Hi Joe, I carry the two sizes of jack springs sold by the supply houses, one for a spinet, and one for an upright. There is quite a difference in size between them. I know the spinet size is too small for the upright action. The upright one is compressed too much in the spinet action. Ok it may have been a console. I haven't done enough over the years to have noticed. I use the terminology because it is what the catalogues use. Of course I compare the size of the springs before installation, so console, spinet or upright, use what ever spring applies. Is there a manufacturer, who does not glue the springs in? When you seem to complain, of the new spring being glued in, without needing to be. Then that information should be supplied by the seller. Thanks for your input. John Ross Windsor, Nova Scotia. On 14-Mar-10, at 1:07 AM, Joe DeFazio wrote: >> From: John Ross <jrpiano at win.eastlink.ca> >> Date: March 11, 2010 10:59:12 PM EST > .... >> The fact that they apparently do not work on a console, does create >> a dilemma. >> I used to use the previous ones, on both console and the full size >> actions. >> The spinet ones, probably won't be long enough for the console >> sized action. > > John, I am a little confused by this paragraph. Spinet pianos > usually have more-or-less full sized actions (I'm imagining, say, an > acrosonic); they usually dropped that action down far enough to put > full sized parts in. Console pianos typically have compressed > actions. That's my understanding and experience, anyhow; I'm sure > that someone will correct me if I'm wrong. ;-) > > So, the larger jack spring should fit in both full sized actions and > spinets, while the smaller spring goes into the console. I have > noticed that sometimes the supply houses call smaller parts "spinet" > parts, but I usually end up putting those parts in consoles. > > While it is true that you could fit a larger spring into a > compressed action, it would be stronger than intended, which would > cause increased resistance during the letoff phase of the action > cycle (that's what happened in the console with a compressed action > that I wrote about, with additional and more severe problems caused > by the newer springs bending all over the place), and a louder > "thwack" when the jack returns under the butt. Without addressing > the newer springs that you inquired about, I feel that it is best to > carry both sizes of traditional springs. > >> It was mentioned in an earlier e-mail that the new design will last >> longer. >> I don't believe long life was a problem with the old design, that I >> have been using since 1975, with no call backs. > > Probably every tech on this list has looked with amazement at > actions that had broken jack springs, unglued jack flanges, walked- > out center pins, and a host of other problems yet still functioned > adequately (er, adequately if you squint a little). I am frequently > filled with admiration for the original designers of the upright > piano action; it is extremely robust and fault-tolerant. I think > that the old springs, which might break after many years, are > durable enough for me. That's not to say that I don't applaud > innovation and creative thinking. In fact, I will get a set of the > newer springs and experiment with giving them a chance in a full- > sized upright action. > >> Do the newer springs fit the wippens with no problem? I have never >> had a problem installing the older design with a pair of tweezers, >> not even removing the action for the odd replacement. > > The new springs seemed to fit both the wippen hole and the hole in > the jack tender bottom just fine. That didn't stop the tech who > installed them from abundantly gluing them in place. Grrr...no fun > getting them out. > > Joe DeFazio > Pittsburgh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech.php/attachments/20100314/49685299/attachment.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC