
> > > as the lighter key if both keys have  the same balance
> tio?   ---ric
>
>
>
> ---ric
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >
> > >     A key with 2 weights near the front rail can be made to
> require
> > > the same down weight as a key with 4 weights near the balance
> rail.
> > > The key with 4 weights is heaver than the key with two weights.
> This
> > > should make it feel harder to press it down (accelerate it) exp on
> a
> > > ff  note.even though it still has the same down weight as the key
> with
> > > only two weights.  The weight is the same to move each key, but
> isn't
> > > more force is needed to accelerate the heavier key to the same
> speed
> > > as the lighter key if both keys have  the same balance
> tio?   ---ric
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>