Moment of Inertia of grand action parts.

[Ron Nossaman]

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment

>You made some good points Bill, But I would have to disagree with this 
>statement. It seams to me that wasting energy is just what we want the 
>hammer to do at all levels of play. At soft levels of play we want it to 
>waist a lot of energy to make soft playing more assessable. At very laud 
>playing levels we what it to waist much less in order to expand the 
>dynamic level. This is achieved by the hammer's non linear compliance. 
> From a tonal point of view we also don't want the hammer to deliver all 
>of its energy to the string. It has to have enough energy left to rebound 
>from the string.

I wasn't aware that I had a choice as to whether or not the hammer 
rebounded off of the string. Where might I buy a hammer that doesn't?


>But I agree with you on the possibility that there may be a relationship 
>between the string scale / strike point design and the mass of the hammer.
>John Hartman RPT

There may indeed, and just possibly the soundboard design as well.

Ron N

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment

---

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.551 / Virus Database: 343 - Release Date: 12/11/2003

---------------------- multipart/mixed attachment--