David,
Some responses to your post.
You wrote:
"In fact, the process of "consolidate and hierarchicalize"-ing is either something that Alan does on any piano he (they) work on, or more reasonably, on something that is getting more of a 'from scratch' regulation."
My associates and I consolidate and hierarchicalize the paper and cardboard punchings of nearly every piano we work on, for the school, and for outside clients. Of course, we are often following our own work, so each time we do it, we are doing ourselves a favor.
You continued:
"I would guess that any advantage to be gained by such process would have to be weighed against the initial destabilizing effect, of disrupting the stack (of punchings) and the cloth punching."
If by "disturbing" the cloth punching, you mean rotating and/or inverting it, that doesn't happen, because we first mark the cloth punchings for "o'clock" orientation and "up-side-ed-ness." Not sure just what you mean by, "...disrupting the stack (of punchings)…", presumably the paper and cardboard punchings?
FWIW, when we consolidate, here's how we do it.
1) Using a full-length key leveling stick (highest and lowest sharps and naturals propped up to support the weight of the stick, if necessary), we mark all of the keys to indicate how much needs to be added or subtracted.
2) Remove the top stack (hammer action, top action, or whatever you call it in your neck of the woods) using cordless screwdrivers outfitted with 6" philips-head bits. (I routinely swap out original slotted action bracket screws with #10, 1" pan-head sheet metal screws, for greater ease of use with power tools.)
3) Remove the balance rail punchings; remove the cloth one from the rest of the pile; measure the pile with a spring-loaded thickness gauge (in which a spring applies the same pressure for every measurement, unlike when pressure is applied by hand, making it ideal for sizing up compressible materials such as leather, felt, cloth and paper).
4) do the math (size of original pile in thousandths, plus or minus the indicated amount); create a pile that achieves the size targeted with the fewest possible punchings, arranged in hierarchical order), and
5) reinstall punchings and key on pin, and rock the key with the strength of a firm handshake to settle things down.
Same basic process for handling front-rail pin punchings, just a different method for determining how much needs to be added or subtracted (we use the Erwin Key Dip Gauge, which we affectionately refer to as the "Gnome gavel").
Best,
Alan
------------------------------
Alan Eder, RPT
Herb Alpert School of Music
California Institute of the Arts
Valencia, CA
661.904.6483
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-26-2017 09:31
From: David Skolnik
Subject: Paper Punching Order
Sometimes we seem to have the ability to over-talk these things, which is not to say that they might not have merit, but we can go on a bit, in the absence of the requisite research, however, I'd point out that it was never made entirely clear whether Chris was originally speaking of the balance rail, or the front rail, or both. Eventually, Peter Grey made reference to 'conical' punchings, which implied the front rail, and Ryan Sowers spoke of compressing the balance rail punchings, as a means of stabilizing level.
In fact, the process of "consolidate and hierarchicalize"-ing is either something that Alan does on any piano he (they) work on, or more reasonably, on something that is getting more of a 'from scratch' regulation. I would guess that any advantage to be gained by such process would have to be weighed against the initial destabilizing effect, of disrupting the stack (of punchings) and the cloth punching.
One might question the actual effect of Ryan's "firm tap" or Alan's Squishinator: I do a version myself, but what gets squished, or squshed, depending upon what region you're from? We would be looking at either the paper stack, the punching, or, in the case of the balance rail, a slight compression of the wood.
I'll try some experiments later, for fun, but my pre-disposition is to assume that
a) there is a difference between greater or fewer layers
b) the ordering, in the production stage, is logical and an efficiency.
------------------------------
David Skolnik
Hastings-on-Hudson NY
914-231-7565
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-24-2017 14:48
From: Jon Page
Subject: Paper Punching Order
Don't use more than two of the same thickness of paper punchings. Conduct your own experiment on the compressibility of a stack of thin paper punchings as opposed to a thick card punching.
------------------------------
Regards,
Jon Page
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 04-24-2017 12:06
From: Chris Chernobieff
Subject: Paper Punching Order
Does it really matter?
This has been coming up more often over the years. Is there any documented proof that using e.g. four .010 punchings is more squishy than a single .040 card?
And does it matter if the thicker card is at the bottom and they progressively get thinner towards the top?
And last but not least, any hard rule you can't use the same size twice? Or is that forbidden?
And if this kind of thing is demanded, should extra be charged for the extra time in accommodating thsee demands? Or is this just the new standard?
------------------------------
ChrisChernobieff
Chernobieff Piano and Harpsichord Mfg.
Lenoir City TN
865-986-7720
chrisppff@gmail.com
www.facebook.com/ChernobieffPianoandHarpsichordMFG
------------------------------