Lowell Gauge...was Down Bearing

[David Skolnik]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
At 08:19 PM 2/21/2004 -0500, Ed Foote wrote:
>The bridgecap's value as a reference is less,to my way of thinking, because
>  it has been planed, the bridge may have rolled
>a little, and I don't know if the string has buried itself in the front or
>back edge.

Ed-
I have been on a bit of an inarticulate crusade about this for a number of 
years. I tried talking to Tom Lowell about it some time ago, but without 
much success.  Now I'd be happy enough if he just starts making them again.

What you mention above is, to my experience, not the exception, but the 
rule.  While lacking hands-on rebuilding experience, I suspect that the 
initial stringing process exerts enough force on the front edge of the 
bridge to compress, or bury, which, subsequently forms a gap when the 
overall bridge height comes down.

To the point, as Ron N pointed out, the spacing of the feet of the gauge 
are of no consequence.  That would apply only with a 3 foot gauge (rocker 
or dial).  In fact, what I do is compress the feet of the gauge as close as 
possible, about 1/4".  By carefully balancing (the hard part) on the bridge 
string segment, and moving from front to rear, or reverse, you can SEE the 
exact shape of the string on the bridge surface.  I ALWAYS find a 
considerable curvature, the angular implications of which differ from what 
would be true for the "theoretical" flat surface we imagine when we extend 
the gauge's feet the full distance between the front and rear bridge pins.

What's more, the measurement of that first 1/4" (less, if possible) of the 
bridge-string segment is the only reference which is valid in assessing the 
quality of the front bearing.

 From recent discussions, I don't know if negative front bearing is viewed 
as an issue of much concern any longer, but, in any case, I think all this 
might help the consistency of the information people supply with this tool.

David Skolnik






>    Once I am zeroed on the speaking length, then the angle on the bridge
>tells me where the string is going, and the angle on the backstring 
>indicates what
>sort of bearing pressure is occurring at that point.
>   I suppose the most compelling reason I begin with the speaking length is
>that my last 10 years or so of measuring these beasts and listening to what
>comes out of them, and then taking them apart and changing stuff and 
>putting them
>back together and listening and trying to make some sense out of what I have
>wrought,(not to be confused with waxing roth) has all taken place with the
>gauge's readings from this baseline.  So,  even if my intuition is 
>misguided, the
>windage has already been accounted for and there are less surprises all the
>time.
>    Validity of information is great, but I can't let the facts get in the 
> way
>of what I know...
>Regards,
>Ed
>_______________________________________________
>pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/1b/12/2c/2f/attachment.htm

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