Tuning pin size?

[Farrell]

And no comment about the following???

"I think I am going to cut out the plate webbing of every piano I put a
block
in so that I have an open-faced block and then I will use 1/0 pins."

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Nossaman" <RNossaman@KSCABLE.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2001 10:02 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Tuning pin size?


> >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