<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; = charset=windows-1252"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV>Did you check for excess friction in the troublesome flanges?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>John Formsma (not my real name)</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px = solid"> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader>-----Original Message----- From: = pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]On Behalf Of Pianotunaguy@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 7:49 PM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: U1 hammer = butt problem </DIV> In a message dated = 6/3/04 10:22:37 AM, roger.j@sasktel.net writes: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px = solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" cite="" TYPE="CITE">Do you have sufficient after touch?  If = the hammers have been filed, and the back rail has not been = corrected, (46mm blow if my memory is correct).  This can be the cause of the = problem.  Dip should be 10mm.   Key level through the = centre section will also give the same problem. Are the length of the = loops the same as the old loops?  This can significantly alter the = spring tension. </BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks to all for your great = suggestions.  Roger, you've given me a few things to check.  There IS enough = after touch, but I wonder if the loops are the same size.  They were = certainly made of a different material, much thicker in diameter than the old loop.  I did move the hammer rail forward to the specs in the = little blue book by Potter, but I don't recall the distance.  I also levelled = the keys and set the dip all to the specs listed in that book.  = I just have the gut feeling that this is caused by something that I = changed, and not just wear and tear.  After all, this problem appeared en = masse from the moment I put it all back together. PTG (PianoTunaGuy) </BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>