Weird Frontweights

[Richard Brekne]

Yes.... well all this is fine and dandy Ron and Del.... but if that results in
fluxuations in FWs of up too 15 or more grams in neighboring keys.... then
something is wrong and right here in River city.

That was the origional complaint with this thread.... whether or not pattern
leading is too blame I dont know, but someone.... Ed Foote I think said
something about pattern leading sometimes results in such variations.  I have a
hard time thinking that this is acceptable.

One other thing.  Friction does  not present the same problem in a Stanwood
setup action. Friction is a sort of left over, and as such a known quantity.
You make the point of reasonable dependability below Ron... what could be more
dependable then this then ?

The only point left is cost effectiveness in a factory setting. Ok... its really
quick to stamp out a set of keys after a pattern. But wildly varying FW's is a
big negative. And if one already "knows" ahead of time just how much the FW
should be... as in to the tenth of a gram.... then it seems absurd to allow for
15 gram variances when this can be easily avoided.

btw... doesnt Stanwood has worked out a pattern system that fits with his basic
method also...?

Ron Nossaman wrote:

> >    Any weighting off of keys, if done on an individual basis, must first
> >have all of the other problems of friction, regulation, etc. taken care of
> >first. So many of the manufacturers don't seem to be able to do this.
> >    So, if a piano is made at the factory with these obvious shortcomings,
> >and then the keys are individually weighted on an action in that condition,
> >when it IS put into the proper, well-regulated condition, then it seems to
> >me that the key weighing would no longer be correct, and in fact would
> >probably be all over the place.
>
> That's the whole problem. Keys are individually weighted to produce uniform
> static down weight. It's done as a "finishing" step to "overcome" the
> apparent irregularities in the action, but it doesn't. Weight distribution
> from key to key most likely isn't where the problem lies in the first
> place, so changes in weight distribution from key to key probably aren't
> going to fix it. Pattern leading is a better approach because it's done as
> a foundation rather than a last ditch attempt at disguise. The leading
> pattern is, of course, established to accommodate anticipated action
> geometry and hammer weight graduation. With a reasonably competently
> designed pattern leading schedule, someone doing a "final" weigh off and
> finding wild discrepancies will know to look elsewhere than at the leading
> for the cause.
>
> That's why pattern leading is a better idea. It's a known weighting
> progression, and it helps to have SOMETHING reasonably dependable to work
> from.
>
> Ron N

--
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway
mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no