[CAUT] priority in touchweight balancing was downweight vs. balanceweight

[Chris Solliday]

marry the hammer (strike) weight to the (strike) ratio is the biggest bang
for the buck and everything else flows naturally for that. Chris Solliday
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Hull" <hullfam5@yahoo.com>
To: <caut@ptg.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 12:53 AM
Subject: [CAUT] priority in touchweight balancing was downweight vs.
balanceweight


> Jon and David, thanks for the replies and suggestions
> on the touchweight balancing.
>
> Of  all of the adjustments and improvements we make
> when doing touchweight component balancing, is there
> one or two that have priority over the others?  For
> instance should BW and or R (or BW, R and SW) be given
> priority over FW?  If so to what degree can FW be
> sacrificed to achieve the desired level of the
> priority balances?
>
> I have made corrections in the data (#16 SW), (#28 SW)
> and included the key ratio. See the table below.
>
> Before and after adjustment numbers are given on note
> #2 and note #16. (Adjustments included moving capstan
> 1/16" forward and tilting it back 8 degrees.
>  * indicates new numbers after capstan move and FW &
> SW adjusted.
>
> (NY S&S D)
> Note SW    D   U    BW   FW    R    KR  WBWAvg.
> 1   13.9  51  21    36   49   5.5  .53   8.56
> 2   13.6  62  26    44   43.4 5.8  .55   etc.
> 2*  13.1  55  25    40   40.3 5.47 .55
> 9   13.2  52  24    38   45.7 5.7  .55
> 10  13.3  52  24    38   43.3 5.5  .56
> 16  12.4  54  22    38   44.6 5.9  .54
> 16* 12.4  50  30    40   37.6 5.56 .54
> 17  12.7  54  24    39.5 43.7 5.8  .55
> 28  11.7  54  25    39.5 34.4 5.6  .55
> 29  10.7  49  17    33   37.2 5.7  .55
> 40  10.7  51  26    38.5 27.2 5.3  .54
> 41  10.6  54  26    40   25.8 5.4  .56
> 52   9.9  52  29    40.5 20.7 5.3  .53
> 53   9.7  53  31    44   21.3 5.8  .55
> 64   8.8  53  30    41.5 21.3 4.2  .52
> 65   9.0  55  28    41.5 17.9 5.6  .53
> 76   8.2  54  29    41.5 11.4 5.4  .53
> 77   7.7  55  37    46    7.7 5.4
> 87   7.3  57  34    45.5  7.3 5.4
> 88   7.0  55  33    44    3.1 5.5
>
>  I'm wondering about is Jon's remarks about KR.  He
> wrote:
> >For any given set of parameters" bore, dip, hammer
> >blow, knuckle radius; there is an optimum
> >intersection  (KR) between the capstan and wippen
> >cushion to minimize/optimize jack travel. The
> >greater the KR, the greater the wippen travel...
>
> This seems to make KR a matter of distanced traveled
> in relationship to other moving parts.  However, in
> the new touchweight metrology, I thought KR is is key
> weight ratio - therefore a weight measurement which
> refers to a static force.
>
> Is BW a priority over FW?  On note #2 the touchweight
> improved after the capstan was moved, however on note
> #16 while R was improved by moving capstan, the BW
> went higher. Should FW be lowered to bring BW down to
> 38.  If so the D and U will be changed and we are
> saying that BW is priority over FW.  How can the FW's
> be smooth (not as smooth as a PTD install) but
> relatively smooth if we have to jack them up and down
> to achieve the BW target?
>
> Is it possible to get all of the various components at
> the desired level, i.e. - On this action can I get all
> of the BW's at 38, all of the SR at 5.5, all of the KR
> at .52 - by setting the appropriate SW and the FW is
> set at the maximums?  Or, if not would assist springs
> be the only solution?
>
> In all of this, the highest priority must continue to
> be helping the pianist to play at their highest level.
>
>
> Trying to be balanced  -
>
> Bob Hull
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
> _______________________________________________
> caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>
>