[CAUT] balancier/wippens report

[David Skolnik]

Susan -
I don't question your observations, or Ric's either.  I'm just 
looking for an explanation. First, I don't understand when you say 
that, due to the lack of friction, the hammer will have less inertia. 
I can think of two possible explanations to support this contention, 
but I'd be curious to know your idea first.

Also, am I correct in understanding that "frictionless" hammershank 
pinning has been Steinway's approach for sometime now?

I anxiously await your reply!!

David Skolnik


At 06:04 AM 12/18/2006, you wrote:
>At 10:58 PM 12/17/2006, you wrote:
>>Susan -
>>can you explain how loose pinning would create such a condition?
>>
>>David Skolnik
>
>Sure - if the hammer flange friction is too small, the hammer
>has too little inertia when it touches the backcheck - it's
>too bouncy and can escape from the check. I was fighting this
>failure to check in a D which had heavy use (in a roaring hurry -
>I saw it for the first time a couple of days before an event).
>I reshaped the tails, altered the backcheck angle, slightly
>roughened the tails of some of the more obstinate hammers,
>and left the springs just a tad weaker than I at first
>wanted them to be - and still a few hammers wouldn't check.
>
>So I gave them the swing test, and got about 15! Repinned to
>3 (which became four or five within a few days), and the piano
>became controllable and the notes would go into check. I wanted
>to repin all the hammers, but had no time before the guest
>lecturer was to use it - did them all the next year. The piano
>had a much less worn out feeling while playing - less flyaway.
>
>Susan