<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html> The first time I was confronted with a Bluthner Patent Action about five years ago, I ordered a set of specs from Bluthner (Kasimoff).  The specs said nothing about whether the hammers were supposed to rest on the rail, but it seemed logical that they should, so that is the way I regulated them. Unfortunately, that left a hammer blow distance of well over than two inches and key dip of half an inch or more, burying the sharps in the naturals.  If the height of the rest rail had been adjustable, the solution would have been simple.  Why did Bluthner make it at a fixed height, and the height such that the blow distance would be greater than reasonable?  I concluded that Bluthner had decided to prevent technicians from making exactly the adjustment that I had intended to make, and their blow and dip specs would seem to support the idea that the hammers cannot rest on the rail.  The final confirmation came from a book called Pianos, Piano Tuners and Their Problems, published in the U.K., which discussed the Patent Action and showed a picture of the regulated action with the hammers nicely suspended above the rail. I have done only two since then, but each one was the same in this respect.  I don't claim to be an expert, but how else does one explain these facts? Nevertheless, you guys are putting doubts in my mind.  The instruments that I serviced all had replacement hammers.  Is it possible that the hammers were shorter than the originals?  It would seem strange that the replacements could have been that far off the mark, but who knows?  In that case, original Bluthner hammers would have to be awfully long to start with.  Perhaps it's the rest felt.  Is it supposed to be extremely thick?  The felt I have seen looked original and already on the slightly thick side. I would be interested in any light you fellows can shed on this, but the only solution I can see short of drastic changes to either the hammers or the rail is to regulate with the hammers not touching the rail. Paul S. Larudee Pianosold@AOL.COM wrote: <blockquote TYPE=CITE>Ola, Paul, and Stephen The Bluthner specs also say that the hammers on the Patent Action rest on the rail.  If the blow is correct and the hammers are off the rail - then the rail covering needs attention.  I use the method that Stephen described.  I also agree with Stephen's comment above using the corect type of 'felt' for this. Uri gella aside! I have not found the 'L' shaped spring that easy to regulate.  I don't see how this spring can govern hammer height AND drop effectively? Regards Rob Thornton</blockquote> </html>