---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment At 09:51 AM 04/08/2002 +0200, you RicB wrote: >David Skolnik wrote: >>I don't understand this last statement. Also, it's not clear to me if >>you are describing measuring the bearing of a strung piano, or one which >>you are, or have destrung. I was particularly curious about how you went >>about measuring the downbearing of a functional, or, using Ron N's >>parameters, a non-functional piano. >Havent followed what Ron N means by a non-functional piano in this >regard... but I suspect it is the same as meaning a destrung piano. Ron will likely clarify this himself, however, I took this to imply a value judgement (negative) being bestowed upon a piano which does not conform to some minimal standards of construction theory. > Downbearing as I view it has to be measured that way. You already know > the tensions involved... you need to know the angles you are subjecting > the wires under these tensions to. If you measure an instrument that is > already strung and up to tension...then you need to know how much the > panel has been pressed down as well to really know what the actual > downbearing is. Knowing both is valuable anyways I might add. Just so that I'm clear, are you saying that it is not possible to take measurements with a gauge (and string under the 'panel') and make some conclusion about the downbearing present in the piano? Thanks for the suggestion re: Gravagne's articles. I just got the paper copies of the Journal reprints that the Guild is unloading. Good for ready while traveling about. Regards - David skolnik ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/c4/50/63/90/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC