Danny Moore wrote: > ...There was very little > damage evident UNTIL I pulled the plate. The mass of the plate caused > the plate to continue on its travel even after the case came to a rather > sudden stop. All the plate bolts were pulled out about 1/4 of an inch - > nose bolts - everything. It was not noticable with the plate strung and > in the case. There was no evidence of any damage to the plate, however. > > I would think that structural damage in the rim area and where the pin > block was doweled to the case would be a much greater likelyhood than > plate damage. After all, the plate was rather well protected by the > mass of wood it was bolted to. > > It will be interesting to read other comments on this subject. > > Good luck. > > Danny Moore > Houston Chapter ----------------- Danny, If memory serves, Howard's were built with select poplar rims--not exactly the most robust of woods. Did they not also use relatively small wood screws? Either way, if the piano had been afflicted with the plate bolt tightening regimen, they might not have been holding much before the great fall. Most of the plates that have come through my shop actually damaged—i.e., cracked or broken—due to falls of this type have had the top two or three struts cracked just aft of the capo ‘d astro bar. This is already one of the weakest areas of the plate. There is already quite a lot of stress at the transition between the relatively thin strut and the relatively massive capo ‘d astro bar due to the uneven cooling rates between the two areas. Your analysis of magnafluxing was both interesting and practical. Thanks. —ddf
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC