---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment Ron Overs wrote: >> I thought that tongue and groove might be a good idea long >> before I heard about it here. Lately I've been day dreaming about >> finger joints. Any feelings on how that might work in a soundboard >> situation? It seems that a finger joint would offer more surface >> area than a tongue and groove. > > Finger joints are fine, but there's no real benefit in having such a > strong joint since we are only dealing with spruce. The real benefit > of the tongue and groove is the improved alignment of the boards when > gluing up the panel - which allows for the boards to be sawn closer to > the finished size. The smaller the tongue and groove the better, since > less wood will be wasted when machining the joining surfaces. The > total loss for each joint will be double the tongue size. > Will not strength in the joint help to prevent future problems with > separated glue joints? I live in an area where the humidity swings can > be great from summer to winter. It seems like this might be an > important thing to consider, no? What thickness stock do you start > with when glueing up panels? How are you planing down to the finished > thickness? are you tapering the board? > > >> Call me a ponderer. > > Some of us ponder, then some of those carry through that-upon-which > they've pondered, then the hind-sight thing sets in. Its a good idea > to ponder and plan long and hard before you take the plunge, but not > for too long or you'll get put in a box first. > Now Ron, you don't even know me and you figured that out? Man, I must > be really transparent or something ;-) > > >> I would love to here from you any tips, ideas, or pitfalls to be >> aware of as I begin to prepare for this job. If you have an idea of >> a supplier for Sitka or opinions about other woods I would love to >> hear that too! > > Uncle Ron N did a very good job in his post. If you look again at the > three gluers image (http://www.overspianos.com.au/3glrs.html), you > will see that there is a plywood piece cutout to match to inner > rim/sound-board-panel contact area (it also has a bass-corner-section > to cover the sound board cutoff, and with a special deeper throat > clamp made for it). This continuous plywood piece ensures that the > clamping pressure is distributed evenly to the sound board panel. This > piece is made from an 8' x 4' x 18mm thick plywood sheet with the > cutoff back-right corner scarf jointed to the right hand side (to > cover the entire board with a single sheet). > > How practical do you see this to be since i'm not doing production > instruments and each one will likely have a different shped rim? > > This idea came to me directly from uncle Ron N before I glued in no. > 003 sound board. We undercut the outer-lower edge around the perimeter > to prevent any excess glue-squeeze-out from gluing the former to the > sound board. This single piece device allows for clamping up much > faster than using individual blocks for each clamp. Regarding solid > verses laminated panels, I had intended to build the next two pianos > (004 and 005) with one solid and one laminated panel for an A-B > comparison. But we're so satisfied with the results of no. 003 that I > am beginning to wonder if there is any point in using a solid panel > again. The laminated panel has better resistance to checking and it > seems to slightly improve tuning stability. > > #3 was a laminated panel? Was it a ready made product or did you > laminate it yourself? Of what is it made? We're there any difficulties > glueing ribs to it? No matter which direction you go you are alway > crossgrain top one of the layer right? Any trouble gluing to the rim? > > > >> though I was not fortunate enough to hear your piano this past >> convention I hope to this time around in Chicago. I certainly >> respect your opinion and value your input to "the list". > > Thanks Greg but I can't see myself getting to Chicago this year > unless some miracle happens. > > My loss! I'll just have to be patient I guess. > > I am currently designing three new grands, a 185, 230 and a 280 (top > elevations can be seen together one behind the other at > http://overspianos.com.au/cases.html). We are building just two more > pianos based on the undrilled Samick 225 plate. These pianos will be > very similar to no. 003 (the Reno exhibit piano), but with a larger > bass corner cut-off. We've had such a big (read expensive) couple of > years developing these instruments that I'm going to have sit tight > for a bit. However, I am looking forward to returning to the US as > soon as we get another serious new product up and running - either the > 230 or 280. > What is the purpose for the bass cutoff? Are you hoping to stop an > energy loss to an otherwise useless area of the board? what form does > the cutoff bar take? Is it both above and below the board? Are there > any braces going out to the rim from the cutoff bar? > > >> The three gluers thing was cute! How is your efforts going in >> getting your piano used at the concert hall? Is this a battle with >> Steinway or the hall? > > Recently we had a battle with certain folks in a management capacity > who wanted the new Stuart piano to be used for all concerts in a > certain chamber music recital series for the Sydney Festival - > regardless of the wishes of the pianist. However the pianist (for one > of the four concerts) requested our no. 003. Miraculously after some > arm twisting we got permission to supply it for David Bollard's Jan 20 > concert. At this time, since we only manufacture a 225 cm grand piano, > we will be at a natural disadvantage over other makers who have a full > concert piano. Regardless of how good or bad our piano may sound, it > is visually inferior from a length perspective. > > It's not enough to have the best product on the market you have to > sell it too! That's the part I hate!!! If I ever got far enough to > build a piano I would have to hire out for sales people to do those > things for me. I wish you the very best. > > > >> The longer I'm in this business the less respect I seem to have for >> Steinway. They do some things well but the most successful thing >> they do is their marketing. well, this is nothing new to serious >> technicians is it? > > Yes they're great marketers but innovation has been almost completely > non existent for over a hundred years. This time our problem was not > with Steinway (wasn't always thus), but again it was an entrenched > manufacturer - in this case very recently entrenched. Best > regards, Ron O.-- > OVERS PIANOS > Grand Piano Manufacturers > _____________________________ > > Web: http://www.overspianos.com.au > Email: mailto:ron@overspianos.com.au > _____________________________ Really enjoy your website BTW -- Greg Newell mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/d3/45/dd/5c/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC