If you treat individual mechanics it is indeed labour intensive because they are so diverse. PTD is much more work I hear, not profitable, time is money. It is also thought installing a PTD is complicated although the procedure is quite simple and easy to learn. Recently someone associeted PTD with the term 'rocket science' despite the fact that the Stanwood method only uses simple mathematics, see-saw science. For example, an adjusted SW curve usually speeds up the final intonation this compensates for supplementary SW labour. With PTD you probably will reach the same total time efficiency. Adjusting SW indeed require additional time, but again you can reduce this in factory by applying a technical standard procedure. A complete standard PTD design is also made only once in production. You can indicate the lead locations quite fast with a template calculated according to the Stanwood lead pattern which, I quote US Patent #5585582 ☁994, create a smooth linear progression of key front in weights, providing a more uniform ‘feel’ to the piano keys when played by a pianist. For example, you don't need anymore to mesure manually over and over again the lead positions for each key. Performing that standard works faster than traditional and with accurate results. With SNAP you design the key calibration only once. But if you integrate SNAP into a production process in a well thought-out way it will work out faster because you can use a standard version. Each time you need to make an analysis first and make a specific design to execute exactly yes this takes time.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |