[pianotech] key position at rest

PAULREVENKOJONES at aol.com PAULREVENKOJONES at aol.com
Sat Mar 14 21:12:17 PDT 2009


Yes, and they demonstrated this at several conventions and seminars quite  
effectively, first at a Cal State meeting I attended in 1998. That's the source  
of my memory of this. Thanks, William!
 
Paul
 
 
In a message dated 3/14/2009 8:46:07 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
bill at a440piano.net writes:

FWIW,  

In Feb. of 1999 the Journal published results of an experiment  entitled, 
"What Happens If....?", conducted by our esteemed colleagues:  Richard Davenport 
RPT, Mark Abbott Stern RPT, Kay Forrest, Pam Consoli RPT,  (and filmed by Alan 
Eder, RPT).  In this experiment, the team set up a  1980's vintage Yamaha 
grand action model to accept a number of geometry  changes, one of which was 
taking a vertical capstan and rotating it to 8  degrees back as well as 15 degrees 
back, keeping the same contact point  between the capstan and wippen heel.  
Both changes yielded the same  result: a 3g reduction in DW and UW.  Why both 
changes gave the same  result, I'm not sure, but it appears that having some 
angle on the capstan was  "beneficial."

William R. Monroe


On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Richard Brekne <_ricb at pianostemmer.no_ 
(mailto:ricb at pianostemmer.no) >  wrote:

Hi  Paul

David has it right. The idea of leaning the capstan forward  instead of 
backwards has to do with the friction between the whippen heel  and the capstan. 
You have two parts both moving in arcs, and at half way  through the key stroke, 
these arcs should be touch.  The idea is that  this condition yields the 
least friction between the two parts. So in order  for this to happen, the 
<<point>> of the capstan and the  <<point>> of the whippen heel should be exactly 
parallel and on  the same line at half blow. It makes good sense but as to 
whether or not one  can measure a difference ... well I haven't actually measured 
such things  myself... so I wont presume to answer that.

Why they angled them  backwards I'm still unsure of.  I've thought at times 
they must have  thought they were getting more leverage out of the lever.  That 
doesn't  really quite wash when it comes down to it.  You put a vertical 
force  on an angled input to a lever and you get into vectors... and everything is 
 moving anyways.  Like I said to begin with... I don't really understand  
what they were thinking about when they angled them backwards.  Still,  the folks 
what designed things back then were not exactly idiots.  Might be nice to 
know.

Cheers
RicB  
 









**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220439616x1201372437/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech_ptg.org/attachments/20090315/8fccb882/attachment.html>


More information about the pianotech mailing list

This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC