<html>
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 10 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{margin-right:0in;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle17
{font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Changing the angle without changing the radius
might very well be counterproductive. I’m not sure why it would
introduce tuning instability. While I didn’t measure the angle, it
appeared to be a bit shallow for the given length. But if correcting the
radius by itself was successful, I have no problem with limiting the alteration
to that. </span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<div>
<p><font size=2 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
color:navy'>David Love</span></font><font size=2 color=navy><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;color:navy'><br>
davidlovepianos@comcast.net<br>
www.davidlovepianos.com</span></font><font color=navy><span style='color:navy'>
</span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>-----Original Message-----<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>From:</span></b> pianotech-bounces@ptg.org
[mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>On Behalf
Of </span></b></span></font><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>Horace Greeley</span></font><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Friday, July 28, 2006 9:08
AM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> </span></font><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>Pianotech List</span></font><font
size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'><br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> RE: Baldwin SD-10 Treble
Counterbearing</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><br>
I've generally found that shimming the back of the plate introduces more
problems than it may solve...increased buzz and tuning stability issues being
the main culprits.<br>
<br>
Ron, I really like the new radius you put on the bearing. That should
clean things up a good deal. Also the plating was different between the
earlier and later versions. I suspect that your electroless nickel is the
ticket.<br>
<br>
Best.<br>
<br>
Horace</span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>