At the risk of opening a large can of worms and an even larger debate, I think this is perfect example of why going metric (like Dale Erwin demonstrated) is such an elegant mode of transport through exercises such as these. Mixing fractions with decimal inches may work in this prepped example, but the numbers are hardly ever so fortuitous. I heartily suggest to all technicians to immerse themselves in millimeters, stop converting to inches, buy metric rulers, calipers and whatever other measuring tools they need and discover the brilliant ease of working in that system. ducking for cover... Jurgen Goering On Feb 4, 2008, at 19:20, pianotech-request at ptg.org wrote: > snip... > Let’s just say you want something typical like a 3/8” key dip, 1/8” > letoff, and .050” aftertouch. (Later I’ll show the equations for > solving for different variables) Given the 3/8” key dip (.375”) and > the .050” aftertouch, we subtract aftertouch from key dip and know > then that we have .325” of useable key dip to move the hammer. How > far will it move? It will move 5xs the amount of keydip. 5 x .325” = > 1.625”. But that’s not the hammer blow distance, because we haven’t > accounted for letoff. If we want 1/8” (.125”) letoff, we need to ADD > that to the hammer travel of 1.625”, so the blow distance is then > 1.75”, or 1 ¾”. > ...snip... > OK, Lemme know whatcha think! > > John Dorr, RPT -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1635 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20080204/e32199bd/attachment.bin
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC