Perhaps it's counter-intuitive Jim, but I would suggest that the larger the needle size to fiber size, the LESS likely you are to cut fibers. In order to cut fibers, you would have to "pierce" them. The larger the needle gets with respect to the fiber, the tip of the needle effectively becomes more blunt, thus the tendency to simply push the fibers to one side or the other. Unless you use a faster technique. Stabbing the hammers does not allow the fibers to move aside as easily and results in more torn fibers. So no, it is not a moot point. Pushing tends to spread fibers, stabbing tends to cut. And yes, of course, glovers needles (triangular in cross section) will cut more fibers than voicing needles (roundish in cross section). William R. Monroe On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Jim Busby <jim_busby at byu.edu> wrote: > Fred, > > Remember Wally's class where he said an electron microscope showed that the > very tip of a needle is about 30 times the size of a wool fiber diameter? > This means simply that felt is cut whether you stab or push. Mute point > either way. Is that right? > > Jim > > > > Hi David, > You are right. My apologies for not making that change. Perhaps this > will serve to alert those who missed it, and might be interested, to > the thread and its inaccurate subject line. > I will also offer a few more thoughts on the subject. I think there > is a continuum between "press" and "stab" techniques, which creates a > progression in "spreading fibers" versus "tearing or cutting fibers." > At one extreme, the needles start at the surface of the hammer, and > are pressed in fairly slowly - shall we say one to two seconds to > arrive at full depth. At the other extreme, the needles are > accelerated from a distance - shall we say three to four inches away, > with a very rapid and powerful stabbing action. To my way of thinking, > it is clear that the former will minimize cutting and tearing, and > maximize spreading. And the latter will do the opposite: maximize > tearing and cutting, and achieve the least spreading. (Depth of > penetration being equal). > But there are many intermediate methods. A "stab" technique that > starts very close to the surface would be little different from a > "press" method that starts at the surface but accelerates very > rapidly, for instance. > The most destructive technique, I believe, is a pretty common one. > The hammer is pretty hard, so a lot of stabbing is done, in which the > needles only penetrate 3 - 4 mm into the felt. This makes it possible > for later stabs to penetrate more deeply, but the damage has been > done. Lots of stabs to the surface destroys the integrity of the outer > layer, which is essential to the resilience of the hammer. When the > outer layer is intact (relatively speaking), it is possible to do deep > needling with a long single needle (penetrating 7 or more mm - farther > than the initial deep needling), and make the hammer brighter and more > powerful. This is similar to what Andre Oorebek calls "battery > voicing" but it isn't confined to the lower shoulders. It can be done > in mid to upper shoulders, and I believe it is more effective there. > But the caveat is that it is only successful if the outer layers > haven't been damaged by too much shallow stab needling. > So, a few more thoughts along those lines, should anyone care to > discuss them. > Regards, > Fred Sturm > University of New Mexico > fssturm at unm.edu > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20100611/747f3f2a/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC