<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML xmlns:o><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1609" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I have done a very unscientific survey with my last
three hammer installs and have concluded that there is a general correlation
between weight, density and pitch. So now I am doing (1) sort by weight, (2)
channel, (3) sort by weight, (4) install on rail and check pitch, (5) rearrange
or remove as necessary. I find not much to do (5).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I find that the difference in weight and in
ptich is miniscule .1 or .2, so moving them around to suit the pitch is not
affecting the overall strikeweight enough to care about touch wise but COULD be
affecting the overall tone somewhat and I have no real data here, other than a
hunch that Tim is right and it feels right. I can hear a difference when I don't
sort shanks at all, so that tells me the process is valid not just for reducing
the amount of work to get a smooth strikeweight but also MAY contribute to
smoothing the tone as well. The wild cards are as Ric B describes, real honkers
that have no real pitch and these should be removed. Lord help you if you find
more than two in a set. Wake up manufacturers!!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>As David and Jon Page have noted unless you are
measuring shank radius weight and zeroing out the flange we really can't
compare results. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hope this adds to the mix.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Chris Solliday rpt</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
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=agghubii@yahoo.ca href="mailto:agghubii@yahoo.ca">Albert Picknell</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=caut@ptg.org
href="mailto:caut@ptg.org">College and University Technicians</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 15, 2008 12:19
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [CAUT] strikeweight</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Tim</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I agree that there can be a wide variance in shank pitch, and
that it amounts to more than a few shanks that go "plock". I should
probably clarify that when I sort shanks, I find that there is not only a
range of pitches, but a whole spectrum of tonal qualities as well, from the
plinkiest plink to the plockiest plock. Often there will be two shanks
with almost identical pitches, but one rings out clearly while the other
requires much closer concentration to identify its pitch.
In this case, I did not weed out the plockers.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I too am sort of sitting in the middle on the sorting by weight
discussion, but with more research we may eventually get a little closer
to an ideal (not that there will ever be anything resembling universal
agreement on what that ideal is!). Perhaps the "strikeweight"
people are sacrificing something in terms of voicing, while the "shank pitch"
people are sacrificing something in terms of evenness of touch; both have
valid reasons for choosing to give one characteristic precedence over the
other. Perhaps one "ideal" would be to buy ninety sets of
shanks and sort them all by pitch <EM>and</EM> by radius weight :>)
Unfortunately, my R&D budget doesn't permit me the luxury of
trying it out :>(</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Pleased to be taking part in this respectful discussion,</DIV>
<DIV>Albert</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR><B><I>Tim Coates <tcoates1@sio.midco.net></I></B>
wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Albert,
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>It would be nice to see a study that correlates strike weight to pitch.
I sorted the last set of shanks I installed first by strike weight and
then checked to see if they were in pitch order. They weren't. I
tried clipping off some excess shank to find a pitch change, I really
couldn't. This particular set only had a variance of .2 of a gram
throughout the entire set. I reordered them by pitch and installed
them in that order. I will continue to sort by pitch because it makes
my voicing much easier. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I respectfully disagree that shank pitch is insignificant. I use
the word "respectfully" purposely. I know the "strikeweight" people
have their reasons for insisting on using their methods to sort, but I know
of others more learned than me who feel that type of sorting
is inconsequential. I am sitting in the middle about the sorting
by weight discussion. </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I find there is a very, very wide variance in shank pitch and it
amounts to more than just a few shanks that go "plock". It ends up
being a wide variance with a very even progression of pitch.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I'm not trying to argue here just present experiences that I have and
share them. I have not responded to much of the discussion since I
first brought up the shank pitch. I have not been swayed by the
information presented to change my ways. It isn't worth arguing about
and I want to make sure no one thinks I am trying say my method is the
correct method. I am just saying it is comfortable for me.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Tim Coates</DIV>
<DIV> <BR>
<DIV>
<DIV>On May 14, 2008, at 7:43 PM, Albert Picknell wrote:</DIV><BR
class=Apple-interchange-newline>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><SPAN class=Apple-style-span
style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; orphans: 2; widows: 2; webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; webkit-text-stroke-width: 0">
<DIV>Thank you, Ed</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Your first sentence states directly what I was hinting
at in my last point, namely that since it would be very difficult to
predict what resonating qualities a shank/hammer assembly will have once
the shank ends are trimmed off, it may be rather pointless to try to use
shank pitch as a primary sorting criterion. And your second sentence
reminds me of what Ted Sambell taught us many years ago (I was one of his
students back in the '80's): always listen to the tone of the shanks
before installing them. The ones that go "plink" can go in the
piano; the ones that go "plock" can go somewhere else. There is
no sorting by pitch, just a test that weeds out the shanks that are more
likely either to break due to irregularities in the grain, or to adversely
affect the tone by flexing too much, damping tone, etc.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thank you, David, for your comments too. It sounds like there
is more to be gained by sorting shanks according to what
effect they will have on the touch rather than
what pitch they produce before being coupled with hammers and mounted
on rails. As long as they are good and stiff (they go "plink" rather
than "plock") they should do the job.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Am I reading you correctly?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Albert</DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR><B><I>Ed Sutton <<A
href="mailto:ed440@mindspring.com">ed440@mindspring.com</A>></I></B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>David-</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Once the hammers are hung, the "pitch" of
the shank/hammer will be altered, so I don't see how the "shank
tone" as such is significant.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>However, when all other factors are the
same, it may be an indicator of the stiffness of the wood, which may
influence the response of the action.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>For example, my sense in a short trial of
Bruce Clark's action with carbon fiber shanks was that it was fast and
even in response and delivered easy power for the effort. But that
was a short trial by a low-skilled performer, and there are many other
creative adaptations in his design that make it work so
well.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Nevertheless, those carbon fiber tubes
should be able to deliver a very perfect and even "plinck" line. not to
mention even weight and stiffness.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ed Sutton</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(0,0,0) 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----</DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(228,228,228); webkit-background-clip: initial; webkit-background-origin: initial"><B>From:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A title=stanwood@tiac.net
href="mailto:stanwood@tiac.net">David C. Stanwood</A></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN><A title=caut@ptg.org
href="mailto:caut@ptg.org">College and University
Technicians</A></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:03
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Re: [CAUT] strikeweight</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Dear Albert,</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Great work and very interesting and important ideas you are
working with! My comment: Most of the dead weight is
concentrated in the flange and flange/knuckle end of the shank and I
would imagine that for that reason the dead weight value might relate
so much to it's effect on tone... </DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I would be very interested to see additional data using Shank
Strike Weight (SS) instead of the dead weight of the Flange/Shank
assembly. This value measures the weight of the shank
tipped on a roller bearing with the flange oriented vertically so that
it's weight is not measured. The end of the shank rests on the
scale. Values are usually aroun 1.4g for narrow shanks and 1.8g
for regular shanks. We routinely sort shanks, within each type,
by weight, then hang the hammers, then measure Strikeweights, then add
or subtract hammer weight to smooth the strikeweights to a curve of
our choosing.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The "thinking" is as follows: Shank Strike Weights can very
within a shank type within a set by as much as 0.6g. These
variations don't show up in the StrikeWeight measure but when we
measure the Strikeweight and make changes in hammer weight to smooth
the curve we may be changing hammer weight to compensate for a
variation in SS. .6g of SS will not have the same inertial
moment as .6g of hammer weight because the center of weight is
different. (a physicist could explaing this more
eloquantly than me). So by sorting the SS by weight we
theoretically make the inertial moments of the shank/hammer more even
as related to smooth Strike Weights.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Here is a drawing of the setup:</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.stanwoodpiano.com/ss.jpg">http://www.stanwoodpiano.com/ss.jpg</A></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Hope this helps.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>David Stanwood</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite">Hello List</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite"><BR><I><B>Chris Solliday <<A
href="mailto:csolliday@rcn.com">csolliday@rcn.com</A>></B></I><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>wrote ('way back on Feb
20):<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px"><FONT
face=Arial size=-1>Alot of good ideas and ways for producing
some very refined work are being floated regarding shank
radius weight and hammerweight which combine to produce
strikeweight and the action's main contribution to overall
tone. ...</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px">...<FONT
face=Arial size=-1>I pre-sort the shanks heavy to light bass to
treble before I channel them and then again after channeling
them. I too find that this reduces the quantity of the variation
if not the relative variation. I do not make a spreadsheet
until that point after the second sorting. ...</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px"><FONT
face=Arial size=-1>...I may be going over the shanks twice but I
have much less work in the end.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px"><FONT
face=Arial size=-1>I am intrigued at the possibility of working
shank tone into the equation and will be first looking for a
correlation between pitch and weight.</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px"><FONT
face=Arial size=-1>Thanks,</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px"><FONT
face=Arial size=-1>Chris Solliday</FONT><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite"><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite">This is my first posting to this list, so I hope at
least some of you find what I have to say interesting and/or
useful. Back around mid-February a series of
threads ran on this list entitled "Shank to Hammer weight
spreadsheet", "strikeweight", and "Shank Pitch". The comments
at the very end of Chris Solliday's post (see above)
particularly caught my attention, so I thought I'd do a little
"tinking" and weighing to generate some data which Chris (or
anyone else) might find useful.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite"> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite">My data-gathering proceeded as follows:</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite"> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite">Taking a box of new Renner shanks with flanges for
Steinway, I first separated the "regular" from the "thinned" shanks;
the set contained 59 and 31 shanks respectively. Then I
listened to the pitch of the shanks and arranged them in order from
lowest to highest. Interestingly, both groups of shanks
fell into the same overall pitch range, i.e. the major third
A#5 to D6. The thinned shanks covered a slightly narrower
range, but that is probably due to the fact that there were fewer of
them.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite"> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite">Next, I weighed each shank/flange assembly and
recorded its weight, to the nearest tenth of a gram. This
was just the dead weight of each assembly on the scale.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite"> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite">Next, using a Correx gauge, I measured centre pin
friction, also to the nearest tenth of a gram. This involved
some estimating and averaging, but I used a consistent technique, so
I think the numbers are pretty good.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite"> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite">I entered these data into an Excel file, and
generated charts from them in order to visually
illustrate whatever correlations might exist. The file is
attached, including charts - have a look. The data series
with the connected blue dots represent the regular shanks; the
unconnected pink dots represent the thinned shanks. The
lowest- and highest-pitched thinned shanks are numbered to
correspond with the regular shanks which had the most closely
matching pitches; the rest of the thinned shanks are
distributed as evenly as possible between those two
extremes. Distributing them this way enabled me to plot them
all on the same graphs in a somewhat meaningful way.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite"> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite">Finally, to further explore
the relationships of shank thickness and shank length to shank
pitch, I altered three regular shanks as follows. The
first one, which had an initial weight of 7.0 g (including flange),
I thinned substantially, removing 0.5 g of material. The
pitch of this shank dropped by about a minor 2nd. The second
one, which had an initial weight of 6.9 g (including flange), I
shortened by approximately 24-25 mm, equivalent to 0.4 g of
material; the pitch of this shank rose by about a perfect 4th.
The third one, which had an initial weight of 8.5 g (it had a larger
flange attached), I first thinned by 0.5 g, which lowered the pitch
by a little less than a major 2nd. Then I cut off shorter
segments of approximately 7 mm each (each weighing a little
under 0.2 g); each of these cuts raised the pitch about a major 2nd;
the cumulative effect of these three cuts was a pitch rise of about
a tritone. Altogether, this last shank ended up thinner,
shorter, and about a major third higher in pitch than where it was
at the beginning.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite"> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite">Some observations/conclusions:</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite"> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite">1. As I mentioned above, both the regular and
thinned shanks fell into the same overall pitch range,
i.e. the major third A#5 to D6. Hence, if one is going to sort
shanks strictly on the basis of pitch, the regular and thinned
shanks will end up being interspersed.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite"> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite">2. There is a significant amount of overlap in the
weight ranges of the regular and thinned shanks. So if one is
going to sort shanks strictly on the basis of dead weight, again the
regular and thinned shanks will end up being
interspersed.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite"> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite">3. The trendlines in the "Pitch vs. Weight" chart seem
to indicate that, as a general rule, heavier shanks have a higher
pitch. For two reasons, I suspect that the variations in pitch
are primarily a result of differences in wood density from shank to
shank. First, because the substantial thinning I did on
two of the shanks I altered resulted in pitch changes of less
than a major 2nd, I doubt that the slight dimensional
variations which may exist after Renner's precise manufacturing
process are likely to result in pitch differences amounting to
a major 3rd. Second, the fact that the regular and thinned
shanks produce pitches that fall within the same range suggests that
something other than dimensional variations are responsible for the
pitch variations. Another obviously potential source of
variation in the weighing process is differences in the weights of
the flanges. But I suspect that if one took the
trouble to weigh the flanges separately, although there
would be some variation, the data would generate a
flat trendline. Anyone wishing to test this hypothesis is
welcome to do so; right now I don't have time.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite"> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite">4. The random distribution of tighter and looser flanges
throughout the entire range of pitches, and the flat trendlines in
the "Pitch vs. Friction" chart seem to indicate that the pitch of
the shanks is not affected by the pinning (although I do believe the
pinning does affect the tone in the piano). To test this
conclusion a little further, I took a relatively tight assembly,
treated it with CLP to reduce the centre pin friction, and listened
to the pitch again; there was no change in pitch.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite"> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite">5. Removing material from the end of a shank has a
significantly greater effect on the shank's pitch than does
removing an equivalent amount from the sides. Whether this is
something that needs to be taken into account when sorting shanks
may be worth considering, because when the shank ends are
trimmed after the hammers are installed, they aren't all
necessarily shortened by the same amount.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite"> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite">The really tough question now is, what am I
going to do with these things?</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite"> </BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite">Albert (Bert) Picknell</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px" cite=""
type="cite">Head Piano Technician</BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV>The Banff Centre<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<DIV><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<HR align=center width="100%" SIZE=1>
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><IMG id=_x0000_i1026 height=25 hspace=4
src="http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/ca/iotg_search.jpg" width=25
align=absBottom border=0><A href="http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com/"
target=_new><B><SPAN lang=NO-BOK style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Yahoo! Canada
Toolbar :</SPAN></B><SPAN lang=NO-BOK><SPAN
class=Apple-converted-space> </SPAN>Search from anywhere on the web
and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it
now!</SPAN></A></SPAN></FONT><SPAN
lang=NO-BOK><o:p></o:p></SPAN></DIV></SPAN></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<P>
<HR SIZE=1>
<A href="http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/"><B>All new Yahoo! Mail
- </B></A>Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading
pane.</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>