Brass Rail to Wood Flange Conversion

[Ron Nossaman]

> Pretty cool graphics Ron!

Corel Draw. I depend on it for "what if" sketching. If it had 
some basic 2D and 3D CAD capabilities as well as the present 
first rate vector drawing conventions, I'd be in hog heaven. I 
wish Corel Cad hadn't died an early and lonely death, and 
instead kept up with the mainstream product. It coulda been a 
contender.


> I don't think that would have addressed the problem. There are two flat 
> areas of the flange that should contact the action rail. Both are nearly 
> square is shape. One is just above and one is just below the flange 
> screw. The upper flat square surface just barely - and I mean barely - 
> like by a fraction of a millimeter - contacted the very top edge of the 
> original rail. 

That's why I suggested the flange change. No gap at the screw. 
The flange is in contact from it's bottom, to about the top of 
the screw head - less the wire groove and screw hole.


>Several flanges, because the rail edge was 
> chewed-up/damaged/rounded-a-tad actually slipped over the edge - so when 
> you tightened the flange screw the upper portion of the flange would 
> migrate past the rail surface where the flange would normally rest 
> against (and that action center would then be closer to the strings than 
> most other centers). I hope that makes sense. 

Sure, it does with the pictured flange, but not with the 
proposed flange change. Hence the suggestion.


>The brass wire 
> wasn't/isn't an issue (or at least I don't think it is), but rather the 
> rail was simply too short for the flange to rest solidly against it.

Not with the proposed flange change. Look again. The change in 
wire location was to accommodate the different flange 
configuration, which was intended to dodge the short rail 
problem without (maybe) having to modify the rail with an 
extension.

Just a passing thought,
Ron N