Inertia

[HartmanCJ@aol.com]

David,

You said:
" Hammers have evolved to an upper limit that is very
well defined by the weight of Steinway concert grands and which correlate
very closely with my "full" projection zone.  Is there an argument with what
is used on 90% or so of all performance pianos?"

Looking at your figures for strike weights I find hammer weights from 12.8 to
4.9 for "full tonal Projection" and this is after subtracting 2gm for the
shank.
These figures are way out of sinc with what is found on NY S&S, past or
present. I have never found a NY D with more than 10 gm in the bass or 4 gm
at note 88.

I keep coming back to the same points:

1. There is no proof that heavier hammers have a better or louder tone.
 Hammer voicing and soundboard condition are just as much, if not more of a
factor in producing a powerful tone than increasing the hammer weight by 1,2
or 3 grams.

2. The increased dip used in your system is likely to improve the pianists
ability to produce a powerful tone; not the increased hammer weight or the
change in leverage. Key depth is always a tradeoff between power and control.

3. It is much easier to make the hammers weight  fit the leverage of the
action than to alter the action to work with a heavier than average hammer.

I can and do appreciate the interrelationship between the hammers weight and
the actions leverage that you have outlined for us, but I cannot agree with
the applications that you have suggested. It is very inefficient to alter the
action by changing the capstans and altering the wippens  to fit an arbitrary
hammer weight.

John Hartman