----- Original Message ----- From: Kurt Baxter To: pianotech at ptg.org Sent: Sunday, February 06, 2011 12:37 PM Subject: Re: [pianotech] Carbon Fiber Lever (was Hammer Technique: was Q &ARoundtable) Comments interspersed below T.D. Tom: Your points about light weight (as of value apart from any stiffness attributes) and easily interchangeable heads are valid. Not understanding the engineering behind it, I assume the CF tube alone must make some significant stiffness gain, and how much is then lost due to the threaded joint is clearly a question wanting for data, not opinion, mine or anyone else's. Agreed . For some, the combined convenience and economy of being able to use their current head/tip collection might outweigh any loss in stiffness over a integrated type head like the Fujan. I see both your CF hammer (with it's standard interchangeable heads and rubberized grip) and the CF Faulk hammer (basically a CF-enhanced version of the same excellent tool he has been making for years) to be different enough in practical and preference-based design features as to occupy their own sub-niches in a niche market. That is my take. I am curious how Steve Fujan feels about the likes of: ( http://cgi.ebay.com/CARBON-FIBER-PIANO-TUNING-HAMMER-LEVER-SAVE-50-/220731445721?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item33649e91d9#ht_1599wt_1026 ) And: http://www.tuningpindriver.com/ Isn't there a case for patent infringement here? The auction above is presented by an individual who had a lever more similar to mine a few weeks ago. I can't address the other two questions Thanks for the post, Tom Driscoll -kurt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20110206/0abe4e59/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC