>Ok... and I just want some clarification here.. > >Is there some dissagreement in your two positions, or is the seeming >difference >of positions here due to the fact that the equilibrium I precondition can not >actually happen (as per the rest of Dels reply) ? > >Delwin D Fandrich wrote: > > > That is, if a unrestrained 1500 mm wide panel (at 4% MC) is taken to 13% it > > will probably end up being somewhere between 1520 and 1530 mm wide (at 13% > > MC). So, if you restrain this expansion to 1500 mm and let compression set > > work its magic for a few years and then take it back to 4% MC it will end > > up somewhere between 1470 and 1480 mm wide. > > > >Ron N writes > >You've seen the answer to this question in a lot of pianos. It will shrink, >but not nearly as much as an un-crushed panel would..... > > >Otherwise, I think I have understood basically what I was asking about. Thanks >muchly > >-- >Richard Brekne No, no disagreement. Del's panel ended up smaller than original dried dimension after cumulative compression set and drying back down. So did that cracked soundboard I mentioned or it wouldn't have cracked, as the part of my quote that wasn't included said. An un crushed panel will change dimension more (not get smaller) than the same panel after it has been crushed. Ron N
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC