This is interesting news, Charles. To make sure I understand, you are qualifying the spring-type tension gauge as: (1) the "basic supply house model", and (2) being superior, i.e., more accurate than it's (or your) expensive counterpart? If so, this is good news. Since several replies have mentioned the gauge, MY version of the 'spring-type' that John M. first mentioned is from APSCO, Cat.#96, pg. 22, #15399, and called 'Spring Tension Gauge'. With that out of the way, I can admit that since my tangential comment to John, I dug out the above gauge and have been playing with it. I now remember why I didn't like it initially. If you'll pardon one of my use of a word that doesn't exist -- "stiction", it will help explain why I didn't like the gauge at first. By the time the spring of the gauge overcame the stiction of the part, the 'pointer' would jump downscale. Along with the pointer went my reading. However, after playing with it for a couple days on different parts, I realize that this was pilot error on my part. With more patience than I was exercising, I've been able to get consistent readings at the *moment* the part starts to move, and before the indicator goes downhill. Now I've even progessed to measuring each pinned side for consisistency. Apparently patience IS a virtue... I just saved myself $119.00! About your dial-type gauge. I hope you didn't buy it from Marinelli at an exhibit. If so, it's probably the one I handled, wanted, drooled on, and therefore caused to rust! <G> Regards, and thanks! Jim Harvey, RPT __________________________ Reply Separator ______________________ Last year I retired it totally after a visit from Bill Garlick. We had been discussing action centering, and Bill asked to see my guage. He demonstrated to me conclusively (with gram weights) that the readings were quite low. Our very basic supply house model was more accurate!
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC