[CAUT] Shank to Hammer weight spreadsheet

[Jon Page]

>  ...is to prepare the hammer set, weigh each hammer and alter the
>ones necessary so that the hammer weights themselves are a smooth
>progression.  Then weigh the SW of each shank and sort them from
>heaviest to lightest.  Then put the hammers and shanks together
>with the heaviest shank at #1 etc.

Yes, this is what I said for the ultimate application but the heaviest shanks
need not be placed beginning on #1 but higher in the scale depending
on whether you need a bump high up.  And for that matter, is this inertia
consideration over a simple weight consideration even worthwhile or is it
more for the WFF (Warm Fuzzy Feeling).  I think this inertia effect is
minimized in the lever train, possibly made irrelevant.  Inertia consideration
may be better managed at the front of the key with lead placement
and action ratios.

There is a point of diminishing returns, the individual hammers have such
a weight discrepancy that this micro-adjusting of HW can just as easily,
if not more so, be achieved by mating the appropriate SSW. Weight matching
parts leaves more of the integrity of the hammer intact - hammer felt mass.

I take weight from the area which used to have a cove. I see no benefit
to the cove.  What is it anyway, a leftover from a time when hammers needed
to be pared down to the max, compensating for high action ratio?  Left in for
tradition?  A cove removes so little weight it is hardly worth the 
effort especially
today with better action geometry applications.

Regards,

Jon Page
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20080220/6b2808a5/attachment.html