Dale, How do you determine this? Is there some formula? Greg Newell At 09:51 AM 2/18/2005, you wrote: > Dave > Another variable to keep in mind is that many of us are using sitka > spruce panels & the older designs used predominantly a softer eastern > wood. Softer wood under compression requires more thickness for strenght > to survive. WHere as Sitka is stiffer denser having the greatest strength > to wieght ratio. SO it can be thinner in the designs of any kind. It > depends on your idea of mass in the panel too. > I keep that in mind when I'm choosing panel thickness. This is also a > variable that could effect part of the equation for hammer selection. > I.E> many old Stwy A 2s had panels routinely .360 in the main part of > the panel. With Sitka .320 to 340 is plenty even if you were stricitly > compression crowning. > Dale > >Well I meant that more as a question than a statement. One thing that >does interest me is how CC vs RC&S methods influence, either in design or >execution, the relationship between mass and spring rate and how that >might relate to proper hammer matching. Which system, for example, tends >to have a thicker panel? It seems that the CC panel is generally thicker >in the center and tapered toward the rim whereas the RC&S panel is >slightly thinner and more uniform in thickness (except maybe around the >bass perimeter). Is that correct? Might not the difference in mass >distribution of the CC panel explain differences in hammer matching and >potentially some tonal differences? It seems that the CC panel requires a >much denser and possibly less flexible hammer than the RC&S board (at >least in my experience). Whether the tone production potential between >the two with appropriate hammers is net/net, is something I can't really >answer but do wonder about. The subject might point to some differences. > > > >David Love >davidlovepianos@comcast.net > > Greg Newell Greg's piano Forté mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC