<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial" bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document face=Arial color=#000000 size=2> <DIV> <DIV>  <STRONG><EM>HI Clark</EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>  Ric &I both posted something about a long dip & a long blow distance indicating a high ratio. ie. 6 mm of hammer movement to 1 of the key.  Changing part is the single first best oppurtunity you have to fix the problem.,. Then proper hammer weight or capstan move.</EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>   Whent he parts were changed something was missed.  Either  correct parts, 17mm knuckles, were used & the hammers were too heavy for the set up or the shorter "original" dimension parts were used with too heavy hammers  The give away to the analysis is that lead was added to an already heavy key/fw. See what I mean & amhik.</EM></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><STRONG><EM>  Dale</EM></STRONG></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>So, I would guess that the distance ratios were wrong to start with, <BR>because there were excessive leads in there from the beginning.  And things <BR>got worse when the parts were replaced, as more leads (that were not factory <BR>in appearance) were added at that time.  So both distance and SW/FW <BR>parameters were compromised, Right?  I wish that I had taken measurements at <BR>the time.  We found someone who liked it, and subsequently bought it.<BR>    I saw in the PTG Leader Letter that a Stanwood class was going to be <BR>held at the Home Office in the spring.  I guess this would be a good place <BR>to start, eh?<BR>Clark A. Sprague, RPT</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>