My tuning bellows are suspended from my bench, I have lead weights in the lower end of my tuning bellows and can easily control the air flow speed by hand. all very straight forward, no fancy machinery.
Whilst I respect the opinions of Dana on sound effects from reflections within the bellows etc. I think it constructive to consider the tuning tolerance to nominal. I don't want to re-run the lengthy debate of a few years ago, but I would caution about trying to tune to impossible degrees of accuracy, you will drive yourself insane and rub the reeds down to kitchen foil thicknesses.
Just because you can measure to a 10th of a cent does not mean you should try to tune to a 10th of a cent.
1. most people can discriminate a difference of 10 cents of error between two note generators (audiometry published data)
2. trained musicians will can probably halve that
3. if you split a 5 cent tolerance band about a nominal value, you end up with +/- 2.5 cents.
4. if you are playing as a duo and one instrument has a reed at + 2.5 cents, and the other at -2.5 cents then the 'clash' in tuning may be discernible, especially on sustained phrases, ideally tune to tighter than +/- 2.5 cents around nominal
5. I choose to tune to +/- 1.5 cents to nominal, which many repairers seemed to be in agreement with, although some declined to commit.
6. Remember the original makers worked without electronic tuners, they tuned by ear against sets of comparative reed standards and eventually back to tuning forks all by ear. could they guarantee they same precision as we can today? probably not.
I suggest that some of the effects like sound wave damping from reflection from the undersides of pads etc, don't matter as long as they are a constant in the tuning and playing processes.