PianoTech Archive

From "David Ilvedson" <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>

List,

What is the thinking on cutting the balance rail punching in half, i.e on the backside of the key only?

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA 94044

From Avery <avery1@houston.rr.com>

David,

Why would you want to do that? Just curious.

Avery

At 10:52 AM 8/4/2006, you wrote:

>List,
>
>
>
>What is the thinking on cutting the balance rail punching in half, 
>i.e on the backside of the key only?
>
>
>David Ilvedson, RPT
>Pacifica, CA 94044

From "Farrell" <mfarrel2@tampabay.rr.com>

Change the key fulcrum slightly, and hence the key ratio.

Terry Farrell
  

                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                 Original Message ----- 
  Why would you want to do that? Just curious. 

  Avery 

  At 10:52 AM 8/4/2006, you wrote:

    What is the thinking on cutting the balance rail punching in half, i.e on the backside of the key only?   


    David Ilvedson, RPT

From "Barbara Richmond" <piano57@insightbb.com>

I thought the straight edge went on the front side of the key...


Barbara Richmond
  

                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                 Original Message ----- 
  From: Farrell 
  To: Pianotech List 
  Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 4:07 PM
  Subject: Re: 1/2 punching


  Change the key fulcrum slightly, and hence the key ratio.

  Terry Farrell
    
 Original Message ----- 
    Why would you want to do that? Just curious. 

    Avery 

    At 10:52 AM 8/4/2006, you wrote:

      What is the thinking on cutting the balance rail punching in half, i.e on the backside of the key only?   


      David Ilvedson, RPT

From Ric Brekne <ricbrek@broadpark.no>

Probably a different context.  If you place the half round on the front 
side of the BR pin then you raise the ratio a bit,  putting behind 
lowers it likewise.  Depends on what you want to do.

Cheers
RicB

-------------

That's what they told us in the Grand Action Restoration class at the
convention this year.


JF

Barbara Richmond wrote:

I thought the straight edge went on the front side of the key...

 

From "John M. Formsma" <john@formsmapiano.com>

That's what they told us in the Grand Action Restoration class at the
convention this year.

 

JF

 

  _____  

From: pianotech-bounces@ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces@ptg.org] On Behalf
Of Barbara Richmond
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 4:14 PM
To: Pianotech List
Subject: Re: 1/2 punching

 

I thought the straight edge went on the front side of the key...

 

 

Barbara Richmond

From Ric Brekne <ricbrek@broadpark.no>

Hi David

It lowers the effective key ratio just a bit and significantly impacts 
touchweight.  I generally sloif the half rounds and glue a strip of 
flange paper along the backs of balance rail pins for whole sections. 
Works great lasts a long time.  Usually about 0.2 mils is enough to do 
the trick.

Cheers
RicB

From "Barbara Richmond" <piano57@insightbb.com>

sloif?

I see, you're talking paper, I was thinking felt punchings with one side
clipped.

Barbara Richmond



                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                 Original Message ----- 
From: "Ric Brekne" <ricbrek@broadpark.no>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 5:32 PM
Subject: 1/2 punching


> Hi David
>
> It lowers the effective key ratio just a bit and significantly impacts
> touchweight.  I generally sloif the half rounds and glue a strip of flange
> paper along the backs of balance rail pins for whole sections. Works great
> lasts a long time.  Usually about 0.2 mils is enough to do the trick.
>
> Cheers
> RicB
>

From "David Ilvedson" <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>

Ric,

"Sloif"?   Please don't use Norwegian unless you're prepared to translate...;-]
I'm going to assume "sloif" means toss in English...right?

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044




                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                 Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Ric Brekne" <ricbrek@broadpark.no>
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Received: 8/4/2006 3:32:34 PM
Subject: 1/2 punching


>Hi David

>It lowers the effective key ratio just a bit and significantly impacts 
>touchweight.  I generally sloif the half rounds and glue a strip of 
>flange paper along the backs of balance rail pins for whole sections. 
>Works great lasts a long time.  Usually about 0.2 mils is enough to do 
>the trick.

>Cheers
>RicB

From "David Ilvedson" <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>

Oh...I think I get it..."sloif" means slice?

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044




                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                 Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Ric Brekne" <ricbrek@broadpark.no>
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Received: 8/4/2006 3:32:34 PM
Subject: 1/2 punching


>Hi David

>It lowers the effective key ratio just a bit and significantly impacts 
>touchweight.  I generally sloif the half rounds and glue a strip of 
>flange paper along the backs of balance rail pins for whole sections. 
>Works great lasts a long time.  Usually about 0.2 mils is enough to do 
>the trick.

