Yes! The tail is pushing through... with a very easy of push. (on the bench test...) How else???<G> I guess you could push through the strings with something... Tails need to be scored as well....very smooth.. I'll try the rest of the test tomorrow....I'm done....Due to my factor of 40 hours per week unless I apply for extra hours!! (what a joke) How can someone take care of 110 pianos with a limit of 40 hours per week???? it just can't be done... I some how make it happen. Most pianos suffer and the best ones get the attention! I guess it's the same for a lot of you bloakes, eh? (going OT?) Great tips! Thanks, Fred. Paul Fred Sturm <fssturm at unm.edu> Sent by: caut-bounces at ptg.org 04/14/2009 04:17 PM Please respond to caut at ptg.org To caut at ptg.org cc Subject Re: [CAUT] Another Baldwin Question/backchecks 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/bcc76467/attachment.html>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC