June Journal and FW's

[Richard Brekne]

 Bill Ballard wrote:

>>
>Just as a fine tuning of BW? It seems a waste of their abilities. If 
>the SWs were right in the 60 percentile range, and the SBR was below 
>6:1, I wouldn't feel shy about counterbalancing at least ten if not 
>fifteen grams of lead.

Not sure I follow the "SWs were right in the 60 percentile range" And do you
mean using springs to do the work of 10 to 15 grams of lead ?

> As an experiment and a relatively risk-free 
>one. If you reconsidered and wanted to raise the FW (an analog for 
>total inertia), while keeping the BW the same, you'll certainly 
>appreciate a adjustable WAS while setting the constant BW.
>

This was well put... I like the "analog for total inertia" bit. And I agree
this is a nice and easy way of changing inertia without changing BW. The
balance of FW and the work done by the whippen assist spring changes, but the
total work done by these two remains the same.

>If everything else is right, then a major shift in the weight load 
>from lead to spring would seem to avoid triggering obvious adverse 
>consequences, and thus allow the pianist to explore a low inertia 
>free of such avoidable mechanical consequences. But low inertia 
>simply might be mismatched with the amount of strength and weight we 
>pianists in the 21st Century carry. 

EXACTLY !!.. :)

>Remember, a hundred years ago 
>human beings weren't as heavy, and didn't live as long. Horowitz 
>certainly could control his low friction, low inertia action. There 
>may be something to be discovered there.

yeah, and they didnt make for very good basketball players either. :)
>
>Bill Ballard RPT
>NH Chapter, P.T.G.
>

Richard Brekne
RPT NPTF
Griegakadamiet UiB