Hey Nick: I worked my way up into the treble today adjusting the rep springs. My technique has gotten better, and while it is still slower than the usual butterfly spring protocol, I am learning and getting better at it. I have found that as the spring diameter narrowed and seemed a closer match to what it is lifting, adjustment seemed more "normal" and less hair trigger compared to the lower notes where the springs way overpowered everything. I haven't massaged them yet, I figured I wanted to try to get my feet under me before I resorted to those kinds of measures. Yes, I have been experimenting with some of them repining the rep lever post center, up around 10 to 12 grams, and it does seem to improve things where you get the repetition without too strong a kick of the hammer. You are right that the hair trigger from too weak to too strong is there. I found that popping the spring out of its slot and letting it rise up the side but not pulling it up was often enough to give back what we wanted. When I hung this set of hammers, I played it both ways. I did ream the heads on some as well as sand the tips of the shanks. I mostly sanded the tips, because this was where the problems were - the tip might be . 002 or .003 larger than the tube. Probably a result of cutting off the tube by the maker. Mark Burgett said they are now doing that sanding for us. The torsional stiffness is not a problem for me - just an observation. I am using the WNG back checks. I don't think it's difficult, just different. The angle that the back check should be at in relation to the hammer tail is very exact - in part because the head is so much smaller so there is less vertical surface to contact, but also because the precise angle is what is needed to give you good checking. But, if the back checks have been located properly and to the correct height, and then bent precisely, it checks very, very well. Especially on soft blows. I did rough my tails a tad. The soft maple tails were just a bit too smooth for my liking. I can't speak to his problems on the AA. Thanks for your further comments. Will From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Nicholas Gravagne Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:30 PM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] WNG Parts Question Hi Will, Thanks for you input On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:13 PM, William Truitt <surfdog at metrocast.net> wrote: Hi Nick: I'm mostly through my first regulation on the WNG shanks, whippens, capstans, front and balance rail pins, and back checks; along with Weikert felt Ronsen hammers. The shanks and whips are the cloth bushed ones, which were sitting on my shelf for a while. My observations thus far: Yes, the rep springs are insanely, outrageously strong - even with this set of Weikert felt hammers, which are on the heavy side. Same here, including the Weikert felt hammers, which weigh in only a tad lighter than the originals. I'm regulating them now but have done about half of them. I'm still deciding what I'll do to get them down consistently. What did you end up doing Nick, besides pulling them up to strengthen them or pushing them down to weaken them? Virtually impossible to get the kind of consistency we like to see. I don't see any special technique that will mitigate this problem. But RE standard techniques, I had to push down on the spring with the Hart tool a good deal farther than usual. Tweaking for a tiny bit more of slackness was had by placing the Hart tool under the top spring and "massaging" upward, taking care not to kink. Frustration creeps in when the adjustment is now too loose requiring the reverse adjustment for more tension. So now you slip the top spring out of the groove, give it a tiny yank, and once again you are too strong. From the standpoint of the technician, I would take the screw-adjustment any day than to have to regulate springs this way. On a typical wood system, the range or zone of workability is noticeably larger. The WNG zone of workability is quite narrow. You say you have cloth bushed parts? Why not try to repin the rep lever to something like twice its current torque (as measured with the spring disengaged). I think we would all like to know what you come up with. I did have some problems with some of the drop screws being loose in the shank flange hole, and the jack window height adjustment screw the same. Also, some of the center pins were not centered well in their bushing cloth. Had no issues with any of these. My parts are the current run of hard bushings. Also the ends of the shanks varied in diameter at the tips, which required me to take sandpaper and round them down a bit. Some hammer heads were quite tight on the shanks. This created problems gluing on the heads. Why not ream the head holes rather than dress down the shank ends? This worked well for me. The shanks are not very stiff torsionally, yet are stiff longitudinally. Yes, but the same is true for wooden shanks (I think). I can't imagine that relative lack of torsional stiffness should be a problem. I ended up doing about the "average" amount of traveling on the shanks. Less traveling required here. "Burning"of shanks is pretty simple and easy as pie once you start to get used to it. Yes. I did end up with about half a dozen loose heads, which I CA'ed back on. I did remove one to relocate it, no problema. No clicking issues. No loose heads (that I am aware of), but clicking probably due to hammer centers. Friction was very consistent in the 2 to 4 gram range, just as you observed. Whips consistent. Yes. I removed them from the rail and cut off the excess shank on the band saw, then cleaned them up on the belt sander. Me too; but we need a better way to do this so as not to remove the shanks from the rail. With wood I have been able to saw off the stubs and disk sand flat (via pad and electric drill) with all attached to the rail. Had trouble sawing through the tubes with any ease. Blew them out with an air gun. I don't like the tubed shanks - I think it gives the hammers a hollow sound. Very interesting! Did you put in WNG backchecks too, Nick? I would be interested in your reaction to them if you did. No. Installed the big and long fat guys from Pianotek (or was it Pacific). I like these and checking is working out like a dream. Considering the WNG lightweight parts and low-inertia design (including the capstans) I did not foresee any weight issues, and in fact had to remove a good deal of lead from the original keys. A friend tech of mine, with mucho mucho prepping experience reports many frustrations regulating the WNG backchecks in a new M&H AA. Anyone else? Did you use the back check kit that WNG sells? I did, but I had to modify 3 of the 5 jigs just to be able to use them on this Steinway A. Useful to know. Thanks Will From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Nicholas Gravagne Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 11:30 AM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: [pianotech] WNG Parts Question For those of you familiar with the new Wessell, Nickel and Gross (WNG) composite action parts: Having recently installed WNG whippens along with shanks and flanges (w/ the new hard bushings) I have a couple of questions. 1) What is your general, overall sense of these parts in terms of regulation and performance? For one thing, we are finding the rep springs way too strong, requiring more than usual "uncoiling" to obtain correct spring strength. The shank flange friction is within WNG specs of 2 to 4 grams as measured per the WNG site. 2) Have you encountered clicking sounds, reminiscent of the old S&S Teflon bushings? We have on about 8 treble notes. The clicking also might have been loose hammer heads, but these were checked and also reinforced (front and back joints) with CA glue, followed by making sure of flange and action screw tightness. Still clicking. Since the flange bushings are hard (as opposed to the earlier WNG parts which came with cloth bushings) we cannot easily check / repin these centers. Any WNG-specific insight on the source of clicking? Some quick thoughts: The action is an old Boston M&H BB that was heavily leaded. The lighter weight and lower inertia WNG parts, including the low-mass capstans, allowed for a significant amount of lead removal and / or reduction. The shanks "burn" easily and surely with a heat gun. The WNG "action glue" recommended for hammers, etc., works fine as long as you don't readjust previously glued hammers (as is often done with hot glue). If you see one leaning that was glued a few minutes earlier, better to let it dry and then burn it over later. Very few flanges required travel paper. Overall flange friction, whips and shanks, is fairly consistent. Trimming and / or sanding off the hammer shank (tube) stubs after the hammer glue has dried creates a black powder, some of which migrates into the hollow tube only to escape later on to your nice, clean backchecks. Break up the fibrous material in the tubes with a wire and vacuum out, or else allow the shanks to hang vertical and shake-'n-tap the powder out. Am probably forgetting something. Will post more when I know (or remember) more. I know that Bruce Clark is storehouse of knowledge here, but I am also interested in varied input and experience from working techs. Thanks -- Nick Gravagne, RPT AST Mechanical Engineering -- Nick Gravagne, RPT AST Mechanical Engineering -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20100623/a85a8e45/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC