Sarah Fox wrote: > Hi Ric, > > >So let me see if I understand this correctly..... this is shows that for a > given FW > > specification, more leads placed closer to the balance rail pin yeild a > lower > > moment of inertia, and yield greater degrees of acceleration then less lead > out > > towards the end of the key. Yes ? > > Exactly Good. > > This being the case... then loweing key inertia, and hence increasing key > > acceleration can be accomplished by concentrating more of whatever key > > mass is used in the center.. yes again ? > > Yes again Good again :) > > If so... what happens to half the argumenation > > against the accelerated action ? > > Personally, I'm not convinced that S&S's accelerated action really does > anything. The shift in fulcrum would be miniscule.. I think we should look away from that shift in the fulcrum bit. I think the official explanation for the accelerated action is exactly the placement of the key leads, which are centered closer about the balance rail pin. > Peace, > Sarah Thanks for the reply Sarah. Looks to me like a good portion of the reasoning against using leads in the key just got a good deal weaker. -- Richard Brekne RPT, N.P.T.F. UiB, Bergen, Norway mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC