Good Morning, Troops - Newton wrote: >I have several pipe clamps that I purchased from Pianoteck they called >deep throat clamp that require 3/4" gas pipe. I have been very pleased >with these clamps which can be made to push as well as pull together, an >advantage sometimes.. I do not remember the price but call them as ask. I have used a plethora of such clamps for years. In combination with 2x2, 2x4, and 2x6 blocks in appropriate lengths (angled at one end for matching the angle of the shelf of the rim, square at the other to fit the clamp face), these can work miracles. You almost cannot have too many. In other news, well to me, anyway, I wanted to pass along the results of some work I have been doing with Tom Winter. (Tom is the head piano techncian for San Francisco State U., and, among other things, inherited most of Susan Graham's upper end concert and recording work when she bailed.) Anyway, he and I collaborate from time to time on various things, currently the work in progress is loosely under the heading of: "And just what do we do with these beautifully machined parts which are too heavy to work properly". Part of the answer is to reduce their mass, and, having tried a variety of things, we have hit on using metal tooling/cutting heads for an end lathe. While we do not yet have a fully developed set of recommended procedures, we are working with spindle speeds in excess of 2200 rpm, and getting very clean results with (virtually) no breaking out. While things like this are clearly only a part of the puzzle, we have found that it is not unusual for a replacement (hornbeam) whip to weigh an average of 2 to 3 gms more than its maple counterpart. Our initial results reduce this difference by an average of 1.5 - 1.8 gms. The difference is interesting, rather like the difference between a (properly set up) older (real) teflon action and a (real) felt one; e.g., while the weigh off may _appear_ to be the same, the difference is noticable in the inertia of the action from rest - not in motion. Originally pointed out to me by John Perry (far too long ago, now that I've had yet _another_ birthday), this _virtually negligible_ (reductive) difference (read: "almost unmeasurable using conventional weigh-off methods") manifests itself largely as a slight hesitation of the action from rest. In a world in which most pianists appear to conceive of the piano as a series of 88 on/off switchs, this is not much of an issue. For those who understand, and expect/demand that an action do the very best that it can do, well, it becomes something of a different issue. Whilst still on my soapbox (yes, I'll go away soon), there was recently some discussion about lightening shanks, and the report was made about removing material from the bottom of the shank (presumably) to increase spring/resiliance. I was not party to the discussion, and so freely admit that in reporting this I am talking through my hat (yes, yes, yet again). Anyway, what I wanted to offer was a cavaet: While this method is certainly acceptable and effective, I think that one should be careful in its application. That is, it seems to me that this is more safely done on maple shanks than on hornbeam. The reason is the brittle nature of the latter. Removing, within reason, material from the sides of the shanks, while not (perhaps) directly affecting spring, certainly improves tone. Removing a similar amount of material from the top and/or bottom might produce the same tonal effect, but might also weaken the structure so as to produce premature failure. Hope all is well. Best. Horace Horace Greeley, CNA, MCP, RPT Systems Analyst/Engineer Controller's Office Stanford University email: hgreeley@leland.stanford.edu voice mail: 650.725.9062 fax: 650.725.8014
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC