<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1170" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: = Arial" bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=rol= e_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2> <DIV> <DIV>In a message dated 1/4/05 10:32:45 A.M. Central Standard Time, Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no writes:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><= FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size= =2>Doing a rebuild on an Petrof 235 and it looks like I I have a choice of <BR>replac= ing back check wires with 2.9 mm diameters, or use the existing size <BR>of 2.= 5 mm along with some resizing of the holes in the keys. The existing <BR>wires = are bent in every which way you can imagine and loose in the keys.<BR><BR>What= I would like to get opinions on is whether or not any of you have any <BR>preferences in regards to diameter of the wire. Thicker means stronger= ... <BR>not necessarily a good thing...<BR><BR>So whataya whataya ??<BR><BR>Thanks<BR><BR>RicB<BR>__________________________________________= _____</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV> <DIV>I'd go with the thicker wire. It will do two things. One, it will eliminate the need to glue size the holes. This might not be difficult for o= ne key, but the more you have to do, the  more likely you're going to run = into a problem with one of them not being done right. Second, a thicker wire, in = my opinion, gives better checking. Not only that, but it will stay where it's p= ut. </DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Just my 2.9 cents worth.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Wim <DIV><FONT lang=0 face=Arial size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10"= >Willem Blees, RPT<BR>Piano Tuner/Technician<BR>School of Music<BR>University of Alabama<BR>Tuscaloosa, AL USA</FONT></DIV></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>