Dennis Johnson Wrote: >Thanks David. I just did some tests with different parts but using >the same hammer and original key ratio. I am surprised how close the >numbers are and here is what I got for Strike ratio: >Old Parts 5.6 >Renner early N.Y. 5.9 >Renner Hamburg 5.4 Very intersting. How many samples did you take in each case? (For statistically meaningful a minimum of two samples per test is required) >I get the message that you would not automatically change an >underleveraged key ratio. I think you mean overleveraged. In my work and the work of all my associates we set the strikeWt Ratio to 5.5. Only in special cases do we go for a 5.0 spec. If the action is underleveraged (high strike ratio) we almost always lower to a 5.5. Sometimes we accept a 6.0 average level but we make sure to make the hammers appropriately lighter to match. >sort of sounds like you are consciously compensating for bad geometry with >more leverage. Have I got it wrong? What do you mean by "bad geometry? If you mean leverage, we compensate for that by moving capstans, etc. If you mean the relationship between coinciding arcs of the parts, first we make sure that spread distance is workable and the capstan contact point of the wippen heel is close to a straight line between the wip center and the key balance point. Then we fix the strike ratio. David C. Stanwood
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC