Baldwin Bridges

[Delwin D Fandrich]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Nossaman" <RNossaman@KSCABLE.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: August 14, 2001 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: Baldwin Bridges


> ....what are the odds that the resulting crown
> would "match" that of any given board? Slim to none would be my guess,
> given the differences from plank to plank in both the maple of the
bridges,
> and the spruce of the soundboard.

I agree. Slim to--well, perhaps not none but surely very slight.



> I know you didn't mean that literally,
> but I'm not all that convinced that crowning a bridge has any detectable
> enhancing effect on performance anyway - at least in grands. A "flat"
> bridge lays flat on the boards I've tried it on just like a "crowned"
> bridge does. I haven't put any soundboards in verticals though, so I can't
> say one way or another there.

I can't see why there would be any difference between a grand or a vertical
in this. But, now that you mention it--I'd forgotten--much effort went into
making the grand bridges dead flat. I've never seen much value to "crowning"
the bridges. Which crown are you going to try to match? Unloaded or loaded.
Recently loaded or long-term loaded? After all, eventually they are going to
end up nearly flat no matter what you do to begin with.



> Now I haven't built a bridge notcher, so I'm not speaking from specific
> experience, but why wouldn't they build it to index off the hold down on
> top, rather than the bottom? That would maintain the notch depth relative
> to the top however tall the bridge was. I suppose it would be more
> expensive and complicated to raise and lower the table or the hold down
and
> cutter assembly than just the hold down. But still.

It's probably a moot point since I expect that any production bridge
notching machinery being built today would be computer-controlled. But the
system used was simple and effective and would have produced good bridges if
it had been use properly and with reasonable tolerances held on the bridge
blanks.

Del