popsicle stick engineering

[RicB]

David L and others

I agree entirely. And what David Love didnt say on this is that the 
reverse is also true. Any ratio can (and will most likely) work poorly 
when the lines of convergence are not reasonable and the SW's are a bad 
match... especially a heavy match.   If you do have a high ratio along 
with 17 mm knuckle distance as in Kents situation, then its a good 
possibility you are stuck with a fairly high ratio unless you want to 
dig pretty deep. 

    Any ratio (within reason) can be made to work as long as lines of
    convergence are reasonable and the SWs are a good match for the
    ratio. Whether or not a high ratio piano such as this will sound
    good with a very light set of hammers is another issue that I won't
    venture into but most likely it will be fine-might even be better!. 
    I have tweaked many pianos of this vintage with 17 mm knuckles,
    slight capstan moves and somewhat lighter hammers with good
    results.  There is always the option of assist springs to  consider
    as well.  

    David Love


We dont really know much about this action.  But,  if you can get a 10 
mm dip, 46 mm blow, 1-2 mm let-off and good aftertouch then an 
appropriate set of hammers for the existing leverage should work at 
least fairly well. You sure as heck shouldnt have to have much in the 
way of friction problems with a light set up like this implies.  And if 
you cant achieve these parameters.. then you should find out why not 
before doing any thing else.  If you jump in with Stanwood before doing 
this you are shooting too much in the blind. IMO.

I'd like to first know exactly what regulation problems there are.  Dale 
said something I think everyone should think about. 

    "Whenever you find short dip & long blow the action  ration is high"

Look at the actions behavior with regard to non-weight issues as well.  
The Strike Weight ratio and the standard action ratio are not the same 
thing. Lowering one will lower both to be sure, but IMHO if you want to 
lower the ratio you should do it from the standpoint of the standard 
action ratio, correcting for problems in spread and convergence lines as 
best you can in the process.  Getting to a target SW ratio within 0.1 
points of tolerance has no real purpose IMB.  Rather... I like to look 
at the standard ratio and think of High, Medium, and Low ratio degrees.  
Once have my standard ratio set, then I can choose hammers and weigh-off 
using Stanwood methods.

I've seen the results of yanking in the capstans alone to lower a 6.5 SW 
ratio to a 5.3.  The only way this can really work well is if the 
capstans really belonged at or close to the 5.3 spot to begin with.  In 
the instance I refer to.. they didnt.  The result was an action 
requiring a combination of too little blow and too much dip and/or let-off.

Cheers
RicB