Key Weighting

[Joe Garrett]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Ed said: "Greetings,=20
   That original "light" touch may be due to geometry, or it may be =
small=20
hammers. =20
Yes, the original "light" touch was due to the geometry. The original =
keys had a 1:1 ratio and small hammers, (w/weird action!)

I don't know what you mean by "modern", (and I assume it is a grand),=20
You must have missed my numerous posts, regarding this piano.<G> With =
the aid of Rick Wheeler, a completely new, (Renner/Wheeler), action has =
been built. The key ratio is more 2:1 now. Yes, it is a grand...1867 =
Chickering, Flat Strung, 8'.
=20
but if you greatly increase key weight, for any reason, you will change =
the=20
character of the touch.  Key weight, when taken too far, will slow the =
action=20
down, as well as creating an inertial point of diminishing returns.  By =
this I=20
mean, too much lead may make the action easier to play at softer =
dynamics, but=20
as the pianist attempts to play louder, (which means more accleration of =
the=20
key and key speed), the inertial resistance of the lead becomes a major =
factor=20
in the resistance.=20
This is exactly my thinking. I'm going to find out where that =
"diminishing returns" lies, as I progress with this.<G> Hence, the =
reason for my post!<G>
   I would take around 50 grams at C 4 to be a maximum downweight, and =
see=20
what the geometry creates on your upweight.  The action itself will let =
you know=20
how much blow and dip are reasonable, so without changing them, you will =
be=20
looking at a balancing act between hammer weight and key weight.  The =
smaller=20
the piano, the less hammer weight you can use."=20
Please explain your last statement?!! Not sure what the size of the =
piano has to do with anything. I would think that the length of the key, =
(keybed/cavity) would be the determining factor. I was thinking in terms =
of 50 grams, as well, but just wanted some feed-back. As for blow and =
dip, that has been part of the "redesign". Oh, BTW, the only thing that =
is part of the original piano action is, what is left of the key frame =
after new rails, etc. were installed. As these are "raw" keys, (w/o any =
lead), the job of doing the "balancing act" is next. Also, I've gone =
through the entire action, regarding action centers resistance and =
addressing all friction points. At this point I am checking the =
UW/DW....recording it, and determining  where there may still be some =
friction problems, if any. (I've always thought that most pianos were =
"weighted" w/o regard to enough factors or proper addressing of initial =
friction. I don't want to make that mistake, thankyouverymuch.<G>) The =
action has it's first regulation, but as yet, has not had the "stress =
machine" applied.<G>("stress machine" is my name for my Key Pounder =
Mechanism, that I use for settling the action, etc.)
Good luck,
Thanks! I need it!<G>
Regards,
Joe Garrett, R.P.T.
Captain, Tool Police
Squares R I
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/c6/f1/14/a1/attachment.htm

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