>Cheers
>RicB

From Ric Brekne <ricbrek@broadpark.no>

Not bad David.... not bad at all.  Just goes to show words used in their 
proper context in another language usually get understood.  Sorry... 
sometimes I just dont find the english word in my mind and something 
foreign just pops out.

Toss in the sense of  <<disregard in favour of something else>> in this 
case.  To <<not bother with (something)>>

Cheers
RicB

Ric,

"Sloif"?   Please don't use Norwegian unless you're prepared to 
translate...;-]
I'm going to assume "sloif" means toss in English...right?

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044

From "David C. Stanwood" <stanwood@tiac.net>

>What is the thinking on cutting the balance rail punching in half, i.e on 
>the backside of the key only?
>
>David Ilvedson, RPT

Hi David

Sorry to jump in on this so late...  this is a trick that the Precision 
TouchDesign installers group has been using for about a decade.  It makes 
the action dynamically lighter by lowering the overall ratio or heavier if 
you cut off the back half of the punching and heavier if you cut off the 
front half.  Chris Solliday presented the half cut punching method in the 
two day action regulation class in Rochester.  The method came to me in the 
mid 90's when I had been working on an action that had been in a very wet 
storehouse for many months...  After thoroughly drying out the action I 
repinned, lubricated keybushings, etc... friction friction friction I 
thought..  I live on an island and I was putting the action together to 
take it to the client and my boat was leaving in 2 hours... well when I got 
the stack on and ran my fingers across the keys it felt heavy... I had 
ASS-U-MEd that friction was the only problem... I did a quick check on the 
strike weight ratio and found it to be above 6.0.  TOO HIGH!  The necessity 
of having to catch my ferry kicked inventiveness into gear and I put a 
little glue on the bottom of the key just in back of the balance hole and 
put the key down on the key pin.  When the glue dried I took off the key 
and cut the front half of the punching.  I found that the overall ratio 
dropped by about 0.4, Enough to significantly lighten the dynamic feel of 
the action.  I treated all the keys this way, made my ferry boat, and the 
client was happy!

I shared the technique with my PTD installers group but we were 
trepidatious about the punchings coming unglued when fictitious technicians 
in the future had the keys off the frame for maintenance.  In 2004 Steve 
Willis at the Callahan piano shop in Oakland, came up with a more 
transparent method of using a veneer shim on the balance rail.

http://www.stanwoodpiano.com/RatioShim.htm

The trade off is that you get a slight movement of the key on the pin and 
one might think this will lead to problems of chucking in the long run but 
we have not seen this.  I have seen 100 year old Ivers and Pond 
uprights  that have balance rails set up like a bridge pin with the rail 
cut away to the center of the balance rail pin.  The key rocks on the rail 
behind the pin with slight movement on the pin.  These 100 year old pianos 
exhibit no enlargement of the hole from the slight movement.  So we don't 
consider that to be a problem so long as the pin is shining and smooth.

I noticed in Rochester that Jurgen Goering at Piano Forte Supply in Canada 
was selling cloth balance rail punchings cut just to the edge of the 
hole,.... enough to reduce the ratio while leaving something to keep the 
punching on the pin.  His feeling was that the punching would have no 
reason to rotate once in place and said it was an old technique.

Maybe Jurgen can share some of his history with the technique.

Regards,

David Stanwood

   

From Tunebyear@aol.com

In a message dated 8/5/2006 7:34:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
stanwood@tiac.net writes:


Regards,

David Stanwood





THANK YOU DAVID STANWOOD  ! ! !    For your clear  explanation. 
 
 
Tom Ayers   
 
hopefully a non-fiction technician

From JWyatt1492@aol.com

Hello to All.
 
     Cutting the punching is an older  procedure than
that,  much older. 
 
    I had a discussion at  Cal-State  years ago  with Wally
Brooks on this subject, he at that time had used it for  years.
 
     I first became aware if it in the late 1940's  or early
50's.  We called it  " Clipping the Centers".
 
   The man that taught this procedure was well into his 
60's then.   I have demonstrated this in a class I  give
" Upright Touch on the Up and Up" many times
  
 Regards,
Jack Wyatt

From "David Ilvedson" <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>

Well, that's what I have on this Bechstein E...strikeweight of 6.0...the veneer shim sounds better...so the problem is the key leverage?   The KR averages .52...I would have to move the capstans to improve it otherwise?

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044




                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                 Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "David C. Stanwood" <stanwood@tiac.net>
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Received: 8/5/2006 4:20:01 AM
Subject: Re: 1/2 punching 



>>What is the thinking on cutting the balance rail punching in half, i.e on 
>>the backside of the key only?
>>
>>David Ilvedson, RPT

>Hi David

>Sorry to jump in on this so late...  this is a trick that the Precision 
>TouchDesign installers group has been using for about a decade.  It makes 
>the action dynamically lighter by lowering the overall ratio or heavier if 
>you cut off the back half of the punching and heavier if you cut off the 
>front half.  Chris Solliday presented the half cut punching method in the 
>two day action regulation class in Rochester.  The method came to me in the 
>mid 90's when I had been working on an action that had been in a very wet 
>storehouse for many months...  After thoroughly drying out the action I 
>repinned, lubricated keybushings, etc... friction friction friction I 
>thought..  I live on an island and I was putting the action together to 
>take it to the client and my boat was leaving in 2 hours... well when I got 
>the stack on and ran my fingers across the keys it felt heavy... I had 
>ASS-U-MEd that friction was the only problem... I did a quick check on the 
>strike weight ratio and found it to be above 6.0.  TOO HIGH!  The necessity 
>of having to catch my ferry kicked inventiveness into gear and I put a 
>little glue on the bottom of the key just in back of the balance hole and 
>put the key down on the key pin.  When the glue dried I took off the key 
>and cut the front half of the punching.  I found that the overall ratio 
>dropped by about 0.4, Enough to significantly lighten the dynamic feel of 
>the action.  I treated all the keys this way, made my ferry boat, and the 
>client was happy!

>I shared the technique with my PTD installers group but we were 
>trepidatious about the punchings coming unglued when fictitious technicians 
>in the future had the keys off the frame for maintenance.  In 2004 Steve 
>Willis at the Callahan piano shop in Oakland, came up with a more 
>transparent method of using a veneer shim on the balance rail.

>http://www.stanwoodpiano.com/RatioShim.htm

>The trade off is that you get a slight movement of the key on the pin and 
>one might think this will lead to problems of chucking in the long run but 
>we have not seen this.  I have seen 100 year old Ivers and Pond 
>uprights  that have balance rails set up like a bridge pin with the rail 
>cut away to the center of the balance rail pin.  The key rocks on the rail 
>behind the pin with slight movement on the pin.  These 100 year old pianos 
>exhibit no enlargement of the hole from the slight movement.  So we don't 
>consider that to be a problem so long as the pin is shining and smooth.

>I noticed in Rochester that Jurgen Goering at Piano Forte Supply in Canada 
>was selling cloth balance rail punchings cut just to the edge of the 
>hole,.... enough to reduce the ratio while leaving something to keep the 
>punching on the pin.  His feeling was that the punching would have no 
>reason to rotate once in place and said it was an old technique.

>Maybe Jurgen can share some of his history with the technique.

>Regards,

>David Stanwood

>   

From Lhadeh@wmconnect.com

David,

In your photo, which really clarified the shim placement, is the bottom 
punching made of wood?  Or does it just appear like that on my computer screen?

Loren Hedahl

From "David C. Stanwood" <stanwood@tiac.net>

>Hello to All.
>
>      Cutting the punching is an older  procedure than
>that,  much older.
>     I had a discussion at  Cal-State  years ago  with Wally
>Brooks on this subject, he at that time had used it for  years.
>      I first became aware if it in the late 1940's  or early
>50's.  We called it  " Clipping the Centers".
>    The man that taught this procedure was well into his
>60's then.   I have demonstrated this in a class I  give
>" Upright Touch on the Up and Up" many times
>
>  Regards,
>Jack Wyatt

Hi Jack

Thank you so much for the added history....!   We have so much to learn for 
our past and so much is often lost....  For me personally to have 
discovered it on my own, being forced by need, and then discovering that it 
is an age old technique gives me a true sense of connection with someone in 
our piano past who had the same motivation...

>Well, that's what I have on this Bechstein E...strikeweight of 6.0...the 
>veneer shim sounds better...so the problem is the key leverage?   The KR 
>averages .52...I would have to move the capstans to improve it otherwise?
>
>David Ilvedson, RPT

Hi David

Yes I would say that to otherwise change the overall ratio, then capstans 
would be the solution.   Another solution is lighten the hammers.... tone 
and voicing will guide your as to whether this is a better choice.  1/2 
medium weight zone is generally the maximum mecommended for a weight ratio 
of 6.0....  what's you strike weight level?   Spread, bore, & action 
elevations look ok?  In my experience ratios levels of 5.7 or lower tend to 
feel more controllable in all dynamic ranges.

>In your photo, which really clarified the shim placement, is the bottom
>punching made of wood?  Or does it just appear like that on my computer 
>screen?
>
>Loren Hedahl

Hi Loren,

Both shims are of wood.  I'm sorry but I don't have a photo of a "Clipped 
Center" but I'm sure you can imagine a half punching glued to the bottom of 
the key.

David Stanwood

From Ric Brekne <ricbrek@broadpark.no>

I'll tell you what I'd try there David.  Instead of starting right off 
by repositioning capstans,  I'd simply take strips of flange paper, say 
0.2 to 0.3 mm thick and place them under all punchings tight up to the 
back side of the balance rail pins. One strip should be good for most of 
each section on a grand.  See if this does it for you. Essentially its 
the same thing as what David Stanwood describes with his <<ratio shim>> 
except that you are simply installing for the entire piano.  Should drop 
the Balance Weight Ratio... or Strike Weight ratio if you prefer by 
around 0.5 +/- a hair.  As David states, the problem of chucking doesnt 
turn up.

Since all this is up, I might as well reveal (since I am an open source 
kind of guy) that I'm working on a scheme useing center pin wire along 
these lines to cause a clear and distinct dual ratio characteristic to 
key travel.  Since the initial part of the key stroke benifits greatly 
by reductions in dynamic weight, yet the last 3 mm of key travel could 
well benifit by an increase in stack action travel for key travel, if 
the key could be made to act as a low ratio key for the first half of 
its travel and then act as a higher ratio key for the last half of 
travel then both these benifits are served.  Looks quite doable really.  
The standard punching actually does this to some degree... tho key to 
key variance in this performance is quite large.  Defining front and 
back fulcrum points more precisely lets you have all the weight 
advantage benifits of the back half punchings and at the same time all 
the travel (distance) benifits of front half punchings.

Cheers
RicB
------------
Well, that's what I have on this Bechstein E...strikeweight of 6.0...the 
veneer shim sounds better...so the problem is the key leverage?   The KR 
averages .52...I would have to move the capstans to improve it otherwise?

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044

From "David Ilvedson" <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>

What should the action spread of Bechstein be?   I just looked the wippen rail and there is a slot and an imprint where the washer was at one time...looks like it has been been narrowed...looks like 113 mm now...that might be the problem...the capstan wippen contact is back of the middle of the wippen cushion...
What do I look for in action levels?

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044




                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                 Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "David C. Stanwood" <stanwood@tiac.net>
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Received: 8/5/2006 3:05:45 PM
Subject: Re: 1/2 punching



>>Hello to All.
>>
>>      Cutting the punching is an older  procedure than
>>that,  much older.
>>     I had a discussion at  Cal-State  years ago  with Wally
>>Brooks on this subject, he at that time had used it for  years.
>>      I first became aware if it in the late 1940's  or early
>>50's.  We called it  " Clipping the Centers".
>>    The man that taught this procedure was well into his
>>60's then.   I have demonstrated this in a class I  give
>>" Upright Touch on the Up and Up" many times
>>
>>  Regards,
>>Jack Wyatt

>Hi Jack

>Thank you so much for the added history....!   We have so much to learn for 
>our past and so much is often lost....  For me personally to have 
>discovered it on my own, being forced by need, and then discovering that it 
>is an age old technique gives me a true sense of connection with someone in 
>our piano past who had the same motivation...

>>Well, that's what I have on this Bechstein E...strikeweight of 6.0...the 
>>veneer shim sounds better...so the problem is the key leverage?   The KR 
>>averages .52...I would have to move the capstans to improve it otherwise?
>>
>>David Ilvedson, RPT

>Hi David

>Yes I would say that to otherwise change the overall ratio, then capstans 
>would be the solution.   Another solution is lighten the hammers.... tone 
>and voicing will guide your as to whether this is a better choice.  1/2 
>medium weight zone is generally the maximum mecommended for a weight ratio 
>of 6.0....  what's you strike weight level?   Spread, bore, & action 
>elevations look ok?  In my experience ratios levels of 5.7 or lower tend to 
>feel more controllable in all dynamic ranges.

>>In your photo, which really clarified the shim placement, is the bottom
>>punching made of wood?  Or does it just appear like that on my computer 
>>screen?
>>
>>Loren Hedahl

>Hi Loren,

>Both shims are of wood.  I'm sorry but I don't have a photo of a "Clipped 
>Center" but I'm sure you can imagine a half punching glued to the bottom of 
>the key.

