popsicle stick engineering

[RicB]

Hey hey hey ~~  !  we find ourselves in perfect agreement for the second 
time in a day.  Mayhaps this is the start of something ?  :)  Really 
tho... some of the tolerance ranges you hear are indeed pretty wide.  
And, as you say, you dont need as a result to go pushing the borders.

You also bring up the whole subject of the speed ratio of parts... and 
myself I've hardly scratched the surface of that aside from the 
discussions we've had with Birkett about control issues.  Whether one 
views it as a positive or a negative.... a lower ratio does imply that 
that same 10 mm of key dip results in a shorter hammer travel.  Said 
another way... for equal key speeds... a lower ratio will see the hammer 
moving slower then a higher ratio in as much as it travels less distance 
in the same space of time.  Perhaps thats good for control... to  a 
point perhaps not.  It lowers your power output to some degree.. tho 
this is usually countered by use of heavier hammers.... the circle stays 
unbroken thats for sure.

Cheers
RicB


    I am.  I've always considered the Steinway guidelines more of a
    testimonial
    to their random outcomes than targets.  Recently, for example, I
    inquired
    about the standard for flange pinning and was told that the acceptable
    "range" was .01 - 4 grams (that's on any given flange).  I know that
    if I
    posted that myself no flamesuit would protect me.  The older
    Steinway pianos
    had a much higher action ratio target with an accompanying lightweight
    hammer.  Many would argue that the slightly shallower dip has its
    advantages
    in terms or rapid passagework.  While I would not personally choose
    a 6.5
    ratio as a target I would have to agree with Ric that an action that
    regulates at 10 mm dip and 45 or 46 mm blow is not likely to
    calculate out
    that far or anywhere close.  Nor would it likely need anything
    exceptional
    in terms of a light hammer.  This is keeping in mind that distance
    versus
    weight numbers to calculate SWR produce different results.  

    David Love

        Hi David.

        And just for the record David Love... (are you listening ?) 
        grin... I
        TOLD you David Stanwood and I disagree on some things.  Make no
        mistake
        about it tho... I know Davids work and methods and he has all my
        respect.  That said... I stand on my point here.

        David S....  You can not possibly mean to say that you take
        issue with
        the claim I make below.  It is a matter of the simplest course
        that an
        action that regulates to a 10 mm dip, 46 mm blow, 1-2 mm let-off
        and
        good aftertouch can recieve an appropriate set of hammers for
        whatever
        existing strike weight ratio there is there.  Such an action is per
        definition in the middle field to begin with.