[CAUT] Tuning Hammers

[Joe And Penny Goss]

Hi Jim,
And on the other side.
I would never use a 5% or 10% head.
20% the best for me. But only with an ultra short tip and head.
For me it is a matter of knowing how to influence the hammer in use so that
the flex actually helps to move the bottom of the pin at the same instant
that the top moves.
Or at least that is my thought process
I am sure there is someone out there who could figure out the deflection
difference between a tip/head of 5,  10,  15,  and 20% when the total length
is 2" , 2 1/2" or 3" or more like some use in the high treble.
Somewhere in the short to long the head of 20% will equal the 10% in side
flex.
Joe Goss RPT
Mother Goose Tools
imatunr@srvinet.com
www.mothergoosetools.com
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Ellis" <claviers@nxs.net>
To: <caut@ptg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 9:57 AM
Subject: [CAUT] Tuning Hammers


> Re. Tuning hammers:  Jeff Stickney asked me to take a look at Fujan's web
> site.  Jeff, I did, and I have seen their ads.  It's a neat idea, and one
> that occurred to me years ago.  As a matter of fact, at one time I did see
> a tuning hammer that used a hollow tube instead of a steel shank, but I
> don't know who made it.
>
> An aluminum tube is going to have much greater stiffness per weight than a
> solid steel shaft.  But the fact remains, unless the tuning hammer is
> really, really, flimsy, the flexure you feel is going to be coming from
the
> tuning pin itself, not the tuning hammer.  Note: I'm saying flexure, NOT
> sloppiness.
>
> My big gripe for the past 30 years has been tips that don't fit the tuning
> pins, combined with some tuning pins that are lop-sided to begin with.  I
> can still remember when I got my first really good tuning hammer as soon
as
> production started back up right after World War II.  I'll never forget
the
> solid feel that I got with it.  I still have it - original tip long since
> worn out - but that tuning hammer suits me better than anything else I
have
> tried.
>
> I do want to stress one more point that I made in my article on tuning
> hammers in the August 1995 JOURNAL.  I have mentioned it before on this
> list, but it needs to be repeated:  There has been - and still prevails -
a
> common misconception that an extra short head combined with a high angle
> handle bore reduces bending of the tuning pin.  This is false.  The extra
> short head would reduce the bending moment if it were not for the fact
that
> the high handle angle defeats it.  The angle of the elevation where the
> force is applied is what determines the bending moment on the pin, not the
> head length alone.  In my case, I prefer a 5 degree bore, and a head just
> long enough to clear all the struts.  If you analyze the geometry, you
will
> see that you are better off with a medium head and a 5 degree bore than
you
> are with a super-short head and a super-high angle that puts the force -
> your hand - way up in the air above the plane that's perpendicular to the
> tuning pin.
>
> No way would I use any tuning hammer with a 20-degree bore head.  I
> normally carry five tuning hammers.  1) My old 1947 Hale with mediun 5-deg
> head and #2 tip that I use for tuning grands;  2) A re-issue of the
> original rosewood Hale, with extra short 5-deg head that I use for tuning
> short verticals;  3) A little #2 gooseneck hammer for that occasional
grand
> A#1 that can't be accessed with anything larger; and 4 and 5) a gooseneck
> and a T-hammer for harpsichords.  I also carry an assortment of heads with
> tips already attached for those occasions when nothing else will work very
> well.
>
> Did someone say weight?  Yes.  That's why I have a separate aluminum case
> just for tuning tools only, including an Accu-Tuner.
>
> Jim Ellis
>
> _______________________________________________
> caut list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives