marry the hammer (strike) weight to the (strike) ratio is the biggest bang for the buck and everything else flows naturally for that. Chris Solliday ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Hull" <hullfam5@yahoo.com> To: <caut@ptg.org> Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 12:53 AM Subject: [CAUT] priority in touchweight balancing was downweight vs. balanceweight > Jon and David, thanks for the replies and suggestions > on the touchweight balancing. > > Of all of the adjustments and improvements we make > when doing touchweight component balancing, is there > one or two that have priority over the others? For > instance should BW and or R (or BW, R and SW) be given > priority over FW? If so to what degree can FW be > sacrificed to achieve the desired level of the > priority balances? > > I have made corrections in the data (#16 SW), (#28 SW) > and included the key ratio. See the table below. > > Before and after adjustment numbers are given on note > #2 and note #16. (Adjustments included moving capstan > 1/16" forward and tilting it back 8 degrees. > * indicates new numbers after capstan move and FW & > SW adjusted. > > (NY S&S D) > Note SW D U BW FW R KR WBWAvg. > 1 13.9 51 21 36 49 5.5 .53 8.56 > 2 13.6 62 26 44 43.4 5.8 .55 etc. > 2* 13.1 55 25 40 40.3 5.47 .55 > 9 13.2 52 24 38 45.7 5.7 .55 > 10 13.3 52 24 38 43.3 5.5 .56 > 16 12.4 54 22 38 44.6 5.9 .54 > 16* 12.4 50 30 40 37.6 5.56 .54 > 17 12.7 54 24 39.5 43.7 5.8 .55 > 28 11.7 54 25 39.5 34.4 5.6 .55 > 29 10.7 49 17 33 37.2 5.7 .55 > 40 10.7 51 26 38.5 27.2 5.3 .54 > 41 10.6 54 26 40 25.8 5.4 .56 > 52 9.9 52 29 40.5 20.7 5.3 .53 > 53 9.7 53 31 44 21.3 5.8 .55 > 64 8.8 53 30 41.5 21.3 4.2 .52 > 65 9.0 55 28 41.5 17.9 5.6 .53 > 76 8.2 54 29 41.5 11.4 5.4 .53 > 77 7.7 55 37 46 7.7 5.4 > 87 7.3 57 34 45.5 7.3 5.4 > 88 7.0 55 33 44 3.1 5.5 > > I'm wondering about is Jon's remarks about KR. He > wrote: > >For any given set of parameters" bore, dip, hammer > >blow, knuckle radius; there is an optimum > >intersection (KR) between the capstan and wippen > >cushion to minimize/optimize jack travel. The > >greater the KR, the greater the wippen travel... > > This seems to make KR a matter of distanced traveled > in relationship to other moving parts. However, in > the new touchweight metrology, I thought KR is is key > weight ratio - therefore a weight measurement which > refers to a static force. > > Is BW a priority over FW? On note #2 the touchweight > improved after the capstan was moved, however on note > #16 while R was improved by moving capstan, the BW > went higher. Should FW be lowered to bring BW down to > 38. If so the D and U will be changed and we are > saying that BW is priority over FW. How can the FW's > be smooth (not as smooth as a PTD install) but > relatively smooth if we have to jack them up and down > to achieve the BW target? > > Is it possible to get all of the various components at > the desired level, i.e. - On this action can I get all > of the BW's at 38, all of the SR at 5.5, all of the KR > at .52 - by setting the appropriate SW and the FW is > set at the maximums? Or, if not would assist springs > be the only solution? > > In all of this, the highest priority must continue to > be helping the pianist to play at their highest level. > > > Trying to be balanced - > > Bob Hull > > > > ____________________________________________________ > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > > _______________________________________________ > caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC