Thanks, Alan, I took more pics (if you're interested, I'll post them) It appears very little changes in flange height when the screws are tightened, but there is some. Maybe a total of .5mm max; from bare bar to sandpaper to stringing-braid. My initial thought when doing this was, how much will this affect the total regulation of the action as a whole and/or how will the travelling be affected? (I have not done this step yet). My first thoughts are that it will only make a difference in the settings of the many screws, springs, etc., but would indeed regulate properly at the most important places like let-off and drop,etc., being such a little measurement. Then, I started thinking about the heights making a rather big difference in geometry. Or would it? That is, being compared to flanges at the exact same height using only one kind of under-flange material.(assuming the rail is perfectly even, that is...) What I've done so far is to simply screw down, snugly, the flanges on the rail and let the various flanges, cloths, paper to get acclimated to each other. I'll tighten them a bit more tomorrow and then travel the shanks. How important is this measurement if it's "regulatable" as far as the final product? 0.5mm(or less) is a very small measurement at this point of the overall geometry, and I'm sure a day to day pianist might not notice this as much as changing key dip or drop by this much would be to a seasoned pianist (or piano major). I'm hoping, when all the new parts are on and piano re-strung, etc, that it will play very evenly as I hope. I suppose the experiment is more to do with how well the flange stays in place rather than drifting, causing lots of re-aligning of hammers to strings with these different methods, season to season, including what might make "noise" in dry times.. Was flange position stability the main reason Steinway used cloth (or other makers using various stuffs) or a sound issue? Any more thoughts on this sort of geometry-potential/regulating issues are always welcome! This is a fun project! Thanks, all Paul T. Williams RPT UNL ---- GO HUSKERS!! From: reggaepass at aol.com To: caut at ptg.org Date: 09/28/2009 02:21 PM Subject: Re: [CAUT] experiment Hey Paul, I salute your moxie! Please let us know if your experiment confounds getting consistent hammer center pin elevations (more than usual, that is). Thanks, Alan Eder -----Original Message----- From: Paul T Williams <pwilliams4 at unlnotes.unl.edu> To: Paul T Williams <pwilliams4 at unlnotes.unl.edu> Cc: CAUTlist <caut at ptg.org> Sent: Mon, Sep 28, 2009 10:07 am Subject: Re: [CAUT] experiment So, The experiment looks something like this: Approximately 1/3 of each section has stringing braid, fine sandpaper, and then bare rail. I'll let you know what happens next. I think it will work...unless it doesn't (ala Kent Webb's saying) :>) Paul From: Paul T Williams/Music/UNL/UNEBR To: CAUTlist <caut at ptg.org> Cc: Paul T Williams <pwilliams4 at unlnotes.unl.edu> Date: 09/27/2009 02:35 PM Subject: experiment Hi all, Thanks for all the input on the action rail cloth!. I'm going to try an experiment since this is a practice room grand. (it will be awhile til I get results since it's going out for a new board, bridges and pinblock.) When it returns, I'm going to do the following; I'll put the stringing braid cloth with beeswax on a section, sandpaper on a section, traditional cloth on a section, and bare-rail on a section and see what happens! Might make for some interesting discussion or a short thing in the Journal. I'll keep you posted! Thanks, all, for all the great tips! Paul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20090928/964d81e3/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC