Shanks parallel to strings

[Phillip Ford]

> >>After thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion that it needs to be
>perpendicular to the vector from the pivot point to the strike point.
>Neglecting any gripping the string does on the hammer, there is one primary
>direction that the string can push on the hammer and shank assembly:
>perpendicular to the vector from the pivot point to the strike point. So it
>seems to me the hammer needs to be oriented diametrically opposed to that
>force vector.
>
>
>I should add, the vector from the pivot to the strike point should also be
>in the same plane as the strings, so the hammer would still be perpendicular
>to the strings. This would minimize the radial components of velocity and
>displacement, which somebody else was talking about earlier. Obviously,
>pianos are not made this way.  Theory is a wonderful thing. It just has
>little bearing on real life.
>Dean

Most engineering of real life objects is done with simplified or 
'theoretical' models and equations.  So, it has quite a bit of bearing on 
most people's real lives.  Personally, I would prefer it if the building 
that I'm currently sitting in didn't fall down.  In my view, the purpose of 
a theoretical discussion is to help illuminate, and hopefully provide some 
direction for, real life.  If I understand what you are saying here, it is 
the same thing Ron N and I were talking about earlier.  The theory seems to 
indicate that there might be an improvement by designing a piano and action 
in which the hammer centers are on or close to the string plane.  No, 
pianos are not made this way.  But that doesn't mean that they couldn't be 
if someone wanted to do it, and had some reason for wanting to (such as an 
idea from a theoretical discussion).

Phil Ford