[CAUT] Experiment success!

[Jim Busby]

List,

I think I read an article about Downy softener that said the long term
effect wasn't good. It seems it kind of "clogged up" the hammer so
future voicing was not possible. Anyone know about the long term effect?
(Within a couple of years) The Pianotek stuff isn't supposed to have
adverse effects. I've used it occasionally on marginal hammers with
success.

Jim Busby BYU

-----Original Message-----
From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of
Willem Blees
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 5:26 PM
To: College and University Technicians
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Experiment success!

Not only is Downey less expensive, it probably smells a lot better 
than the hammer softener from Piantek. BTW, does anyone know the 
ingredients of this stuff?

Wim
Willem Blees, RPT
Piano Tuner/Technician
School of Music
University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL USA
205-348-1469

Quoting Paul T Williams <pwilliams4 at unlnotes.unl.edu>:

> Hi all
> 
> Just wanted to give you an update on my hammer softener experiment. 
> It 
> ended up being a tie between the Downy softener and the hammer
> softener 
> from Protek.  Since most of the pianos I worked on have Abel and
> Renner 
> hammers, steaming didn't have a huge effect.  One M&H model A's
> hammers 
> are so badly worn (not even enough felt left to file!) that even the
> 
> softeners didn't do very much.  It's now slated for an action
> overhaul 
> this summer.( Abel or Renner? Hmmmmmmm...)
> 
> So for cost analysis, the hammer softener is about 75 cents per ounce
> and 
> the Downy/Alcohol is about 15 cents/ounce!  No brainer.  Time will
> tell 
> which will last the longest. 
> 
> BTW, The mineral spirits ended up working just fine on the Steinway 
> finish.
> 
> On to new challenges!
> 
> Best to all,
> 
> Hei, Hei!
> 
> Paul