popsicle puzzle soon to be answered

[A440A at aol.com]

In a message dated 11/28/06 12:10:37 PM, ricb at pianostemmer.no writes:

<< Seems to me that you are saying here that your choice of SW's and FW's 

is made without (or little) regard to what your existing action ratio 

is.  Is that what you are saying ?<< 

   Not at all.  The fact that it is a D in a concert hall makes me want to 
have as high a SW as possible.  I know the limits of FW, so the geometry is 
going to have to fit in between.  I can accept a slightly higher DW, since 
pianists generally expect that on stage.  
  

>>you say you have around 47.6 mm blow, 10~ mm 

keydip and I assuming lettoff is somewhere around 1.5 to 2 mm, and still 

have 12.7 mm down to the cushion, (thats a whopping 60.3 mm from string 

to cushion... cant remember when I've ever run into that.)  << 

    Um, remember to subtract the width of the shank.  Let-off might be 2 mm 
at the bottom of the bass, but I set it much closer than that farther up in the 
treble. 
  
>>You cite a 

0.3 inch (7.6 mm aftertouch) which must be a typo for sure... perhaps 

you meant 0.03 inches (0.76 mm) ?  If this be the case I see no reason 

to change your (distance) ratio really.<< 

   Yes, a typo.  I intended to say .030".  

>> Your DW / UW  BW figures are not what I would call ridiculously low.  A 

BW of 36-38 is very common on Steinways. << 

    I posted 
>>ridiculously low DW of 50 gr. in the bass, 44 gr in the area of note 25, 
and 40-42 gr. from note 32 on up.  BW on A0 is 40, tapering down to 33 at note 
73. << 
 
>> But reducing FW's to raise 

the BW is what I would do as well if I wanted to make the thing heavier.

 <snip> I'd beef up your exisiting cushions as much as I could get 

away with first. Since you dont cite anywhere what your bore distance is 

I dont know for sure what you can do with that...<,

   I stated bore distances as 58 (or 59) in the bass, 49- 48 in the treble.  
This is long, but still allows sufficient tail length.  I am not totally 
averse to slightly tipping the hammers back on their shanks if necessary to have t
hem at 90 degrees to the string upon contact. this sometimes allows the bore 
distance to be kept in the ballpark.  
 
    What I intend to do with this action is to move from 17 to 16.5 knuckles, 
reduce the FW, increase the SW, lengthen the blow, and install 5 mm pads on 
the cushions.  I may, as was suggested, move the backchecks up a little on 
their wires, if necessary.  
    On the several notes I installed trials in, this raised my DW from 42 to 
50 in the middle of the piano.  Going to a blow of 1 15/16" or even a massive 
2 inches will give me as much power as the rest of the action's resiliance is 
capable of producing. I do NOT want an action that is "saturated" on the 
concert stage, because sooner or later, some artist is going to complain that they 
"run out of power" when they get to FFFFFFFFF and want more.  
     The only question that has shown itself in this is the amount of room I 
have for the jacks when the hammer is at check. It is marginal with the 16.5 
knuckles, but I am not afraid to relieve the proximal side of the jack for 
clearance, ( easy to do with a Dremel tool), since only about 1/2 of the top 
surface of the jack makes contact with the knuckle. 
   I will certainly let the list know what the revised DW, SW, FW UW figures 
are when the job is done.  
Thanks for all the input.   
 
Ed Foote RPT 
http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html