>David Stanwood

From "David Ilvedson" <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>

Ric,

I'm looking for the Bechstein action spread...Renner action, 9fter

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044




                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                 Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Ric Brekne" <ricbrek@broadpark.no>
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Received: 8/5/2006 3:41:23 PM
Subject: 1/2 punching


>I'll tell you what I'd try there David.  Instead of starting right off 
>by repositioning capstans,  I'd simply take strips of flange paper, say 
>0.2 to 0.3 mm thick and place them under all punchings tight up to the 
>back side of the balance rail pins. One strip should be good for most of 
>each section on a grand.  See if this does it for you. Essentially its 
>the same thing as what David Stanwood describes with his <<ratio shim>> 
>except that you are simply installing for the entire piano.  Should drop 
>the Balance Weight Ratio... or Strike Weight ratio if you prefer by 
>around 0.5 +/- a hair.  As David states, the problem of chucking doesnt 
>turn up.

>Since all this is up, I might as well reveal (since I am an open source 
>kind of guy) that I'm working on a scheme useing center pin wire along 
>these lines to cause a clear and distinct dual ratio characteristic to 
>key travel.  Since the initial part of the key stroke benifits greatly 
>by reductions in dynamic weight, yet the last 3 mm of key travel could 
>well benifit by an increase in stack action travel for key travel, if 
>the key could be made to act as a low ratio key for the first half of 
>its travel and then act as a higher ratio key for the last half of 
>travel then both these benifits are served.  Looks quite doable really.  
>The standard punching actually does this to some degree... tho key to 
>key variance in this performance is quite large.  Defining front and 
>back fulcrum points more precisely lets you have all the weight 
>advantage benifits of the back half punchings and at the same time all 
>the travel (distance) benifits of front half punchings.

>Cheers
>RicB
>------------
>Well, that's what I have on this Bechstein E...strikeweight of 6.0...the 
>veneer shim sounds better...so the problem is the key leverage?   The KR 
>averages .52...I would have to move the capstans to improve it otherwise?

>David Ilvedson, RPT
>Pacifica, CA  94044

From Byeway222@aol.com

Hi Ric & List,
 
I have just spent half an hour playing around with my 3 note model having  
been thinking about this half punching thing on and off all day. What a  saddo!  
My final experiment was to discard the punching and put a  cente pin behind 
the balance pin.  A 26 gauge kept the key level  integrity.  I couldn't believe 
how easily the hammer flew with the same  weighting in the key.  I have just 
come to my PC and see that RicB has  already tried this as an experiment.  I'm 
reasonably new to all this  geometry business and find these relevations 
fascinating.  One question  would be, how does this change of the fulcrum with the 
resultant loss of 'magic  line' integrity, manifest itself in feel to a 
pianist.  Does this  method of lightening DW result in an uncontrolable feel?
 
ric

From Ric Brekne <ricbrek@broadpark.no>

Hi Ric.

You ask one of  those 50 thousand dollar questions... "How does the 
pianist experience the change ? "

I have only limited experiences to relate... but these point in the 
direction that the change in how the pianist experiences the dynamic 
weight is significantly less then one would expect... tho there is more 
then enough change to make the effort worth while.  I'm left feeling 
that if you are putting on a SW curve of say middle highs, then no 
amount of leverage changes will completely compensate for this. The 
pianist will still <<notice>> in some sense or another that his / her 
fingers are pushing around a set of heavy radius weights on the shanks.

I've been thinking most of the day along these lines really.  I have an 
old O in the shop and it has very light hammers.  Mid lows to be exact. 
In addition it has the old flange types which bring the center pin in 1 
mm closer to the hammer rail then modern Steinways do, AND it has 15 mm 
knuckle to center lengths origionally. Despite the low Strike weights, 
assist springs were required to achieve a reasonably low balance weight 
and static down weight.

Now I am putting on a set of one quarter highs, using the origional 
flanges and shanks that have 16.3 knuckle to centers distance. This 
allows for a jack position I can live with, increases my leverage quite 
a bit really... and allows for the heavier hammers given the fact that I 
can use both assist springs and have plenty of key lead room to go on.  
Yet I have no doubt its going to be realllllllly difficult to get close 
to the origional feel of this instrument... simply because the hammers 
are so much heavier.  I can achieve the same BW... and the same static 
down weight no problem... can even lower this significantly.  But how 
much lower I need to go with these before the pianist percieves a more 
or less unchanged dynamic response......  well, thats whats been on my 
mind most of the day.

That said... changing the key ratio by use of one or another of the 
mechanisms we've presented used judiciously can be a valuable tool in 
your box of touchweight tricks. That, I think is Stanwoods greatest 
contribution to us all.... making us aware of some of these kinds of 
possibilities.  Lots still to be uncovered on that front me thinks.

