Strike Weight

[Richard Brekne]

Thanks David. I was able to take a look at the image. I see by it that it is not
quite the same thing as the demonstration I saw some years back.

In that demonstration, the tail and hammer sit on the scale as in your image, but
the flange is what is holding the assembly. Yours takes that out of the picture.
The purpose of the demonstration was so show that the effective weight of the
hammer changes as the angle of the hammar shank and the flange changes. It was
given during a discussion about different factors that affect downweight. The
point being that raising the hammer rest position by screwing up the capstan
should then result in an increase in down weight.

As I said, this seemed to make sense enough and I never considered it further
until the other day when this thread started. I checked it on a rather light touch
grand and found that this was not really the case. (at least in this instance).
The weight it took to slightly deflect the hammer did very slightly increase as
hammer to string distance was decreased by the capstan adjustment, but the weight
needed to lift the hammer to letoff actually decreased dramatically.

Kristiin was refering to this adjustment I belive, and this one sample would seem
to bear out the idea that the percieved weight of the key would decrease when the
hammer to string distance is decreased, tho perhaps the action would be a bit more
sluggish.

One piano, one sample, not enough, and I suppose you all already have an
explanation for this. I would indeed like to hear it.

Richard Brekne
I.C.P.T.G.  N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway

"David C. Stanwood" wrote:

>
>
> Strike Weight seemed the best name I could come up with.
> The method you are describing is unclear.  The measurement
> taken with the shank off the rail.
>
> Please refer to:
> http://www.tiac.net/users/stanwood/swsetup.gif
> Are you able to access this?
>
>
>
> David C. Stanwood