Shellac vs. lacquer

[David Love]

Sanding sealer and thinner at 1:1 is pretty strong stuff.  I would be
careful or you will put a rock in the shoulder of that hammer.  Lacquer
thinner, BTW, is mostly acetone plus a bunch of other stuff that aids in the
spreading and drying of lacquer, especially when sprayed.  Acetone will dry
faster and is less toxic.  Both, however, should be used with adequate
ventilation.

David Love


----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Chick (EarthLink)" <tune4@earthlink.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: July 16, 2002 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: Shellac vs. lacquer


David
Several years ago I had a pharmacist order some for me.  It came in 4oz.
bottles and did not need to be reduced.  Use with plenty of ventilation or
apply to hammers when you are laying down!?!  Good luck!
Paul Chick
P.S. I didn't like it as well as lacquer.  It broke down too fast.  Try
sanding sealer and lacquer thinner, a 1:1 ratio in very small amounts to the
shoulders just outside the crown.  Let us know how it works for you.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Ilvedson" <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: Shellac vs. lacquer


> All this talk about shellac, lacquer etc. and I remember a American tech
who lived in Copenhagen talking about collodian and ether.  I know RicB also
talked about it.  I don't think collodian is available in the states?
Couldn't lacquer thinner be used instead of ether...scary!  I would like to
try collodian...in a hammer that is.
>
> David I.
>
>
>
> ----- Original message ---------------------------------------->
> From: Bill Ballard <yardbird@pop.vermontel.net>
> To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Received: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 07:36:08 -0400
> Subject: Re: Shellac vs. lacquer
>
> >At 2:37 PM +0200 7/15/02, Richard Brekne wrote:
> >>Holy Christmas Bill... you used at least eight 67 cent words
> >>there... :) gets complicated for this Norwegianized mind of
> >>mine.
>
> >They cost me at least $4.95 apiece. You'll see a noticeable mark-up
> >in the invoices I'm sending out. The big challenge to the internet
> >economy is creating revenue streams out of all this digital traffic.
>
> >>If you want an idea of how Shellack is going to behave over
> >>time inside the hammer take a thick dense strip of felt (for
> >>example damper lift felt for the back end of grand keys) and
> >>soak a short strip of it in Shellack and let dry. The have
> >>fun playing around with it in as many creative ways as you
> >>can think of and check out how it reacts.
>
> >At 10:45 AM -0700 7/15/02, Susan Kline wrote:
> >>Now if you want the real gritty about what the stuff does to felt
> >>fibers, why don't you take a scrap hammer, soak it well in shellac,
> >>dry it out, vise it to something sturdy with the felt aiming
> >>upwards, and whack it with a mallet a bunch of times? Then take your
> >>knife, cut it open, and put thin slices on a microscope slide?
>
> >Sounds like the test for ductility of music wire. I was contemplating
> >something on the single fiber scale, and which would compare resins.
>
> >>As for whether this whole process leaves the elasticity
> >>decimated or not I dont know.... try stretching the strip
> >>above and see how snappy it is ! Tho I have to wonder if
> >>your segmentation would like reaaaly be synomonous with
> >>chopping the felt fibers into a million short peices with
> >>one of those Japanese knife thingys. :)
>
> >I should clarify. The elasticity I'd like to witness is that of the
> >resin by itself. Heck you could make a reinforcer out of watered-down
> >TiteBond. Its elasticity would be greater than keytop plastic. For me
> >what distinguishes these resins (lac bug stools, nitro lacquer,
> >shellac and keytop plastic) in their results is their springiness.
> >(Oh, cure time is also a major consideration, but in the scheduling
> >of the work, not necessarily in tone quality.)
>
> >I seriously doubt there is any chemical reaction between the felt
> >fiber and and the resins which would degrade the fiber (and
> >specifically, its elasticity). The behavior of the combination i
> >would bet is entirely a mechanical matter.
>
> >Under a powerful microscope, coat a single fiber. The fiber's
> >springiness is a known factor. The resin coating stiffens the fiber,
> >making it slower to bend under a deforming force (ie. collision with
> >taut music wire). But there's a big difference in how that fiber will
> >return from the deformation, based on the elasticity of the resin.
> >I'd like the resin with the greatest elasticity. Any coating can
> >stiffen the fiber, I'm looking for one which will contribute some of
> >its own elasticity to the fiber, after reducing the fiber's
> >elasticity.
>
> >Yes the breakdown is a significant determinant in the long-term
> >prospects for sound. Thanks to Richard for bringing this up. Imagine
> >the resin coating as a sheath. Its brittleness/elasticity will
> >determine how its will survive the flexing which occurs with each
> >hammer strike. (Certainly that flexing is likely to exceed the
> >elastic limits of the resin mainly at the strike point.) The
> >segmentation I was exploring happens when the flexing overcomes the
> >resin's limits. At that point, wouldn't the coating have fractured
> >into segments. And now, coating the fiber not as a single sheath but
> >in many short segments, wouldn't it it have lost the original
> >stiffness it had as an integral whole sheath? Would its effect on the
> >fiber now mainly be limited to its mass, now clinging on to the fiber
> >i separate chunks?
>
> >This is what pricked up my ears when Richard talked about the warming
> >of the sound as resin breaks down. I'm actually looking forward to
> >this process with shellac, because I haven't noticed it with keytop
> >plastic.
>
> >At 10:45 AM -0700 7/15/02, Susan Kline wrote:
> >>P.S. A blow-by-blow of your return visit to voice that set of
> >>hammers would be very welcome! I've used shellac for voicing, but
> >>never for building up a new set of hammers from scratch before.
>
> >I will probably do the report tomorrow night. Tuesday is one of three
> >nights per week during the summer when I have two concert running, 45
> >minutes drive apart.
>
> >Briefly, this is a D with the whole nine yards done last year (I did
> >a new action with complete Stanwood), sitting in a concert shed
> >(http://www.svac.org/2002_final/wed.html), with a theater stage and
> >proscenium. I didn't push the reinforcing too hard last season, as
> >I'm a firm believer in the "work-hardening" of the strike point. But
> >the time hard come to make the piano project. So from that
> >standpoint, the shellacing is part of the initial set-up. I got over
> >there yesterday and found the piano much as I remembered it from the
> >week before (and anticipated finding it). So 1.5 hours of loud
> >voicing (with Zen Reinhardt's "racket-ball"), mezzo, then U.C., and
> >finally quiet voicing. The piano is no ready for the opinions of
> >others.
>
> >Bill Ballard RPT
> >NH Chapter, P.T.G.
>
> >"I gotta go ta woik...."
> >     ...........Ian Shoales, Duck's Breath Mystery Theater
> >+++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>