Cheers
RicB

Hi Ric & List,
 
I have just spent half an hour playing around with my 3 note model having  
been thinking about this half punching thing on and off all day. What a  
saddo!  
My final experiment was to discard the punching and put a  cente pin behind
the balance pin.  A 26 gauge kept the key level  integrity.  I couldn't 
believe
how easily the hammer flew with the same  weighting in the key.  I have 
just
come to my PC and see that RicB has  already tried this as an 
experiment.  I'm
reasonably new to all this  geometry business and find these relevations
fascinating.  One question  would be, how does this change of the 
fulcrum with the
resultant loss of 'magic  line' integrity, manifest itself in feel to a
pianist.  Does this  method of lightening DW result in an uncontrolable 
feel?
 
ric

From "David C. Stanwood" <stanwood@tiac.net>

Ric Wrote:

>Since all this is up, I might as well reveal (since I am an open source
>kind of guy) that I'm working on a scheme useing center pin wire along
>these lines to cause a clear and distinct dual ratio characteristic to
>key travel.  Since the initial part of the key stroke benifits greatly
>by reductions in dynamic weight, yet the last 3 mm of key travel could
>well benifit by an increase in stack action travel for key travel, if
>the key could be made to act as a low ratio key for the first half of
>its travel and then act as a higher ratio key for the last half of
>travel then both these benifits are served.

Another blast from the historic past: Chris Robinson has a set of slides 
showing the capstan position with the magic line overlaid on the image at 
rest, half, and full stroke with a long ago Steinway factory installed 22 
degree angled capstan and angled heel for what he calls the Involute gear 
effect.  With this set up the capstan/heel contact point stays on the line 
rather than moving up through it as with the capstan at present day 90 
degrees with straight heels.   What's interesting in relation to the 
present discussion is that the point of contact, while staying on the magic 
line, actually moves front to back along the magic line.  So the ratio is 
low to start with and higher to end with giving a sort of "wip" effect.  I 
was very impressed when I saw this in his class.

David Stanwood

From "David Ilvedson" <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>

And very low friction...wippen cushions showing little wear

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044




                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                 Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "David C. Stanwood" <stanwood@tiac.net>
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Received: 8/6/2006 3:53:08 AM
Subject: Re: 1/2 punching


>Ric Wrote:

>>Since all this is up, I might as well reveal (since I am an open source
>>kind of guy) that I'm working on a scheme useing center pin wire along
>>these lines to cause a clear and distinct dual ratio characteristic to
>>key travel.  Since the initial part of the key stroke benifits greatly
>>by reductions in dynamic weight, yet the last 3 mm of key travel could
>>well benifit by an increase in stack action travel for key travel, if
>>the key could be made to act as a low ratio key for the first half of
>>its travel and then act as a higher ratio key for the last half of
>>travel then both these benifits are served.

>Another blast from the historic past: Chris Robinson has a set of slides 
>showing the capstan position with the magic line overlaid on the image at 
>rest, half, and full stroke with a long ago Steinway factory installed 22 
>degree angled capstan and angled heel for what he calls the Involute gear 
>effect.  With this set up the capstan/heel contact point stays on the line 
>rather than moving up through it as with the capstan at present day 90 
>degrees with straight heels.   What's interesting in relation to the 
>present discussion is that the point of contact, while staying on the magic 
>line, actually moves front to back along the magic line.  So the ratio is 
>low to start with and higher to end with giving a sort of "wip" effect.  I 
>was very impressed when I saw this in his class.

>David Stanwood

From Jurgen Goering <pianoforte@pianofortesupply.com>

David - I have been off list for a few days, so please excuse the late 
response to this thread.

I believe the key balance point is an area that has often been 
overlooked in regards action refinement.    For years I have been 
replacing the thick, spongy balance rail punchings with thin ones made 
out of 1.0 mm bushing cloth, for better regulation ease and stability, 
but especially to cut down on energy loss at the key fulcrum through 
compression of the balance rail punching.

For almost a year I have been offering a new balance rail punching made 
out of a higher density Crescendo felt (not cloth).  There is minimal 
compression on these 1.4 mm (.056") punchings.  I have had nothing but 
positive feedback from technicians. The cut-off punchings, (which I 
call "Accelerated) cost $1.00 more per set, for those technicians who 
want to try the effects of that old technique.
More info at http://www.pianofortesupply.com/cresbalpunch.html

From John Delacour <JD@Pianomaker.co.uk>

At 10:53 pm -0700 7/8/06, Jurgen Goering wrote:

>I believe the key balance point is an area that has often been 
>overlooked in regards action refinement...

All this discussion of 1/2 punchings etc. would not be taking place 
if piano makers such as Steinway took the trouble to design the 
balance rail properly in the first place.  My camera batteries have 
died, so the archive picture below





is not as illustrative as I'd like -- I'll draw a diagram when I have 
more time -- but the rail here is made (in 1899 or another in 1860) 
in what I consider to be a proper fashion.  The bevelling of the rail 
in front of the natural pins commences just at the front of the pin 
boring and so does the trough in front of the sharp pins.  The pins 
are angled 4 or 5 degrees backwards -- another lost detail which 
Wolfenden was already regretting in many pianos in 1920.

With such a design the balance point of the keys is properly 
determined and the front part of the washers and punchings simply 
folds round the angle exerting no pressure.

By contrast a flat-topped rail, as on a 1923 Steinway 'O' I'm looking 
at at the moment, results in an indeterminate fulcrum for the sharp 
keys, which moves further forward as the key is depressed.  At least 
the pins are angled.

Congratulations to Frederick A. Vietor <http://tinyurl.com/goft9> who 
in 1931 provided Steinway with one more patent to print on their 
products and then drop for reasons of cost.

JD

From "Cy Shuster" <cy@shusterpiano.com>

Re: 1/2 punchingThat's fascinating, John.

I can't see much benefit for sharps from the small trough.  Won't they feel much different from naturals?  Is there a second fulcrum shift as the key later hits the bump at the natural's balance pin?

--Cy--
shusterpiano.com

From John Delacour <JD@Pianomaker.co.uk>

At 10:59 am -0600 8/8/06, Cy Shuster wrote:

>That's fascinating, John.
>
>I can't see much benefit for sharps from the small trough.  Won't 
>they feel much different from naturals?

As I said, perhaps the photo does not make things clear enough.  No, 
the trough gives a well-defined angle just in front of the back pins 
just like that in front of the front pins.  It is with the "lazy" 
flat-topped rail that the naturals and the sharps will feel 
different.  That was my point.  When I've time I'll make a drawing, 
or even a movie to illustrate it.

>Is there a second fulcrum shift as the key later hits the bump at 
>the natural's balance pin?

That doesn't happen because the sharps are have a long shallow notch 
forward of the balance hole just as on other pianos.  However this 
notch begins, on the Steinway, a good 6mm forward of the pin, so its 
function is solely to avoid knocking the rail; it has no effect at 
the balance.



The same good effect as from the "trough" could be achieved in theory 
by cutting into the bottom of the key at the balance hole, but I 
presume this has not been tried, so far as I know, because a moment's 
thought will tell you this would leave only a tiny triangle of 
softwood between the balance pin and thin air and the balance holes 
would ovalize in no time.

JD

From John Delacour <JD@Pianomaker.co.uk>

At 11:20 pm +0100 8/8/06, I wrote:

>At 10:59 am -0600 8/8/06, Cy Shuster wrote:
>
>>That's fascinating, John.
>>
>>I can't see much benefit for sharps from the small trough.  Won't 
>>they feel much different from naturals?
>
>As I said, perhaps the photo does not make things clear enough.  No, 
>the trough gives a well-defined angle just in front of the back pins 
>just like that in front of the front pins.  It is with the "lazy" 
>flat-topped rail that the naturals and the sharps will feel 
>different.  That was my point.  When I've time I'll make a drawing, 
>or even a movie to illustrate it.

I've now made a little Quicktime movie, which you can find here:

<http://pianomaker.co.uk/movies/balance.mov> (2.4 Megabytes)


To view it you will need Quicktime, free download from here:
<http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/> and I recommend you 
upgrade to version 7.1 if you are using an older version.

RealPlayer will also play the file (Mac or Windows) but it's messy on 
Windows machines.

Although it will play in the browser it is better to download the 
file and play it in Quicktime Player, which will give you more 
options.

The movie is work in progress and will eventually be far more elaborate.

JD

From Ric Brekne <ricbrek@broadpark.no>

Hi there JD.

It all kind of depends on what you want to accomplish, and how much you 
want to pay for it.  The prevailing wind for eons has been kind of a 
twisted take on "its good enough for jazz".  Thats more or less the kind 
of argumentation I get from manufacturers when I ask them why on earth 
they are not adopting David Stanwood standards.  And I hear a lot of 
that kind of reasoning here on pianotech as well.  As for Stanwoods 
stuff... I know too many pianists who simply know immediately whether 
told or not if I've done a  Stanwood like touch weight balancing.  And I 
am darned sure if I got into his pattern leading with all that implies 
of removing old leads and filling up the old holes to start from scratch 
that these same pianists would notice that as well. A good pianists 
finger sensitivity is an amazing thing.

As for the below observation... I'd agree despite earlier practice that 
addresses certain aspects of the key balance point.  Its been rather 
taken for granted... accepted as is as <<good enough>> and perhaps not 
really explored as well as it could be. 

If you check out a keys ratio ala Stanwood on the jig... and then check 
those same keys on the key frame using up and down weight measurements 
with known quantities at the capstan... you find all kinds of 
interesting variant behavior. Adding shims fore and/or aft of the 
balance pin hole judiciously can clean up an awful lot of that. Then too 
is the question of whether or not you want to bring out a kind of two 
fulcrum characteristic to key travel... or not. If and why, if and why 
if you get my meaning... and all if you think its worth bothering with 
or not.

Is it worth it... ?? Certainly for the shop tech doing custom action 
work for discerning pianists.

Cheers
RicB

--------
 >I believe the key balance point is an area that has often been
 >overlooked in regards action refinement...

All this discussion of 1/2 punchings etc. would not be taking place
if piano makers such as Steinway took the trouble to design the
balance rail properly in the first place. ..........

JD

From "David C. Stanwood" <stanwood@tiac.net>

>David - I have been off list for a few days, so please excuse the late 
>response to this thread.
>
>I believe the key balance point is an area that has often been overlooked 
>in regards action refinement.    For years I have been replacing the 
>thick, spongy balance rail punchings with thin ones made out of 1.0 mm 
>bushing cloth, for better regulation ease and stability, but especially to 
>cut down on energy loss at the key fulcrum through compression of the 
>balance rail punching.
>
>For almost a year I have been offering a new balance rail punching made 
>out of a higher density Crescendo felt (not cloth).  There is minimal 
>compression on these 1.4 mm (.056") punchings.  I have had nothing but 
>positive feedback from technicians. The cut-off punchings, (which I call 
>"Accelerated) cost $1.00 more per set, for those technicians who want to 
>try the effects of that old technique.
>More info at 
><http://www.pianofortesupply.com/cresbalpunch.html>http://www.pianofortesupply.com/cresbalpunch.html 
>Jurgen Goering


Thanks Jurgen,

In Rochester told me this was and "Age Old" technique or words to that 
effect.  What can you tell us of the History of this method from your 
experience?

David Stanwood

From "David Ilvedson" <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA 94044





Original message
From: "Jurgen Goering"
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Received: 8/7/2006 10:53:07 PM
Subject: Re: 1/2 punching


David - I have been off list for a few days, so please excuse the late response to this thread. I believe the key balance point is an area that has often been overlooked in regards action refinement. For years I have been replacing the thick, spongy balance rail punchings with thin ones made out of 1.0 mm bushing cloth, for better regulation ease and stability, but especially to cut down on energy loss at the key fulcrum through compression of the balance rail punching. For almost a year I have been offering a new balance rail punching made out of a higher density Crescendo felt (not cloth). There is minimal compression on these 1.4 mm (.056") punchings. I have had nothing but positive feedback from technicians. The cut-off punchings, (which I call "Accelerated) cost $1.00 more per set, for those technicians who want to try the effects of that old technique. More info at http://www.pianofortesupply.com/cresbalpunch.html Jurgen Goering Piano Forte Supply (250) 754-2440 info@pianofortesupply.com http://www.pianofortesupply.com On Aug 5, 2006, at 6:15 AM, David Stanwood wrote: I noticed in Rochester that Jurgen Goering at Piano Forte Supply in Canada was selling cloth balance rail punchings cut just to the edge of the hole,.... enough to reduce the ratio while leaving something to keep the punching on the pin. His feeling was that the punching would have no reason to rotate once in place and said it was an old technique. Maybe Jurgen can share some of his history with the technique. Regards, David Stanwood

From "David Ilvedson" <ilvey@sbcglobal.net>

What's funny is I thought you had misspelled something so I made a little joke about the Norwegian...and it was Norwegian...hee...hee...

David Ilvedson, RPT
Pacifica, CA  94044




                                                

					
                                                    

        
                                                
				
                                                

                                                    
                                                        
                                                        Original Message
                                                
                                                 Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "Ric Brekne" <ricbrek@broadpark.no>
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Received: 8/5/2006 3:10:31 AM
Subject: 1/2 punching


>Not bad David.... not bad at all.  Just goes to show words used in their 
>proper context in another language usually get understood.  Sorry... 
>sometimes I just dont find the english word in my mind and something 
>foreign just pops out.

>Toss in the sense of  <<disregard in favour of something else>> in this 
>case.  To <<not bother with (something)>>

>Cheers
>RicB

>Ric,

>"Sloif"?   Please don't use Norwegian unless you're prepared to 
>translate...;-]
>I'm going to assume "sloif" means toss in English...right?

>David Ilvedson, RPT
>Pacifica, CA  94044