Baldwin Accu-Just Hitch Pins--General Information

[Erwinspiano@AOL.COM]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
.> >> 
>> 
>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: <A HREF="mailto:Erwinspiano@AOL.COM">Erwinspiano@AOL.COM</A> 
>>> To: <A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A> ; <A HREF="mailto:Davehugh@msn.com">Davehugh@msn.com</A> 
>>> Sent: January 22, 2002 8:49 AM
>>> Subject: Re: Baldwin Accu-Just Hitch Pins--General Information
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In a message dated 1/21/2002 10:35:32 PM Pacific Standard Time, <A HREF="mailto:pianobuilders@olynet.com">
>>> pianobuilders@olynet.com</A> writes:
>>>      Del
>>>    I think possibly you were confused about the order of subjects under 
>>> discusion over the weekend. They did get convoluted and went from one 
>>> thing to another. The Baldwin board specs were hashed out some and then 
>>> it went on to the topic of setting crown in new boards, so you may not 
>>> have picked up on the sequential discussions of this thread. That's why 
>>> your post struck me the way it did. I didn't mean to necessarily relate 
>>> those downbearing numbers to the baldwin system but to a fairly typical 
>>> 60ft. crowned board with rib dimensions the same or similar to what ever 
>>> the original heights were. This type of board is pretty common in shops 
>>> across the country (as you know) and is probably where those asking the 
>>> question will start at. Hence my reply. Perhaps my post was confusing.
>>>       The prestressing method itself was what I wanted to make a point of 
>>> and as you say the bearing values will change given a host of different 
>>> factors. Although this method is old perhaps there other methods as well 
>>> that I would certainly enjoy hearing discussed.
>>>      I apologize for bristling a bit. The rest of you post was well taken 
>>> and clear enough.
>>> 
>>>                                                       Best--Dale Erwin
>>> 
>> But, Dale, I was aware that the thread had gone on, hence the new title on 
>> my post; Baldwin Accu-Just Hitch Pins--General Information. 
>> The comment you bristled over was intended to address what I see as an 
>> problem in which the reader ends up applying downbearing numbers given by 
>> a respected rebuilder as gospel in situations in which they really don't 
>> apply. If you've not yet seen this happen, you will.

  Del---I'll take the above as a compliment  as well as an admonition to be 
careful about what I'm trying to convey. Your point is well taken here and in 
re- reading the posts I can see how  the misconception or misapplication of 
what it was I said could be taken as Gospel. Even with all efforts made at 
being as specific as one can it's amazing what people thought you/I 
said.(self included). Obviously it was not my intention to mislead. It is 
obviously a complex subject and is  difficult to cover all senarios and 
situations. 
   I confess most of the rebuilders market is 90% Steinway rebuilding and it 
probably would have helped a bunch to at least state that this is my point of 
reference when setting bearing. This method has nuances and modifications 
that can vary given many factors as you pointed out even among Steinways
  Disclaimers like," this is only one (very common) method" or "don't try 
this at home unsupervised" or some such would be appropriate.
   That being said pre-stressing the board as part of setting bearing in some 
form is being used by a whole lot of guys and it is important information for 
the technical community to know as "one way to do it".
    I read John Hartmans articles on the subject in the journal and no 
disclaimers there as to the specifics you mentioned.  I read all of Nick 
Gravagnes info on the subject many times as to the 1& 1/2 degree method which 
doesn't really work. No disclaimer there and yes I used that for a while with 
less than satisfying results. My point is that unintentional dis- information 
occurs unfortunately.
   It  was John Hartman who first exposed me to the pre-stressing idea and it 
revolutionized the way my boards sounded. I just wanted to contribute this 
idea to those who wish to short cut some of their learning curve.
    Although prestressing isn't as sceintific as measuring rib height 
,tension, beam strength, and resultant angle of deflections for bearing 
values , it does work. But that's not to say that I'm uniterested in 
calculating bearing in that manner. I just haven't gotten there yet. I would 
love to compare the end results using both methods and will.
   As a matter of interest to me we both stated we would apply more bearing 
on the Baldwin system than the factory specs. suggested. The accujust info. 
was concise .
   I appreciate your contributions to the list very much . Thanks

     Best Regards--Dale Erwin
    
            Do you not vary these figures when confronted with a piano having 
a partcularly long or short back scale lengths?> >>   
 Are they the same for each make or brand of piano that you do? Are they the 
> >> same for a Model S as they are for a Model D? Do you really set A-1 at 0 
>> for both? Are the rib height and width always the same? What about a 6' 1" 
>> piano with 9 ribs vs. a 6' 1" piano with 11 ribs? Is your shop climate 
>> controlled? What if it weren't? What about the rebuilder in the south 
>> bellying a board in the summer? Without air-conditioning? Or in North 
>> Dakota. With heat! 
          
            >>>>>>I  think anybody reading the above  will consider your      
above points well taken.  .
> >> 
>> As may be, life's not a constant and my post was intended to point out a 
>> few of the idiosyncrasies of the Baldwin Accu-Just hitch pin system and to 
>> remind the reader that not all pianos--in particular, Baldwin pianos using 
>> the Accu-Just hitch pin system--are constant either.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Del
>> 
> 


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/e1/b5/dc/a2/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--