[CAUT] lighter touchweight

[Chris Solliday]

Yes Ric, i too would like more info to get the basic out of the way, a good
marriage of Ratio and StrikeWeight, but that doesn't seem likely in this
case. As for capstan/wippen friction, a lighter weight resting on the
capstan will result in less friction. Don't change anything else and put in
a lighter wippen or one with an assist spring and measure it. With an assist
spring picking up much or all of the weight of the wippen (and that doesn't
have to be adjusted that tightly to accomplish it), as some have erroneously
imagined the rep spring to be doing, you will read less friction statically
and perhaps wonder what happened but I assure you that the effect is much
greater when the action is in motion and felt by the player. Further not all
of them like it. Ask me how I know. In other words you can give the same BW
(with same Up and Down) with springs and lead as you do with just lead and
the noticable difference will be two things, mass of the key at break away
and less friction. Where else is it but at the the place you pulled the
weight off of?
I truely wish we had a way of measuring kinetic component friction cause
then I'd have charts and graphs and really kick your butt! But think about
it and tell me where I'm wrong because I'm just a beginner and I start over
fresh everyday anyway.
BTW just asa a teasing aside, the newly designed wippens that Jamie and
Bruce are developing for M &H from synthetics are lighter, several grams
lighter, than standard and the reason is???? So they can put the weight into
the hammer and reduce friction at the capstan which by the way is anodized
aluminum and of course very light.
Best wishes to you,
Chris Solliday

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Brekne" <ricb at pianostemmer.no>
To: <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 4:17 PM
Subject: [CAUT] lighter touchweight


> Hi Chris
>
> I wonder if you might expound a bit on how a player can kinetically feel
> less friction at the capstan whippen interface.
>
> I'd agree that any reduction in friction either there or at the roller /
> jack interface is a good thing... but I'm having a difficult time
> pondering how a even upto a gram of weight difference sitting on the
> capstan can be experienced as a reduction in friction visa vi a gram
> difference in strike weight being felt in terms of the jacks
> interreaction with the roller.
>
> I would be cool indeed to have a set of Stanwood numbers on this piano.
> Either there is a good (read <<usual>>) reason why the pianist senses
> heavyness... and from what we have it really doesnt look like it, or the
> fellow just plain wants feather play.
>
> What I see so far is  low friction (in all regards) reasonably low
> static DW/UW and low mass levels (infered from apparently low key leads
> and the resultant BW).  I'd like to know if the leverage is (after
> Stanwood) to low (read ratio to high)  for the SW's--- despite the
> seeming light touch action.
>
> In anycase... lightening this further is going to quickly run into to
> low an UW without further ado.  I got the drift he was saying well below
> 30 UW... as in round 26-27 myself.
>
> Cheers
> RicB
>
>
>     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