At 6:59 PM +0100 11/1/02, Richard Brekne wrote:
>My point is that we are talking about pianists here, not some
>formula. It is the
>pianist who in the end delivers that hammer upwards at whatever
>momentum it ends up
>with. And a pianist will react to that peculiar combination of how
>the instrument
>feels and sounds... or perhaps better said, how the piano reacts to his/her
>playing.
The pianist is a far more complicated "player" in this transaction,
than the action the pianist is driving. Certainly we should go on and
investigate the pianist's complexities, if for no other reason than
it's the pianist we want to make happy. But while we can combine the
idiosyncrasies of the pianist with the much more straight-forward
mechanical proposition of the action, it's best to keep in mind that
the only thing which the action receives from the pianist is hammer
velocity
>And besides... there something not quite right about the idea that any given
>product of (m*v) regardless of the porportions of m and v result in
>the same net
>effect on strings in the collision between the two.
Once again, we have to distinguish between before-strike and
after-strike. After strike, the velocity is rapidly vanishing (as its
displacement of the string meets increasing resistance) and the
enduring value is the hammers mass. I agree that upon collision, any
extra inertia inherent in a higher SW will help in achieving maximum
displacement in the struck string. Until that collision, all the
hammer has is momentum (m*v).
Until strike, equivalent momentums may be had by juggling the
proportions of the two factors. Upon strike, the particular value for
SW has everything to do with how that momentum is translated into
strings displacement.
Time for a 'mater/mayo sammidge. (or two...)
Bill Ballard RPT
NH Chapter, P.T.G.
"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