Evidence of overlacquered hammers

[Bernhard Stopper]

Sorry Dean,

Since i am not a native english speaker, i sometimes have difficulties to
read between the lines.

thank you for clearing this.

best regards,

Bernhard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dean May" <deanmay@pianorebuilders.com>
To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 5:13 PM
Subject: RE: Evidence of overlacquered hammers


> Bernhard wrote:
> 3. I always try to keep a gentle discussions niveau. To say that someone
is
> grossly underqualified, is not a good style.
>
>
> My profuse apologies, Bernhard. I think there is a language barrier thing
> going on. The grossly underqualified engineer I was speaking of was myself
> in a self-deprecating style. It is why I refrained from jumping into this
> fascinating discussion. I did jump in to talk a little about conservation
of
> energy, a subject that I used to know quite a bit about.
>
> I have greatly appreciated your contributions to the discussion.
>
>
> Dean
> Dean May             cell 812.239.3359
> PianoRebuilders.com   812.235.5272
> Terre Haute IN  47802
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org]On
Behalf
> Of Bernhard Stopper
> Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 9:15 AM
> To: Pianotech
> Subject: Re: Evidence of overlacquered hammers
>
> Dean,
> 1. I am not engineer, I am a german master piano maker.
> 2. I did not exclude damping when i say:
> >Not only. The function includes also the hammer speed and the strings
> >impedance (including mass and tension of the string).
>
> I spoke about the energy conservation on the whole chain from keyboard
input
> up to the soundboard.
> If the energy input into the key remains the same, you have no gain in
> energy in the soundboard if only the hammer is heavier.
> If you change the hammers resilience, and therefore its damping, this is
> another story.
>
>
>
> regards,
>
> Bernhard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dean May" <deanmay@pianorebuilders.com>
> To: "Pianotech" <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 3:56 PM
> Subject: RE: Evidence of overlacquered hammers
>
>
> > Bernhard wrote:
> > Yes that´s what i say. As long as you put the same amount of energy into
> the
> > key, the sound will not be louder. This the principle of conservation of
> > energy.
> >
> > Well, at one point engineers were invited to step into the debate but
this
> > engineer is grossly underqualified. I will, however, comment on the
above
> > remark. Conservation of energy says that the amount of energy after the
> > impact has to equal the amount before the impact. Before the impact all
we
> > have is the kinetic energy of the hammer. After the impact we have the
> work
> > done in deflecting the string, the work done in compressing the hammer
> felt,
> > and some heat absorbed in the fibers of the hammer (some in the string,
> > also). Changing the elasticity of the hammer will change the amount of
> heat
> > absorbed by the hammer and the amount of deflection of the felt. This
> means
> > either more (or less) energy must go into the string or into the
returning
> > hammer. So for a given energy imparted to the key, conservation of
energy
> > does allow for variance of energy to be transferred to the string by
> > changing hammer densities, it seems to me.
> >
> > It has been fascinating to read both sides of the debate, except for the
> > occasional forays into the ad hominems. Thanks to all who have
> contributed.
> >
> > Blessings,
> > Dean
> > Dean May, PE             cell 812.239.3359
> > PianoRebuilders.com   812.235.5272
> > Terre Haute IN  47802
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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