Tuning Pin Size

[Erwinspiano@AOL.COM]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
In a message dated 1/24/2002 9:10:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
larudee@pacbell.net writes:


> Subj:Re: Tuning Pin Size 
> Date:1/24/2002 9:10:37 PM Pacific Standard Time
> From:<A HREF="mailto:larudee@pacbell.net">larudee@pacbell.net</A>
> Reply-to:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>
> To:<A HREF="mailto:pianotech@ptg.org">pianotech@ptg.org</A>
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> The details are in the article, but the disadvantage is that the 1/0 pin 
> will be
> less rigid.  This can be a problem in a Steinway type design where the 
> distance
> between the point of string tension and the pin block is roughly three 
> times
> greater than in an open face design, and where there is no plate bushing to
> mitigate the leverage. 
> 
>   Hi Paul -- I'll read the article but would you mind saying this a 
> different way as it's not clear to me. I find that using no 1 pins in new 
> blocks is not a problem unless fit too tight but what pin isn't. I don't 
> have any trouble with no. ones otherwise. I'll read the article, really!  I 
> can't deny that no 2 are stiffer but ones render nicely when fit well which 
> is why I like them.

      >>>>>>>>>>Dale Erwin

If that's the design Steinway wants, my pins are the
> 
> answer, in my opinion.  They are fat, with the needed rigidity, right up to 
> the
> coil, at which point they become 1/0.  If you keep the original block on a
> Steinway and replace the 2/0 pins with mine (the ones with the 1/0 heads), 
> I
> think you'll get better performance than the original pins.
> 
> Paul
> 
> David Love wrote:
> 
> > Paul:
> >
> > Perhaps I should read your article.  But do you (or others) think that
> > Steinway was right to go to a fatter pin given their system?  What about
> > restringing a Steinway with a new block with #1 pins?  Will it create
> > problems?
> >
> > David Love
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <larudee@pacbell.net>
> > To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
> > Sent: January 24, 2002 5:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: Tuning Pin Size
> >
> > > |John,
> > >
> > > What David is calling #1 and #2 are generally called 1/0 and 2/0, which 
> is
> > the
> > > same as 0 and 00.  the corresponding diameters are .276" and .282" or
> > 7.00mm.
> > > and 7.15mm.  The 6.75mm. pins are the true size 1 pins, the size number
> > > increasing as the diameter decreases.  This size is in the Fletcher and
> > Newman
> > > catalog, but not generally available from U.S. distributers.
> > >
> > > For the pros and cons of increasing and decreasing pin size, you may be
> > > interested in the considerations set forth in my article on tuning pin
> > physics
> > > in the January and February issues of the PTG Journal, which are a bit
> > lengthy
> > > to reproduce here.  As for your thoughts about the use of 2/0 pin in 
> new
> > pianos
> > > starting with Steinway (because of their closed pinblock design without
> > > bushings) and then being copied by other (primarily American)
> > manufacturers, I
> > > think that is exactly the case.
> > >
> > > Paul Larudee
> > >


---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/5d/61/38/da/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--