Hammer Shanks

[James Ellis]

Dear Colleagues:

This discussion got started when Joe Goss said a 3/32 hex shank was as
strong as a 1/4 round shank.  He didn't say 3/8. He didn't say 3/16.  He
said 3/32.  I challenged that statement.  The objective then was maximum
stiffness and minimum weight.

As I pointed out, we were not talking about structural beams (I-beams and
H-beams - vs - round rods).  We were talking about hammer shanks, as per
the way they are actually made and sold.  Those shanks aren't hexagonal at
all.  They are octagonal.  Assuming the same cross-sectional area, i.e.,
the same weight, the difference in the stiffness of a round shank vs an
octagonal shank is negligible.

Rather than argue, I just made the measurements, and I proved my point.
Furthermore, I showed you that there is a big advantage in tapering the
shank.  Whether it is round or octagonal is irrelevant.  As I said, the
difference is negligible.  The size is NOT negligible, as one of you kindly
acknowledged, and that's why the taper has such an advantage.

The upshot of this is that some of you just went and made a joke out of it.
 Mary Smith seems to have been offended, and I know I was.  When this
discussion started, the object of the shank was to direct the hammer to the
string so that it would hit it in the same place each time without flipping
and flopping.  That's all changed now.  Now you are telling me that
octagonal shanks just sound better, and Tim Coates says he has recordings
to prove it.  OK Tim, you're on next.  I proved my point, now you prove
yours.  Tell us how you did it, and how you kept ALL the other variables
EXACTLY the same, so that the ONLY difference was the shape of the shanks.
I'm willing to learn something new, and I'm sure the others are too.

Jim Ellis