shank strike weights

[Ric Brekne]

Hi Bill

Actually, it appears by your post that you and I are very much in 
agreement with each other on virtually every point. However I am not 
entirely sure David would agree with your assesment persuant to FW 
calculations.  It is my understanding that he took the position that any 
mathematical method of arriving at FW's to balance SW's and achieve any 
given BW was protected by his patent.  I believe he wrote that in rather 
clear text in response to my own article a couple years back in the PTG 
journal on his methodology. In anycase my sense of dissagreement with 
David is based on correspondence with him both in private and in 
public.  And, I would like to underline I do not consider either of the 
two points I mentioned to be critical of David in nature. 

You are correct, I am worried that his metrology has not caught on as 
much as it should or could have. We have yet to date to see any single 
manufacturer start to employ his methods. My own view was / is that if 
the full use of this system was restrained only by giving clear credit 
to Stanwood via appropriately placing his logo on all pianos with 
actions manufactured and balanced this way, then  manufacturers would be 
more receptive to employing it.  Its just my view and I do believe that 
it is in dissagreement with Davids own view. In any case, with it I do 
not mean to imply anything negative about Davids motivations for doing 
otherwise.  I have too much admiration for David Stanwood for that in 
anycase.

I agree however that it is encouraging to see more usage of his 
metrology and the language of it.  Indeed, thats one of the reasons I 
brought it all up again, because there hadnt been much discussion 
relative to TW design in quite a while.

Cheers
RicB

-------------------
Bill Ballard writes :

But Rick, you worry that whatever David held back from PD might have
prevented his metrology from flourishing in the trade at large. I'm
reminding the discussion that the amount held back was a single
component of the metrology's application, and in fact its final and
most esoteric one. The FW Equation of Balance took shape, what, 6-7
years ago, and patented maybe 3 years ago? During this same time,
I've not seen an abandonment of David's metrology (or a refuting
thereof). On the contrary, I've seen an expansion of his procedures,
of not just the language of his metrology, both here on PTx and out
in the real world.

Not to run on too long, just wishing to examine under good light,
disagreements which really aren't.

Bill Ballard RPT
NH Chapter, P.T.G.