[CAUT] balancier/wippens report

[David Skolnik]

Wim -
Don't give up!  As a last resort, you could schedule an event like 
what Mark Cramer did for Wapin, and invite everyone down.  But we're 
not there yet.

I think the first thing you have to do is get off this thing about 
the rep lever pinning.  It's important, but not relating to 
checking.  As detailed and specific as Ed Foote's last reply was, 
there are still other subtleties which can make the difference, but 
they're hard (for me) to convey in this format.

The area you mention (F2 - F3) are angled hammers.  Determine if the 
facing is completely parallel to the back check.  I've seen plenty of 
examples of sloppiness here, which would reduce the contact area to 
one edge of the tail, especially with the new, firmer backchecks.

Look CLOSELY, (or is it  closely?) at the initial contact of the tail 
and check.  The shape of the Steinway backcheck can deceive you as to 
the actual distance between the "functional" bottom of tail and top 
of check.  Look at the difference in some other tail-check 
configurations.  Notice the difference in the shape of the check felt 
and its resulting profile.  The older ones were more square at the 
top, effectively placing the functional surface of the check closer to the top.

Gently press the hammer down to the check and observe the length of 
initial contact (ICL).  If the backcheck has any convex radius and 
the tail has a short-ish radius, the contact length will be 
insufficient.  The  Steinway tails I first became familiar with were 
not an exact radius.  More of an angled flat face of about 1/2" 
before gradually becoming parallel to the center line.  This allowed 
more surface contact than a radius but had enough angle to prevent 
slide-through on a strong blow.

Some style backchecks achieve a more concave surface which tends to 
allow for a straighter tail and generally softer checking shock.

I don't believe you referred to the age of this piano.  I'd like to 
know if it has the older style of backchecks & wires or new.  The 
newer ones have very stiff wires and very firm felt/leather.  This 
tends to eliminate what I think is an important spring function.

I apologize if the above is unclear.  Keep trying.  Think of the 
moment when you figure it out.

David Skolnik



At 05:48 PM 12/15/2006, you wrote:
>Quoting David Skolnik <davidskolnik at optonline.net>:
>
> > Hey Wim -
> > Just a friendly reminder.  Have you had a chance to look at the piano
> > yet?
> >
> > David Skolnik
> >
> >
> >
> > At 08:58 AM 11/15/2006, you wrote:
> > >Since this thread got started with wippens, I want to report that I
> > am
> > >not going to be able to do the work on the balanciers on the D
> > until
> > >Dec. 7. I will give a report once I'm done.
> >
> >
>
>Today I got a chance to do some more work on the wippens in the D on
>our concert stage. First of all, instead of calling them bobbling
>hammers, I think it would be better described as non checking hammers.
>Bobbling hammers means there is something wrong. From what I am able
>to figure out, there is nothing wrong with a hammer not checking.
>
>I tried everything. My focus was on F2 - to F3, especially on F2- A2.
>These seemed to be the ones that were not checking, no matter how hard
>I hit the key. I checked the balancier of F2 and found it to be at 2
>grams. This is what it was a few weeks ago when I had repinned from
>2 grams to 6 grams. So I repinned it again, this time to 7 grams. But
>the hammer still did not check.
>
>I tried to play every note in this octave with the same amount of
>force. I found C3 to "non" check, but C#3 to check. So I measured the
>balancier on each one. Both were at 2 grams. I made sure everything
>else was the same. So why does one hammer at 2 grams check, and the
>other not? I don't know.
>
>I did get a little better checking when I pushed the checks back a
>little, which gave me about 3/4" - 7/8" checking distance. But other
>than that, I am perplexed. I don't know why these hammers are not
>checking. I tuned a 5'5" Young Chang the other day, and even on a
>fairly soft blow, all the hammers checked.
>
>As I wrote earlier, all of our regulating procedures can be  measured.
>But when it comes to having hammers checked, there are no
>measurements. The curve of the tail, the rake of the back check, the
>roughness of both the tail and the backcheck, the strength of the
>spring, and the amount of touch, all have an effect on how a hammer
>checks. But there is virtually no way of measuring these things.
>
>Nothing I have tried seems to work. So for now, I give up. But if
>anyone has another answer, I will be glad to try again.
>
>Wim
>Willem Blees, RPT
>Piano Tuner/Technician
>School of Music
>University of Alabama
>Tuscaloosa, AL USA

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20061216/b00350cd/attachment.html