<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; = charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><FONT size=2>I would be lying if I said I didn't already have my = own opinion.  But I am interested to hear what people say because it is = one of those very subtle problems compounded by the difficulty of knowing what = we are feeling and communicating it.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>This is also one of those problems where the = solution pushes the envelope of what is advisable.  I believe that she = <STRONG>is</STRONG> responding to the low friction in the flanges.  However that is not = something I want to duplicate for various reasons.  I also think = that the higher balance weight is acceptable only because of the low friction: i.e. it is more the downweight that appeals to her (along with = the accompanying high upweight perhaps). </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>The solution I plan to employ is to use a = shank/flange assembly that has relatively low friction to begin with.  That = means Abel instead of Renner.  These flanges, I find, tend to be lower in = friction and react less to humidity changes.  I will sort them carefully.  = I will use a hammer that is relatively low weight (similar to what is on there) = so as not to increase friction by virtue of higher strike weight.  = Lubricate everything else as much as possible to see if I can't exchange some = increased friction in the flange with lower friction somewhere else.  I will = lower the balance weight to the degree that there is an increase in friction = so that the downweight remains somewhat the same.  My usual default on = balance weight is 38 grams.  But I will always choose a BW depending on the = friction in the system.  A system with lower friction will need a = higher balance weight and vice versa.  Too much friction, though, can = lower the upweight too much if you compensate by lowering the BW.  If I can = get the friction to 10 - 11 grams in the middle, that would allow me a BW = of 39 - 40 grams on this particular instrument.  </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>In a situation like this, I think there is no = perfect solution.  To duplicate what is there exactly would be a mistake = because of other problems that accompany having no friction in the flange.  = The best solution will have to be a compromise and an attempt to most closely = match what is there without sacrificing the performance of the parts.  In this = case, I think it will require a lowering of the balance weight to = compensate for the effects of a slight increase in friction.  </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>At least that's what I think today.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>David Love</FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT></DIV> <DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>From: "Richard Brekne" <</FONT><A href="mailto:Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no"><FONT size=2>Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no</FONT></A><FONT = size=2>></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>To: "Pianotech" <</FONT><A href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org"><FONT = size=2>pianotech@ptg.org</FONT></A><FONT size=2>></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Sent: December 31, 2002 2:37 AM</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2>Subject: Re: What weight shall it = be?</FONT></DIV></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2><BR></FONT></DIV><FONT size=2>Hey there = David.<BR><BR>Nice to have a Touchweight question up again.<BR><BR>> David Love = wrote:<BR>> <BR>> So here's a question for all you action geo-philes out = there.  I'm<BR>> replacing a set of hammers and shanks.  The shank = pinning is virtually<BR>> frictionless at present.  The balance weight is = 42 g, but the<BR>> downweight is only 50 grams in the center (i.e. 8 grams of friction).<BR><BR>Thats pretty low friction allright. Tho 50 grams DW is = usual enough.<BR><BR>> When I replace the shanks the friction will go up by = probably 3-4<BR>> grams in the center.  The pianist says she = likes the current weight<BR>> and doesn't want to change it.  Is she = responding to the balance<BR>> weight or the downweight?  <BR><BR>Just a = thought David.... what makes you think (not that I am saying you<BR>DO ... grin) = that she is not refering to the lack of shank friction ?<BR><BR>> Will she = be happier with a 42 balance<BR>> weight and 53 - 54 grams of downweight = where it was once 50, or will<BR>> she be happier with a reduced balance = weight that yields a similar<BR>> downweight with the increase in = friction?<BR>> <BR><BR>My advice would be to avoid overdoing the change in hammer shank<BR>friction and try and compensate any difference with action lubrication<BR>otherwise.. ie key bushings, etc.  I've seen this = before. Do your best<BR>at everything, tighten up those flanges so the hammers = deliver that nice<BR>solid blow on hard play, go out of your way to keep DW the same = and the<BR>customer "feels" a gigantic change somehow. <BR><BR><BR>> = Something else to think about.<BR>> <BR>> David Love<BR>> <BR><BR><BR>-- <BR>Richard Brekne<BR>RPT, N.P.T.F.<BR>UiB, Bergen, Norway<BR></FONT><A href="mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no"><FONT size=2>mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no</FONT></A><BR><A href="http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html"><FONT size=2>http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html</FONT></A><BR><FO= NT size=2>_______________________________________________<BR>pianotech = list info: </FONT><A href="https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives"><FONT size=2>https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives</FONT></A><BR></BO= DY></HTML>