overcentering justified?

[Bill Ballard]

At 11:15 AM +0200 8/23/03, Richard Brekne wrote:
>Yes it does... didn't that have to do with the discussion about  Bob Hohfs
>article... just how needed it is to think in terms of 90 degree rake and shank
>parallel to the strings ?

You're correct, and out from the microwave, it reappears as 
leftovers. At the time I said that the math to obtain all three 
(shank parallel to the string, hammer striking the string square, and 
hammer mounted on the shank square) involved nothing more complicated 
than trig. (The only difficult measurement is the angle between the 
string plane and the keybed.)

I also said I'd be perfectly happy with two out of three (ie., a rake 
on the shank instead of a square mounting.) After all, the 
hammer/shank glue joint will survive hammer blows in a situation of 
"square-to-string" collision and raked mounting far better than it 
will the other way around.

This is not a situation where we're forced with a two-out-of-three 
choice (as with blow/dip/aftertouch). But given the mutability of the 
hammer bore (as Ed Foote points out, the puffing up a Renner hammers 
during the initial stages of voicing, and the inevitable reduction 
during successive years of filing), this issue may be academic.

Bill Ballard RPT
NH Chapter, P.T.G.

"When writing a mental note, first procure a mental piece of paper"
     ............mental graffitti
+++++++++++++++++++++