Regulating With Metrics

[piannaman at aol.com]

 Regulating with metrics has always seemed like such a natural way to do it.  Maybe it's because I work on more Asian and European pianos than American built instruments, and all of the instruction and other printed material I've seen was metric in nature.  Dividing and multiplying into 1s, 10s and 100s is far simpler for me than doing the same operations by 64ths, 32nds, 16ths, etc., etc.

 


Dave Stahl
Dave Stahl Piano Service
dstahlpiano.net

 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dean May <deanmay at pianorebuilders.com>
To: 'Pianotech List' <pianotech at ptg.org>
Sent: Tue, 5 Feb 2008 6:07 am
Subject: RE: Regulating With Metrics
































A hearty amen. When going through
engineering school we primarily used metrics and even when I worked in design
in industry.  It sure did make the calculations easier. 



 



Here’s a rough chart for you:



 



1” = 25 mm (25.4)



3/4 = 19 (19.1)



1/2 = 13 (12.7)



1/4 = 6 (6.35)



1/8 = 3 (3.175)



1/16 = about 1.5 (1.6)



1/32 = about 1 (.8)



 






Dean



Dean May            
cell 812.239.3359 



PianoRebuilders.com  
812.235.5272 



Terre
  Haute
 IN 
 47802






 
















From:
pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Jurgen Goering

Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008
11:53 PM

To: pianotech at ptg.org

Subject: Re: Regulating Without
Specs






 



At the risk of opening a large can of worms and an even larger debate,
I think this is perfect example of why going metric (like Dale Erwin
demonstrated) is such an elegant mode of transport through exercises such as
these. Mixing fractions with decimal inches may work in this prepped example,
but the numbers are hardly ever so fortuitous. I heartily suggest to all
technicians to immerse themselves in millimeters, stop converting to inches,
buy metric rulers, calipers and whatever other measuring tools they need and
discover the brilliant ease of working in that system.

ducking for cover...

Jurgen Goering





On Feb 4, 2008, at 19:20, pianotech-request at ptg.org wrote:



snip...

Let’s just say you want something typical like a 3/8” key dip, 1/8” letoff, and
.050” aftertouch.  (Later I’ll show the equations for solving for
different variables)   Given the 3/8” key dip (.375”) and the .050”
aftertouch, we subtract aftertouch from key dip and know then that we have
.325” of useable key dip to move the hammer.  How far will it move? 
It will move 5xs the amount of keydip.  5 x .325” = 1.625”.  But
that’s not the hammer blow distance, because we haven’t accounted for
letoff.  If we want 1/8” (.125”) letoff, we need to ADD that to the hammer
travel of 1.625”, so the blow distance is then 1.75”, or 1 ¾”.

 ...snip...

OK, Lemme know whatcha
think!










 

John Dorr, RPT 









 


________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://webmail.aol.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20080205/173b01f5/attachment.html