back check, a magical mystery tour.

[Richard Brekne]

Isaac OLEG wrote:

>While... I don't see how chalking the tail of the hammer can show us
>anything as the chalk will depose on the backchecks in any case during
>the checking.
>
>  
>
Well sure silly... if you simply play the action.... but there are other 
ways of  pushing the tail through the upstroke at any given degree of 
action compression without letting the hammer come back into check. 

>I believe the usual method to check clearance and security is good
>enough (and even very secure if on use a bit more force). this said
>The hammer rubbing on the check is felt while playing the note (once
>we are suspecting it or if we compare with a corrected regulated one).
>  
>
Which one would that be...?  I know of at least three.  And all three of 
them could be improved upon and quite probably IMHO the chalk idea could 
be just one such improvement... In any case it makes for a good out of 
the piano test without having to get all kinds of fancy equipment to 
measure things.  Worth a try before being simply dismissed without 
further ado if you ask me.

>But indeed the 2 mm rule is certainly also a security measure by some
>aspect.
>
>Then, let's say also that different type of tails and bachecks may be
>addressed differently, that is why it seem important to me to
>understand the basic concept underlying the process.
>  
>
Well... we really dont know that now do we ? I'd thought immediatly of 
varios action geometries comming into play, different tail arcs... etc 
etc... but without thoroughly looking into the matter ala good old 
fashion empiri.... we dont really know that the 2 mm gap may (or may 
not) in the end be the best all around approximation for the optimum 
overall setting of the back check for nearly every action configuration.

So far... Stephens suggestion rates highest in my book so far.   Tho the 
book is open to be sure :)

>best Regards.
>
>Isaac
>  
>

Cheers
RicB