Evidence of overlacquered hammers

[David Love]

What you are saying then is that heavier and/or harder hammers do not
make the sound louder except by the excitement of a different set of
partials.  That's just not the case.  I'm sorry but I believe you are
misinformed on this.  But don't take my word for it, ask a physicist or
an engineer.  The amount of energy imparted to the string which is
transferred to the soundboard is a function of mass and/or density of
the object striking the string. 

David Love
davidlovepianos@comcast.net 

-----Original Message-----
From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On
Behalf Of Bernhard Stopper
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 1:21 AM
To: Pianotech
Subject: Re: Evidence of overlacquered hammers

David wrote:

>A panel which
>moves less efficiently will require more mass, density or both from the
>hammer in order to achieve the same displacement of air by its motion
>than a panel that moves more efficiently for which a softer hammer will
>achieve the same result.

No i don´t agree, because there is the string between the soundboard and
the
hammer. If the string is too thin, more mass in the hammer has no
possibility to arrive at the soundboard.

Bernhard


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Love" <davidlovepianos@comcast.net>
To: "'Pianotech'" <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 2:40 AM
Subject: RE: Evidence of overlacquered hammers


> My understanding is that the soundboard is a transducer, not an
> amplifier--there is no added energy--it's function is to convert
energy
> of the vibrating string into a larger moving body which has the
ability
> to move the air which the string by itself does not possess in
> sufficient quantity.  The panel's ability to do that is a function of
> several factors including:  panel thickness, rib dimensions and
> stiffness, crown, spring rate, type of rim, location of bridges and
> probably other things which I have forgotten.  Not all soundboards
will
> move with the same efficiency and some will move too much--or some
areas
> of the panel will.  The hammer imparts a blow to the strings and the
> energy imparted is a function of hardness, mass or both.  A panel
which
> moves less efficiently will require more mass, density or both from
the
> hammer in order to achieve the same displacement of air by its motion
> than a panel that moves more efficiently for which a softer hammer
will
> achieve the same result.  How the partials develop is a somewhat
> different issue, which I am not addressing here.
>
> So, if not all panels are created equal, then one hammer will not
yield
> the same result on different panels.  How much different the panels
need
> to be to be able to hear that is another issue.
>
> David Love
> davidlovepianos@comcast.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On
> Behalf Of antares
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 12:52 PM
> To: Pianotech
> Subject: Re: Evidence of overlacquered hammers
>
>
> On 1-okt-04, at 21:41, Bernhard Stopper wrote:
>
> > The time, the hammer is in contact with the string is the main
effect
> > of how
> > many partials and in what weight they will occur. The soundboard
> > itself has absolutely no possibiliy to add any partials to the
strings
> > spectrum (except the short shock spectrum caused by the hammer
impact)
>
> > and
> > acts only as an amplifier and filter. But the oscillator is the
> string.
> >
> > best regards
> >
> > Bernhard Stopper
> >
>
> Exactly. Thank you for your clear explanation Bernhard!
>
> André Oorebeek
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives

_______________________________________________
pianotech list info: https://www.moypiano.com/resources/#archives