I use a backcheck bending tool and a wood block on the bench just in front of the keyend with the backchecks facing me. I calibrate the block thickness and position so that when I do a full stroke of the bending tool, the block stops the travel of the tool and the bend at the same place every time. It's very fast and very consistent. In a message dated 4/14/2009 4:19:01 P.M. Central Daylight Time, fssturm at unm.edu writes: 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_ (mailto: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_ (mailto:bill at a440piano.net) > Sent by: _caut-bounces at ptg.org_ (mailto:caut-bounces at ptg.org) 04/14/2009 03:19 PM Please respond to _caut at ptg.org_ (mailto:caut at ptg.org) To _caut at ptg.org_ (mailto: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_ (mailto: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_ (mailto:rnossaman at cox.net) > To: _caut at ptg.org_ (mailto: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 = **************The Average US Credit Score is 692. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221421325x1201417411/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26h mpgID%3D62%26bcd%3DAprilAvgfooterNO62) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090414/83b0f73a/attachment-0001.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 48302 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut_ptg.org/attachments/20090414/83b0f73a/attachment-0001.jpe>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC