Hi Nick and others, Silly busy these few days. I'll try and get more info posted tomorrow afternoon. Very busy. William R. Monroe > Hi William, > > Although you haven't stated it explicitly, I am guessing that your reason > for reducing hammer weight is to change touchweight (to lesson the > downweight from, say, 58 grams to something like 50 or 52). Is that so? > > Perhaps you could supply us with a bit more information. For example: > > 1) Any idea what your action ratio is? For example, if it is 5 to 1, then > you would need to remove 1 gram from the hammer in order to reduce the > downweight by 5 grams, which ties in to JD's (see below) very useful > rundown > of the math. > > 2) Can we assume that friction is not an issue? > > It may be that there are other ways, perhaps in addition to standard > hammer > weight prepping (i.e., side tapering, tailing and coving) that require > attention in order to "fix" the touchweight. > > Drilling holes in hammer moldings in order to insert weights is an > entirely > different thing than drilling to lower weight/mass. However, drilling > holes > in order to adjust tone, e.g., to tone down the "woody effect" of treble > hammers is something else and at times has merit. > > In addition, our statically determined weight adjustments, i.e., the usual > downweight/upweight gram tests, is one thing; but the dynamic result of a > hammer of either more weight or less weight flying toward the strings at > high velocity is something else again. The dynamic inertial values are a > function of the static, but are of significantly higher magnitude. > > Regards, > > Nick Gravagne, RPT
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC