Action Elevations

[Bill Ballard]

At 9:25 AM +0100 1/22/03, Richard Brekne wrote:
>You dont really force the choice either.. but opt for adjusting the 
>rake then...
>I suppose I should have also mentioned that you have to take as 
>given the hammer
>must be on a 90 degree rake. What would you choose then ??
>
>Shank parallel to the key bed or hammer hitting the string at 90 degrees ?

Let's see. Hammer molding CL square to the string to as to eliminate 
the option of the hammer wiping the strings as a way of avoid 
rebound. Hammer molding CL square to the shank to avoid stressing 
their gue joint. Those I want.

Shank parallel to the keybed? What use is that? Not much. Especially 
when you realize how much more complicated getting all three 
simultaneously is. The old bore formula has to be modified. You 
measure the string's inclination, then on paper (or a spreadsheet) 
create a little triangle, one of whose sides is the line dropped 
square from the string at the strike point, the second of which is 
the line drawn over dead level from the hammer center, and the third 
of which runs from the hammer center to the first line, intersecting 
it squarely. (This third line should be parallel to the string.) With 
a little trig, you figure how much the standard bore length (string 
height at strike point, minus hammer center height) has to be 
shortened to bring the shank parallel to the string

If the hammer must be mounted square, and if it is to hit the string 
normal, that requires a shank parallel to the string. But given the 
extra work to calculate the bore and the fact that the string 
inclination is probably not going to be more than 2-3º, I'd probably 
go with only the hammer strike being square.

Just my opinion, and I'd probably recant if faced with prosecution.

Bill Ballard RPT
NH Chapter, P.T.G.

"I go, two plus like, three is pretty much totally five. Whatever"
     ...........The new math
+++++++++++++++++++++