<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>[CAUT] Shank to Hammer weight spreadsheet</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<STYLE type=text/css>BLOCKQUOTE {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
DL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
UL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
OL {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
LI {
PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px
}
</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1607" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Maybe I didn't splain myself too well, as I sort
the shanks the second time they are usually well tapered by weight. Usually
only a .1g difference from shank to shank. I'm not actually interested in only
the least amount of work but rather the best result for voicing (why else are we
doing anything??) and I think that a heavy shank with a lite hammer will
produce a different sound than a lite shank with a lite hammer. So I match
lite with lite and heavy with heavy with a smooth taper of both and feel this
results in the best voicing foundation. I'm still working on the relationship of
pitch to weight so I don't have hard data yet but....</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Chris Solliday</FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jonpage@comcast.net href="mailto:jonpage@comcast.net">Jon Page</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=caut@ptg.org
href="mailto:caut@ptg.org">caut@ptg.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:52
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [CAUT] Shank to Hammer weight
spreadsheet</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=Arial color=#000000>...Once I'm
done with that I simply dry assemble the shanks and hammers
and</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=Arial color=#000000>then use the
Stanwood scale to weigh the SWs. I chart those and then
figure</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite="" type="cite"><FONT face=Arial color=#000000>out where I
have to alter them to achieve a smooth curve</FONT>...</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I seems you are 'final fitting' your SW irrespective of the shank strike
weight (SSW).</DIV>
<DIV>If you initially taper your hammers to a close margin, then you are
throwing</DIV>
<DIV>the curve off with jumbled shanks and changing the mass of the hammer
due</DIV>
<DIV>to shank irregulatities.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>It would be more advantageous to match similiar SSW groups to your
hammers</DIV>
<DIV>which have been mass calibrated, thus reducing alteration. Ultimately,
this is</DIV>
<DIV>the most thorough method ineritally speaking.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I simply mate the SSW with hammer weight to target a curve because does
it</DIV>
<DIV>really matter since it is at the end of the compound leverage
system. Are you</DIV>
<DIV>feeling hammer inertia or weight at the front of the key. Or what
degree is it</DIV>
<DIV>important (inertia at the end of the system) ans opposed to good
inertial</DIV>
<DIV>effect at the front of the key.</DIV><X-SIGSEP><PRE>--
</PRE></X-SIGSEP>
<DIV><BR>Regards,<BR><BR>Jon Page</DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>