<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; =
charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Actually I forgot to include my concluding point =
which is that
the placement of the capstan shouldn't be made on key ratio alone. =
There
is another factor to consider: convergence. Though some compromise =
on
convergence will not get you into too much trouble, a major =
compromise
might and if it is necessary in order to bring the action =
ratio low
enough (it's not usually a problem the other way) then you are probably =
better
off using an assist spring to correct the problem. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>I say this in response to D.E.'s comments on moving =
the
capstan such a distance on the Baldwin. I ran into a similar =
problem on an
older Baldwin D not so long ago. I found that it was not really =
possible
to move the capstan as much as was needed in order to get the ratio I =
wanted
(even using an 18 mm knuckle) and not create some problems with =
regulation as a
function of the compromise in convergence--not to mention slicing off =
wippen
heels and the like. In this case the only reasonable remedy was to =
move
the capstan a small amount and use an assist spring wippen for the
difference. In this case I used the assist spring =
for about 10
grams of BW, which is my target limit. I am aware that others are =
willing
to go much higher than that, but I find that it creates problems with =
how the
action feels. Anyway, though I am not a strong advocate of =
assist
springs, in this case I thought it was the best solution.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>David Love</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=davidlovepianos@earthlink.net
href="mailto:davidlovepianos@earthlink.net">David Love</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=pianotech@ptg.org
href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> July 14, 2002 9:49 =
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Lighter or Heavier =
?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>It's hard to say whether there is really an =
<EM>incorrect
</EM>key ratio. The key ratio is only incorrect in so far as it
contributes to an overall ratio which is too high or too =
low. To
simplify, it's really how it combines with the knuckle radius that's
important. Whereas a .52 KR might not work with a 15.5 mm =
knuckle
radius, it will work fine with a 17 mm one, generally. =
Similarly, a .55
KR, as you sometimes find in older Mason Hamlins or Baldwins, will =
require an
18 mm knuckle to get the overall ratio in the 5.5 - 5.9 area where (I =
think)
it belongs. There are, of course, other considerations in =
choosing this
combination of levers. The smaller the knuckle radius the =
greater will
be the friction because of the increased weight bearing on the =
knuckle.
So if you are opting for a heavier hammer, you are better off going =
with a
longer knuckle radius. Very light hammers, as are found in older =
Steinways, do just fine with shorter knuckle dimensions without too =
great an
increase in friction. Just a few thoughts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>David Love </FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=tompiano@gate.net href="mailto:tompiano@gate.net">Tom =
Servinsky</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=pianotech@ptg.org
href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> July 13, 2002 5:23 =
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: Lighter or =
Heavier ?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN =
class=650010312-13072002>I
there was a "theme" to this year's convention IMHO, it was =
diagnosing key
ratios. Between Stanwood's all-day class and Richard Davenport's =
"What if",
incorrect key ratios have to be dealt with during our =
rebuilding
procedures, or our problems will continue.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=650010312-13072002>The common plan of attack for a number of =
years has
always been to add lead when the key weight is too extreme =
(high). Even
though we get the DW down ... something always hinted that we were =
treating
the symptoms and not the disease.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=650010312-13072002>Incorrect key ratio creates a =
vicious
cycle that affects everything. We have to learn to understand and =
correct
these problems and make them a normal part of the rebuilding
procedure.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=650010312-13072002>Tom =
Servinksy,RPT </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=650010312-13072002></SPAN><FONT =
face=Tahoma><FONT
size=2><SPAN class=650010312-13072002><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff></FONT></SPAN></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma><FONT size=2><SPAN
class=650010312-13072002> </SPAN><STRONG>:</STRONG>
