This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment My thinking is that the angle of deflection of the speaking length and = the hitch end, are more an indicator of down bearing than is the segment = that crosses the top of the bridge. Might be in error here as this sure = in not something that real experience has taught me <G> To me it is Plane Geometry, and I may be looking at it from the wrong = Angle. Why did I not purchase one of those 'flame suits' when they were = available. Conrad! Joe Goss=20 imatunr@srvinet.com www.mothergoosetools.com ----- Original Message -----=20 From: David Skolnik=20 To: Pianotech=20 Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 4:52 AM Subject: Re: consistent downbearing measurements Joe - Returning, for a moment, to the piano aspect of this issue, what's = your reason for bypassing the bridge? You'd get your net, though, in = the case of a rounded bridge surface, you could get a false zero or = negative reading. (I don't think you can get a false positive, at = least, I can't visualize it.) Also, you'd learn nothing about the = individual front and rear components. That was part of my issue with = John's method. He seemed to have little concern for other than the net = bearing, and even on that, he had some ideas I found somewhat troubling. = Unfortunately, (or maybe fortunately for me) he's no longer contributing = to these lists, so that's not an avenue to pursue. As for using a laser, you'd STILL have to solve the stabilizing = problem Greg spoke of. Maybe you could come up with a Rare Earth = Universal Mount, with which you could use a Lowell OR a Laser. = (LOLREUM!) Are lasers affected by magnetic fields?=20 But mainly I'm interested with my first question...why no bridge? David Skolnik At 04:42 PM 6/2/2004 -0600, you wrote: Humm, why would not a laser set on the string pointing at the rim, first = measurment on the speaking length and the second reading on the tail = with the laser pointed at the same target. Bypass the bridge all = together. Just thinkin, Joe Goss imatunr@srvinet.com www.mothergoosetools.com=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Erwinspiano@aol.com=20 To: pianotech@ptg.org=20 Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 3:53 PM=20 Subject: Re: consistent downbearing measurements=20 Greg=20 Some techs do not rebuild but only use them to see if there is = any residual bearing left in the 90 year old almost flat or flat board. = Under those conditions it's difficult to tell anything with the gauge = because of the bridge slope towards the rear & a sunken crown/bridge as = well One gets really funky ideas of whats there & not there if you = know what I mean.=20 As to your useage , yes of course this what they're for. I wasn't = looking for trick answers. It would be nice if the gauge were fashione = from cast brass or iron for a more solid seat on the string.=20 Dale=20 Dale,=20 Uh, I'm not sure what type of an answer your looking for = here but I'll take a stab at it. I'm needing to set plate height during = the course of a rebuild and check for down bearing during the course of = evaluating a piano. Isn't that what their for?=20 Greg=20 At 10:45 AM 6/1/2004, you wrote: In a message dated 6/1/2004 5:23:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, = gnewell@ameritech.net writes:=20 Thanks Dale. I've been doing just that but I'm not happy with = the repeatability of measurements. There's just got to be a better way. = Any other gauges out there? I seem to remember a Journal article with a = dial gauge of some kind. Am I dreaming?=20 Greg Newell Gregg ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/c5/a1/34/7e/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC