<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1>Hi David:<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Your version of my chart is frightening – you beamed it over to me, and there are body parts scattered everywhere!<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I’m not sure what you are asking about the chart, it’s just an simple Excel spreadsheet with some flowers and potted plants, and no calculations even (I did them myself!!). <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I did not divulge the name of the guilty party because my family has been threatened (just kidding!!). <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>How’s this for being coy: it’s the only remaining supply house of the original big three. If you and my other brethren and sisteren can’t figure it out from there, you are on your own. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I was arguing with the “technician” at said supply house, who thought the discrepencies were insignificant, and I did not. I was still clinging to the now naīve expectation that they were capable of duplicating the part with at least some semblance of exactness. I told him that I would seek other opinions than his and mine, and get back to him after getting some responses. Which I will do shortly today, and I will tell him to send me back the first set he sent, since I have already done all the filing and fitting I needed to make it work so that I could actually hang ALL of the parts back on the rails. I will move and mount the rails on my own, put the action back in, adjust as needed, tune the piano, lick my wounds, and collect the check. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>You don’t have to worry about which house is the source of “duplicated” rails and be confused. They are the only one. Hence their casualness. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>I don’t think we can reawaken the craftsman in him. He never got those genes in the first place. <o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p>Will<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p><o:p> </o:p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf Of David Skolnik Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:29 AM To: pianotech@ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] brass rail duplication<o:p></o:p></div></div><o:p> </o:p>Will - I'm replying to your original post, as it was classic Truitt, and the stuff with Ron is just an unfortunate distraction   (Let's be clear: I don't think he is an unfortunate distraction, just the digression), but I wanted to comment on one thing and make more trouble with the other.  I'd be very curious to know how you executed that elegant chart that would appear as a failed Startrek transporter attempt if I had tried to recreate it here (I did try).  <o:p></o:p>Hasenjaegar Miller upright Old treble Difference tenor Difference Rail Rail Rail Measure bottom of bracket to center pin v<o:p></o:p>0.886 0.851 0.035 smaller<o:p></o:p>And so on, except it was actually spread out over a much wider piece of real estate. Second, skipping over both the question of whether the errant measurements would be the cause of the action problems, the wisdom of undertaking the endeavor, or the range of corrective possibilities, I would note that, despite encountering a certain indifference to craftsmanly-strivings, you chose not to divulge the name of the enterprise.  My question, asked most collegially is: Why?   You don't seem to be making any false accusations.  What is the ethos that defers to such indifference at the possible expense of one, or more of your colleagues, going forward?  Would the supplier give a rat's petuties if you were to name him?  If not, what the problem.  If so, then that, or the threat of that should be sufficient to reawaken the craftsman within.  And besides, I'd like to know who it is, in case I have a similar rail to duplicate, for, as you or he has said, they're the only ones doing this type of work.  Again, this is entirely apart from the issue of your capacity to deal with what you have. Just looking for trouble. David Skolnik, RPT Hastings on Hudson, NY At 09:05 PM 9/11/2012, you wrote: <o:p></o:p>To the list:   A few weeks ago I sent two brass rails from a big old Henry F. Miller upright to a supplier (who shall remain unnamed) for duplication.    I spoke with the fellow who made it at the supply house.  I asked him if he had a caliper or other means of measuring needed values to assure accuracy.  He told me that he did not, said that he eyeballed it when it was done, and he thought it was good enough.  Apparently they have an indexing system on their milling machine that allows them to duplicate rails without using measurements.  The essence of it is that he has no reliably accurate means of checking his work or whether or not the machine has drifted or worn its way out of tolerance.    I sent the rails back to be done again, asking that they buy a caliper and check their work. Their technician, not the same fellow, called me to tell me that the he had measured the distances I had given on the new parts with his caliper accurate to .001.  He said both the first and second sets of rails came out essentially the same, and varied from the original by 3 or 4 thousandths.  So he thought my caliper was suspect.   We argued about who was right for a while.  He thought it was sufficiently accurate, they had been doing this for 50 years, and they had never had any problems before. He told me I should be able to make it work and besides, what other choice do I have, since nobody else makes them?  Thanks for your help.   Will Truitt<o:p></o:p><o:p> </o:p></div></body></html>