Dale,
How do you determine this? Is there some formula?
Greg Newell
At 09:51 AM 2/18/2005, you wrote:
> Dave
> Another variable to keep in mind is that many of us are using sitka
> spruce panels & the older designs used predominantly a softer eastern
> wood. Softer wood under compression requires more thickness for strenght
> to survive. WHere as Sitka is stiffer denser having the greatest strength
> to wieght ratio. SO it can be thinner in the designs of any kind. It
> depends on your idea of mass in the panel too.
> I keep that in mind when I'm choosing panel thickness. This is also a
> variable that could effect part of the equation for hammer selection.
> I.E> many old Stwy A 2s had panels routinely .360 in the main part of
> the panel. With Sitka .320 to 340 is plenty even if you were stricitly
> compression crowning.
> Dale
>
>Well I meant that more as a question than a statement. One thing that
>does interest me is how CC vs RC&S methods influence, either in design or
>execution, the relationship between mass and spring rate and how that
>might relate to proper hammer matching. Which system, for example, tends
>to have a thicker panel? It seems that the CC panel is generally thicker
>in the center and tapered toward the rim whereas the RC&S panel is
>slightly thinner and more uniform in thickness (except maybe around the
>bass perimeter). Is that correct? Might not the difference in mass
>distribution of the CC panel explain differences in hammer matching and
>potentially some tonal differences? It seems that the CC panel requires a
>much denser and possibly less flexible hammer than the RC&S board (at
>least in my experience). Whether the tone production potential between
>the two with appropriate hammers is net/net, is something I can't really
>answer but do wonder about. The subject might point to some differences.
>
>
>
>David Love
>davidlovepianos@comcast.net
>
>
Greg Newell
Greg's piano Forté
mailto:gnewell@ameritech.net
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC