[CAUT] lighter touchweight

[Chris Solliday]

Ric and all,
the real reduction here could be felt by the player kinetically as less
friction at the capstan wippen profile, although you will find a reduction
in static friction component as well. Just removing weight is one way,
adding an assist spring to the wippen is another more influential way. But
to be clear about this particular issue I am discussing theory for the most
part and agree with Jim Ellis and Don Maninno that other issues are more
practically persued and in fact there may not be ANY problem here. Afterall
we don't know the Ratio and most Baldwins are high and to have achieved 52
down and 30 up with minimal friction seems a wonderful result to this old
Baldwin kicker.
Chris Solliday
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Brekne" <ricb at pianostemmer.no>
To: <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 1:27 PM
Subject: [CAUT] lighter touchweight


> Actually, this is not quite correct either.  The rep spring in play does
> basically the same thing it does when we hold the key down.  It pushes
> the two <<halfs > of the action it separates away from each other. Its
> just that when you hold the key down the only thing that can move is the
> hammer... upwards.  But it exerts exactly the same amount of force in
> each direction just the same. How much is released in either direction
> is another matter.  Under play the parts move away from each other
> relative to how much mass each half presents to the spring. If the key
> has enough effective mass.. then you can actually experience a slight
> rise in the hammer under normal play. Happens with often enough when the
> pianists fingers dont simply release the key or release it very slowly.
>
> As far as the whippens' weight.  True enough that 1 gram of whippen
> radius weight equals translates to roughly 0.5 grams of weight
> difference at the key.  Clear enough given by the following : Action
> Weight  = (SW x HR x WR) + WW.   Where Action Weight is what is sitting
> on the capstan.  That said... that is a static measurement.  I dont know
> of anyone who's looked all that closely at the dynamics of different
> whippen weights.  I wouldnt have any problem removing 2-3 grams of
> whippen radius weight.  It is after all a small gain (if gain means
> reduced Action Weight) and its quick and easy enough to do.
>
> If you lower whippen mass and leave the spring as it was.. then there
> will most definitely be a change in repetition speed. The sum of the two
> halfs are reduced and so the spring has an easier time of it. Dark side
> of this moon tho is that for the same repetition spring strength, more
> will be felt fed back through the key.
>
> Cheers
> RicB
>
>
>
>
>      > Greetings,
>      >    I don't understand  how whippen weight relates to hammer rise,
>     since
>      > the only part of the whippen that moves during this rise is the
>      > balancier.  More explanation, here, please...
>      > Regards,
>      >
>      >
>      > Ed Foote RPT
>
>
>     It ought to improve repetition some, because there's slightly
>     less mass in the wippen. Hammer rise doesn't have anything to
>     do with repetition except as a handy visual aid for us to set
>     spring strength on the bench. In play, the wippen and back of
>     the key are pressed down and the hammer doesn't rise. Whether
>     the repetition difference is enough to be worth the trouble is
>     a subjective call.
>     Ron N