Jon Page wrote: > >FWIW, Stanwood's FW ceilings are not target spec's but a line of >demarcation; as to which any thing >close to or over that line indicates a weight/leverage problem. (Not >withstanding special circumstances of +SW) Hmm... FW ceilings given in Davids charts are really nothing more then the result of solving for FW for differeing parameters in the balance equation. You pump in whatever SW, corresponding Ratio, BW, and WBW spec and you come out with his table. They are then in essence nothing else the the exact amount of lead needed to create a given BW for any particular SW and corresponding ratio. (without any other devices like the WAS installed mind you) Perhaps this is why he is so anxious to protect exactly this particular useage of the balance equation.... solving for FW's ? I personally cant blame him. The question of whether or not that amount of lead creates a problem situation with regard to other aspects is exactly one of the main points I hear debate about. I would love to have someone show me the data / research / whathaveyou that demonstrates clearly that lead mass in keys needs to be significantly under this rather natural balance level. >Sometimes I think that people think too much and not apply their thought >processes to practical applications. >Because when worked out in practical applications, many of the >speculations >would not appear on the list. I think that many of the "speculations" as you call them appear on the list because there are people out there working with this stuff and making observations of their own. As for example your own decidedly non Stanwood (and quite neat as well I might add) approach towards capstan placement. Whats wrong with people tossing their ideas around ? > >Regards, > >Jon Page, piano technician >Harwich Port, Cape Cod, Mass. >mailto:jonpage@attbi.com >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Richard Brekne RPT NPTF Griegakadamiet UiB
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC