>The block wear would be the same "if the block's PSI friction load on the >pin surface was the same in all cases." But presumably one would be >comparing two pins with equal torque. Equal pin torque with different size >pins would result in the "block's PSI friction load on the pin surface" and >the PSI friction load on the block surface to be less on the block with the >large pins (same total friction value spread out over an infinitesimally >larger surface contact area). Less PSI friction load on block with larger >pins would result in a longer lasting block - if pin turning were what wore >out blocks - which it isn't. True, true, true. I did need some point of comparison though to make any sense at all of it. In practice, because of the surface loading you point out, it's a lot harder to get uniform torque from larger pins than from smaller ones (right, Dale?). The margin for error narrows as the pin gets bigger, or the chosen pinblock gets harder. Some Falconwood users tell me they use 2/0x2.25 pins exclusively. >OK, so where did that get us? To the weekend! It also stuck a little real world physics to something a number of folks only know through the handle of their tuning hammer. It may not be immediately useful, but having some idea of basic physical interactions can save a lot of random motion when we're troubleshooting something new to us. At least I hope so. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC