List, I think I read an article about Downy softener that said the long term effect wasn't good. It seems it kind of "clogged up" the hammer so future voicing was not possible. Anyone know about the long term effect? (Within a couple of years) The Pianotek stuff isn't supposed to have adverse effects. I've used it occasionally on marginal hammers with success. Jim Busby BYU -----Original Message----- From: caut-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Willem Blees Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 5:26 PM To: College and University Technicians Subject: Re: [CAUT] Experiment success! Not only is Downey less expensive, it probably smells a lot better than the hammer softener from Piantek. BTW, does anyone know the ingredients of this stuff? Wim Willem Blees, RPT Piano Tuner/Technician School of Music University of Alabama Tuscaloosa, AL USA 205-348-1469 Quoting Paul T Williams <pwilliams4 at unlnotes.unl.edu>: > Hi all > > Just wanted to give you an update on my hammer softener experiment. > It > ended up being a tie between the Downy softener and the hammer > softener > from Protek. Since most of the pianos I worked on have Abel and > Renner > hammers, steaming didn't have a huge effect. One M&H model A's > hammers > are so badly worn (not even enough felt left to file!) that even the > > softeners didn't do very much. It's now slated for an action > overhaul > this summer.( Abel or Renner? Hmmmmmmm...) > > So for cost analysis, the hammer softener is about 75 cents per ounce > and > the Downy/Alcohol is about 15 cents/ounce! No brainer. Time will > tell > which will last the longest. > > BTW, The mineral spirits ended up working just fine on the Steinway > finish. > > On to new challenges! > > Best to all, > > Hei, Hei! > > Paul
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC