[CAUT] Knuckle height (Was Re: hammer line)

[Chris Solliday]

basically I use alcohol and water first and then VS profelt from Pianotek.
The result can be hastened with a heat gun but for the best result let sit
overnight. Just one drop and alittle gravity then flip it over. Sometimes I
work the flange alittle depending on how frozen it was. Be careful with the
VS Profelt you can go from 4 to .5 in no time. There are other solutions and
some folks make their own with alcohol water and soap. Check with Wally
Brooks for his proportions. Sometimes if I have one that is 12 grams or more
I will try the solution and if it doesn't get enough then I'll repin and
burnish and then maybe use some more sizing, or not. But regardless this is
an essential weapon in the battle for flange resistance. And of course
remember, friction is our friend.
Best,
Chris
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alan McCoy" <amccoy at mail.ewu.edu>
To: <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 11:21 AM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Knuckle height (Was Re: hammer line)


> Hey Chris,
>
> So would you mind writing up your procedure for sizing? I like the idea
> conceptually from an efficiency standpoint, and being lazy....
>
> Alan
>
>
> > From: Chris Solliday <csolliday at rcn.com>
> > Reply-To: "College and University Technicians <caut at ptg.org>"
<caut at ptg.org>
> > Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:38:47 -0500
> > To: "College and University Technicians <caut at ptg.org>" <caut at ptg.org>
> > Subject: Re: [CAUT] Knuckle height (Was Re:   hammer line)
> >
> > This could get laughable, it's true. But,
> > I sort only by weight after thinning, and have verified that there is a
> > direct correlation between weight and pitch (lighter is higher). So that
> > eliminates the need for the boinking, except that as Ric B points out
every
> > 50 or so has one that sounds like it has no pitch, and that one should
be
> > removed or at least recognized when voicing (or scratching by the ear
works
> > and is very fast compared to boinking) and replaced (after weight
> > modification of course).
> >  I don't sort by flange resistance but I do correct flange resistance,
> > mostly with a variety of sizing solutions. Repinning up is OK, which I
do
> > for almost every set of wippens at the balancier flange, but down
usually
> > only leads to more repinning after tearing up the felt with reamers. I
have
> > tried to burnish after reaming, and even sizing after reaming and
> > burnishing, but they just seem to make noise sooner than others.
Probably
> > just my lack of patience and technique. Anyway sizing works best for me
and
> > manufacturers of parts tell me that is what they prefer to do rather
than
> > pinning so who knows? I do get to see the results of both assaults years
> > down the road and like the sizing better in the long run.
> > Back to sorting, I don't sort for knuckle diameter variation but I do
check
> > for tight wrapping and reglue one side when necessary which does alter
the
> > measurable diameter. I think that although it may introduce a certain
> > elegance to sort them by diameter, it eliminates the possiblity of
easily
> > sorting by weight, which is much more productive, because as Ron points
out
> > you will need more sets to make it work at that point.
> > So I use only one set of shanks except for one or two clunkers, I sort
them
> > twice for weight, once before I thin and once after, I clean up pinning
> > resistance and make them all the same, and I fix any loose knuckle
wraps. It
> > really doesn't take that much time and it solves pre voicing weight
issues
> > and reduces the amount of work I have to do to achieve a smooth stike
weight
> > calibration. If you don't believe thinning has any beneficial effect
then
> > elilminating that step leaves sorting only ONCE! no big deal, well
really it
> > is a big deal, well ...but... Does anyone not check flange resistance
before
> > assembly? or for loose knuckle skins? considering the overall reduction
in
> > voicing procedures and time I'll have to conclude that what I do
actually
> > gives me more time to spend with the family. And then there's customer
> > satisfaction...
> > Just one man crying in piano technology's wilderness of mirrors.
> > Chris Solliday
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ron Nossaman" <rnossaman at cox.net>
> > To: "College and University Technicians" <caut at ptg.org>
> > Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 12:12 AM
> > Subject: Re: [CAUT] Knuckle height (Was Re: hammer line)
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> Bottom line, a change of 1 mm in knuckle height is definitely
> >>> significant, and something to keep an eye on. I think it makes sense
to
> >>> sort shanks if this can be done fairly rapidly, and I'd probably put
the
> >>> high ones in the bass, where thicker strings and farther letoff might
> >>> actually make this a good thing in terms of consistency. But I don't
> >>> think it is something to lose a lot of sleep over on a day to day
basis
> > <G>.
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Fred Sturm
> >>
> >> I think I'm beginning to get the hang of this - in a manner of
> >> speaking. If the shank set is pre-thinned, we first sort on
> >> shank width. That's pretty easy, so far. Then we check the
> >> pinning, and sort within the previous shank width sort, or
> >> re-pin to an accuracy at least as good as sorting, so we have
> >> a reasonable gradient of center friction. Then we sort on tap
> >> tone, strike weight (hammers, shanks, and/or the combination
> >> of the two), and knuckle height, so all considerations for
> >> each are met to produce the ideal set. No problem. I
> >> conservatively (generously) estimate (guess) that at least ten
> >> sets of shanks and flanges will be necessary to put together
> >> no more than five sets even vaguely conforming to these
> >> requirements, accepting that this is even possible at all,
> >> much less a reasonable standard.
> >>
> >> So who's packing sand up who's Thermos, or going through the
> >> forest counting nematodes with a microscope and not noticing
> >> the trees?
> >>
> >> Just thought it was about time someone asked.
> >> Ron N
> >
>
>