[pianotech] Hammer Technique: was Q & A Roundtable

[David Love]

OK, this has gotten some convoluted and the point confused in all this back
and forth.  You are right, the segment rises above the equilibrium tension
level until friction is overcome and the speaking length follows at which
time the first segment tension then drops.  The point that I've been trying
to make is whether or not you need to *move* that segment beyond the point
at which it will ultimate come to rest at equilibrium, which you don't. It
would have been more correct for me to say that the physical movement
(rather than tension) of the segment beyond the point that will pull the
speaking length to its target pitch and leave the first segment at its final
equilibrium tension when the segments ultimately settle is unnecessary, and
that's what I tried to convey and demonstrate.  

David Love
www.davidlovepianos.com


-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf
Of Ron Nossaman
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 9:54 AM
To: pianotech at ptg.org
Subject: Re: [pianotech] Hammer Technique: was Q & A Roundtable

On 2/2/2011 11:34 AM, David Love wrote:
> I'll address both of these separate questions.
>
> First, (Mike) let's be clear, I didn't say that the first segment didn't
> increase while the speaking length did, I said the first segment didn't
> increase *above* the level where the speaking segment ends up.

You keep repeating the same misconception over and over again and not 
thinking about what you're saying. The first segment *HAD* to have 
exceeded the final tension if it was to overcome the friction in the 
bearing surfaces to pull the speaking length up to final tension. This 
is as basic a truth as there is here. Look it in the eye and think about 
it instead of avoiding it and you'll see that's right.


 > So, in
> answer to both your queries, that's that beauty of an ETD (yet another
use).
> You don't have to measure the actual tension to know that you didn't need
to
> increase the tension above the target.  You can easily demonstrate that
the
> pitch can be made to rise to the target from below and when you stabilize
> the pin you can see that there is no change to the sharp side which needs
to
> be settled back down indicating that no additional or excess tension was
> stored in the front segment.  It's deductive reasoning.

No, it's faulty reasoning, and if your chapter let you get away with 
presenting it this way, shame on them all.

Ron N