June Journal and FW's

[Farrell]

"That would tend to put HW's in the medium range in order to keep leading well under maximums without compromising the SBR (5.75 is my ideal)."

What is a HW? (Or was that supposed to be FW?)

"I will also be glad when Renner starts producing their own WAS wippen, which, I understand, is coming soon."

Renner has been making their "Turbo Wippen" WAS for some years now. Or are you speaking of something different? Who makes the WAS that Pianotek now offers?

Terry Farrell
  
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos@earthlink.net>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: June Journal and FW's


> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Ballard" <yardbird@pop.vermontel.net>
> To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: May 30, 2002 8:27 AM
> Subject: Re: June Journal and FW's
> 
> 
> > If what you're saying is that when Steinway actions happen to work
> > out because of a happy combination of SW and KR, that constitutes >a well
> designed action, then I'll respectfully disagree. It made be a
> > well designed action, but the engineer(s) who fail to notice that the
> > design as issued by R&D dept, is not being consistently installed
> > haven't done their job well enough
> 
> Not having seen the initial design specs it's hard to know who to blame.  I
> gather that it's a complicated problem getting many departments to work
> together to get things in the same place every time and to do the necessary
> retooling/retraining to insure that everybody's on the same page.  If you
> don't index the plate, what chance do you have for any consistency.  I
> suppose you could blame the design engineer for that.  Unfortunately there
> is often a gap between design and execution and design engineers don't
> always get involved in the production.
> 
> > >In another case, a classic "new hammers old geometry >arrangement" had
> the >problem "fixed" by a set of assist springs.  >Here a relatively heavy
> hammer (NY Steinway) on an original >dimension knuckle (15.5?) created an
> undue
> >amount of friction in the action which, of course, was unaffected by the
> >addition of assist springs.  Although the balance weight was reduced >by
> virtue of adding the springs, a 38 BW still resulted in a 56 DW > >and .  I
> can't really blame the assist springs for high friction.
> 
> 
> > Why would one blame the WAS for the high friction? The WAS's >upward
> pressure through the rep lever onto the knuckle might be a >measurable
> quantity, but would it be any more than the upward >pressure supplied  by
> the FWs doing the similar counterbalancing? >The source for the  friction is
> in the combination of the high SWs and >the short knuckle  mounting
> distance. The friction applies itself at the
> > knuckle/replever, and at the capstan/heel.
> 
> 
> Yes, I totally agree with that.  As I said, I wasn't blaming the assist
> spring for high friction.  I was, in this case, criticizing the use of the
> assist spring to fix a problem that lay elsewhere.
> 
> For me, the happy medium with the assist spring will probably be to use it
> purely as a method of mitigating uneven BW due to manufacturing
> irregularities and allow for smooth FW's and inertia.  That means using the
> WAS for very minimal adjustments of the BW, under 5 grams.  That would tend
> to put HW's in the medium range in order to keep leading well under maximums
> without compromising the SBR (5.75 is my ideal).  I will also be glad when
> Renner starts producing their own WAS wippen, which, I understand, is coming
> soon.  I am not that thrilled by the Tokiwa parts.
> 
> 
> ++++Back in my home town we have a chicken festival and an egg festival.
> Problem is, I can never remember which comes first.++++
> 
> David Love
>