Dutch invention for the upright

[EHILBERT@midd.middlebury.edu]

Dear Arnold,
      Glad to see that Don Rose was able to open up your picture.  It just
came tthrough to me as a lot of letters and symbols.  However, I also
received my copy of the the English PianoForte Tuners Association Journal and
it has an artice with picture in it also.  I must confess that the description
didn't make much sense to me.  The picture seems to show the magnets being
on the bottom of the catcher shank and this in opposition to another magnet
mounted on some type of ehorizontal extension off the top of the jack and
goint back under the catcher shank.  The article states about the invention,
Velo(the inventor) uses two opposing permanent magnets - one mojnted on the
bottom of the hammer (read that as catcher shank if you believe the picture-Ed)
, and the other on the jack. When the note has been struck the magnetic force
prevents the hammer from returning to rest immediately, holding it a few
millimetres from the string, even before the jack has returned to its original
position. "The result is the note can be played again long before the key
has returned to rest," says Velo.
      The picture isn't really clear, so perhaps I am not seeing things
exactly right.  I could see magnet working if kone was place in the top of
the jack facing the catcher, and another was placed in the catcher so that
they had like poles working in opposition to each other and so that the
hammer when put in check, would have the catcher magnet being held very
closely to the top of the jack.  Then the jack would be repulsed to go back
under the hammer butt very quickly when the key was released.  That couild
spede up repetition, but that is not what is shown or how it is described.

According to the article, this Velo upright action now repeats faster than
a concert grand action can.
      The inventor is, "Henri Velo. a retired engineer who used to work
for the electronics company Philips..."
      When at the Europiano convention in Skallerup Klit, in 1993, we
saw another very radical design using an action in which the parts all
remained connected to each other and was thus supposed to repeat faster
and give the pianist more control.  Klaus Fenner was in the class and
declared the concept no good, said that pianists would nenver accept the
feel, etc.  However, others of us were more open-minded.  I agree, it would
not feel like today's action does, but then we have learned to accept whatg
toda's action feels like and it feels considerably different from many of
the earlier actions which were also acceptable in their day.  So pianists
might in the future learn to prefer one of these newer designs.  After all,
by the standards of 200 years ago, our modern action would have felt much
to heavy and would have seemed unnacceptable.  The times change, and so do
the things we live with.
      By the way, is this action by Velo, the same one you have in your
picture?  Thanks, Ed
Ed Hilbert