>At 08:21 AM 09/06/2000 -0400, you wrote: > >>As promised, I tested two different knuckle heights from the same set >>measuring .662 and .628. >> >> .628 .662 >>UW 17 17 >>DW 43 41 >>F 13 12 >>BW 30 29 >>SWR 6.5 6.4 >>Diam. .277 .289 >> >>Center pin friction was nearly the same with the smaller knuckled shank >>having two more short swings. >> >>Interesting findings, I'll have to ponder them as I start tuning for the >>new semester starting in a few weeks. You have to do something while tuning so I mulled these figure over. . . The figures are not so different as to warrant purchasing several sets in hopes of picking through to obtain uniform knuckle height but it did demonstrate a need to scrutinize the shanks beyond SW. It seems to me that this should be performed on the manufacturing level to present a set within a .010" window, instead of the .030 window which is present on the two sets I measured. The larger knuckle had the shank a 'shank's width' off the rest felt, the smaller knuckle had the shank just above the rest felt. So the difference produced between the two were the thickness of a shank. This will have the wippens at slightly different heights for equal hammer blows and in the spirit of unifority, consistency is the key. So there might be an advantage to grouping similar heights in a piano requiring hair splitting to this degree. The more you dig, the deeper you get; what have I gotten myself into . . . anything to delay, draw-out or extend an otherwise routine shank installation. Regards, Jon Page, piano technician Harwich Port, Cape Cod, Mass. mailto:jonpage@mediaone.net ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC