[CAUT] Another Baldwin Question/backchecks

[Fred Sturm]

A too shallow angle will mean that the tail can be pushed through, (if  
you use finger pressure downward on the hammer, on the bench with the  
hammer in check) rather than getting tighter. And that means  
inconsistency in actual performance. So experiment with changing the  
angle. I like to hold the wire with a slotted tool and bend the head  
with my hand (that is, pressing on the head, make a bend in the wire  
close to the head). Then you readjust check distance and try again.  
When you get something that works well, you can work with a  
straightedge and make all of them the same (checking from time to time  
to see that it is working, rather than adjust all of them and then say  
Whoops! should have been a little different <G>) A straightedge is  
easier than gauging angles individually.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu



On Apr 14, 2009, at 2:56 PM, Paul T Williams wrote:

>
> I aim for the gap between the bottom of hammer tail and top of  
> backcheck at the point of let-off to be 1/16".  This all works with  
> this piano.  Now, my point is that the angle is off.  It's very  
> shallow...like 11 or 12 degrees rather than what I think it should  
> be at 17 degrees...Is this right?  They just don't check right.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> William Monroe <bill at a440piano.net>
> Sent by: caut-bounces at ptg.org
> 04/14/2009 03:19 PM
> Please respond to
> caut at ptg.org
>
> To
> caut at ptg.org
> cc
> Subject
> Re: [CAUT] Another Baldwin Question/backchecks
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Wim,
>
> I do this height check AT drop, not at full keystroke.  I aim for  
> 1-2mm gap in this position.  Different strokes.
>
> William R. Monroe
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 1:41 PM, <wimblees at aol.com> wrote:
> Ron
>
> Is this with a normal stroke, or a let off/drop check stroke?
>
> Wim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Nossaman <rnossaman at cox.net>
> To: caut at ptg.org
> Sent: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 6:39 am
> Subject: Re: [CAUT] Another Baldwin Question/backchecks
>
> Paul T Williams wrote:
> > > Hi All.
> > > In regulating this Baldwin R I've been talking about. I'm  
> narrowing in > (I hope) on a couple of issues hindering the  
> regulation. I think the > backchecks are too high.
> > > Does anyone have the specs on how high up from the back of the  
> key the > backchecks should be? 1966 Baldwin R. The angle is also  
> wrong, but I > have that information, but I think, since these are  
> not original, they > were not installed deep enough into the key, or  
> the wires from whatever > supply house were too long.
> > > Any hints?
> > > Thanks people!
> > > Paul
>
> With the key fully depressed, and the action in otherwise decent  
> regulation, the top of the back check should be no higher than the  
> end of the hammer tail, or a couple of millimeters below.
> Ron N
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090414/84185e7c/attachment.html>