owner-pianotech@ptg.org [mailto:owner-pianotech@ptg.org]<B>On Behalf =
Of
</B>Erwinspiano@AOL.COM<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, July 12, 2002 10:26
PM<BR><B>To:</B> pianotech@ptg.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: Lighter or =
Heavier
?<BR><BR></DIV></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><FONT face=arial,helvetica><FONT lang=0
face="Times New Roman" size=3 FAMILY="SERIF">In a message =
dated 7/12/2002
4:20:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no
writes:<BR><BR></FONT><FONT lang=0 style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: =
#ffffff"
face=Arial color=#000000 size=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF"><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff =
2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
TYPE="CITE">Subj:<B>Re: Lighter or Heavier ? =
</B><BR>Date:7/12/2002
4:20:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time<BR>From:<A
=
href="mailto:Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no">Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no</=
A><BR>Reply-to:<A
href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A><BR>To:<A =
href="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A><BR>Sent =
from the
Internet <BR><BR> Hey
Ric</BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR></FONT><FONT lang=0
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" face="Times New Roman" =
color=#000000
size=3 FAMILY="SERIF"> I =
followed this
only briefly. Bussssy week. Oh my goodness! Any way There is an =
experience
I've had a few times with some actions where the key ratios and =
action
ratios were really good. Without getting into many measurements =
just let
me say that the effect was that even though static down weights =
approached
60 down on my Symphony Stwy D (1940) and the upweights were a nice =
snappy
28-30. No one has ever complained about the touch as being heavy.
<BR> John O' Connor played it a time or two as well as =
others.
and never a complaint about the touch being heavy. Seems to =
handle
rapid passage work effortlessly. It has some lead closer to the =
balance
rail as it's a accelerated action.
<BR> I've also learned from =
installing new
key sets with corrected key ratios that less lead is used and =
similar
results are attained. I believe some lead is required =
to give
the piansit some semblance of a "the normal feel" related to =
inertia
and that some inertia IMO is desirable in a piano action. Physics =
says
were going to have some like it or not but is better managed with
efficient leverages. When some of these systems are right =
it's like
a supercharged V-8.<BR> My point is that the down weight =
upweight
discussion takes on an entirely different parameters when things =
are set
up right as opposed to the funky key and action geometry we deal =
with day
in and out. Bottom line is that some action.key systems static =
weights may
seem high ( 60 over 30 ) but the dynamic effect when the keys are =
in
motion tells an entirely different and pleasant story.<BR> =
Does that
make sense to any one but me?<BR>
>>>>Dale Erwin>>>>>>></FONT><FONT =
lang=0
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" face=Arial color=#000000 =
size=3
FAMILY="SANSSERIF"><BR></FONT><FONT lang=0
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" face=Arial color=#000000 =
size=2
FAMILY="SANSSERIF"><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff =
2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
TYPE="CITE"><BR>Thanks again Ed and Dave... and Stéphane for =
your
interest<BR><BR>Seems like we have two ideas about how inertia =
levels
affect<BR>the touch of the piano. On the one hand we've said
several<BR>times the the higher the inertia the slower the
action<BR>repetition... and this has been equated loosely with
terms<BR>like sluggishness and then from this perspective,
heaviness.<BR>Then on the other hand a bit more lead is said to
perhaps<BR>lead to a lighter "feel" due to the help inertia =
lends
ones<BR>the key is in motion.<BR><BR>Interesting and to some =
degree
conflicting lines of<BR>thinking. All and all it leads one to =
think that
Stanwood<BR>ideas are fine.... a great refinement in relation to =
simple<BR>DW/UW measurements.. but perhaps should be refined
further<BR>to somehow put a number on inertia .... inertia
zones<BR>perhaps.<BR><BR>I agree tho in the answers you two =
kindly
voluntered that<BR>DW/UW has a direct relationship to "touch" or =
"feel",
yet<BR>that these are also affected by other relationships.
<BR><BR>Thanks again... would have liked to heard from =
others...<BR>but.
:)<BR><BR>Cheers<BR>RicB<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></FONT><FONT =
lang=0
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" face="Times New Roman" =
color=#000000
size=2
FAMILY="SERIF"><I><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></I></FONT=
></FONT></BODY></HTML>