None applicable.
The present invention relates to musical instrument tuning devices, specifically to piano tuning wrenches (also known as piano tuning hammers).
Piano tuning hammers generally consist of a lever with a wrench head on one end. The lever generally consists of a solid steel shank with a handle at the end opposite the wrench head. A typical known prior art tuning wrench is shown in
When the piano technician applies a force to the handle of a tuning wrench, the tuning wrench flexes as shown in
Another known prior art tuning wrench is shown in
There have been many attempts to overcome the deficiencies of the prior art tuning hammers shown in
Accordingly, an object of the present invention is to provide a piano tuning wrench that provides dramatically increased tuning accuracy, ease of use, and speed. This is accomplished by dramatically increased stiffness compared to the prior art. By dramatically increasing the stiffness of the wrench, the deflection is dramatically reduced and the resulting rotation of the tuning pin is more predictable.
Increased stiffness also allows the length of the wrench to be increased, allowing more increase in accuracy because the longer wrench will provide less rotation of the tuning pin for a given translation of the gripped end, resulting in greater sensitivity and tuning accuracy. The longer wrench also requires less force at the grip for a given level of torque at the tuning pin, further increasing sensitivity, accuracy, and reducing technician fatigue. Another benefit of the longer wrench and the reduced force requirement is reduced prying effect of the tuning pin. Since the handle of a tuning wrench is not in the same plane as the pin block, there will be a prying effect at the tuning pin, and consequently at the pin block. Reduction of this extra prying effect also serves to increase the predictability of the tuning process.
Very little advancement in piano tuning wrench design has been made in the past century. The best tuning hammers previously available, such as those of
A piano tuning wrench that allows dramatically increased tuning accuracy, ease of use, and speed. This is accomplished by dramatically increased stiffness compared to the prior art. In the preferred embodiment this is accomplished by the use of lightweight materials and large cross sections. The increased stiffness serves to increase the effectiveness of the tuning process.
The following descriptions of the disclosed embodiments are not intended to limit the scope of the invention to the precise form or forms detailed herein. Instead, the following description is intended to be illustrative of the principles of the invention so that others may follow its teachings.
Referring now to
A handle 22 is comprised of aluminum and has external threads for attachment to the shank 20 at the first end. The handle 22 could optionally be comprised of a threaded aluminum stem with a wooden handgrip. The handle 22 could be made of many materials and shaped in many ways depending on the piano technician's preference.
Referring now also to
The complete assembly shown in
This preferred embodiment is a modular tuning wrench system whereby the wrench head 34, the shank 20, and the handle 22 can be interchanged to suit a particular technique or situation. For example, several wrench heads with different spindle angles could be provided. Several lengths of shank 20 could be provided, multiple shank segments could be coupled together, and even different handles could be used for different tuning situations.
The preferred material choice is aluminum, but many other materials could be used such as magnesium, which is even lighter than aluminum.
A typical prior art tuning wrench of
The lever of the tuning wrench is a cantilever beam. The deflection of a cantilever beam is described by the following equation:
Where: δ is the deflection, F is the applied force, l is the length of the cantilever beam, E is the elastic modulus of the material, and I is the cross-section moment of inertia. The cross-section moment of inertia is dependent on the shape of the cross-section. For a round bar and a cylindrical tube, the cross-section moment of inertia are respectively defined by:
Where: do is the outside diameter, and di is the inside diameter.
Assuming that the applied force, and length of the cantilever beam are held constant for both the prior art and the present invention, the ratio of deflection can be calculated as follows:
The referenced dimensions for the preferred embodiment and the prior art tuning hammers yield cross-section moments of inertia of 0.129 in4 and 0.00179 in4 respectively. The elastic modulus of aluminum and steel are respectively 10×106 psi, and 29×106 psi. Substituting these values into Eqn. 3 gives a deflection ratio of:
This exercise shows that the referenced preferred embodiment is nearly 25 times stiffer than the prior art tuning wrench. And since the preferred embodiment is comprised of tubular aluminum, its weight is comparable to the prior art tuning wrench.
The dramatically increased stiffness reduces the energy stored by flexing of the piano tuning wrench. Therefore, the “overshoot” due to the transistion from static to dynamic friction conditions (as the tuning pin begins to rotate) is dramatically reduced, and the resulting rotation of the tuning pin is more predictable.
Another embodiment of the present invention has a shank 20 made of lightweight material such as aluminum. Two specific examples of this embodiment are shown in
Another embodiment of the present invention has a lever 36 with a complex shaped cross-section such as the I-beam cross-section as shown in
Those skilled in the art will appreciate that, although the teachings of the invention have been illustrated in connection with certain embodiments, there is no intent to limit the invention to such embodiments. On the contrary, the intention of this application is to cover all modifications and embodiments fairly falling within the scope of the appended claims either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
11852 | Bassford | Oct 1854 | A |
83734 | Sherwood | Nov 1868 | A |
310673 | Hale | Jan 1885 | A |
528154 | Fuchs | Oct 1894 | A |
610973 | Powell | Sep 1898 | A |
641473 | Sihler | Jan 1900 | A |
775383 | Porter | Nov 1904 | A |
834468 | Hale | Oct 1906 | A |
1160107 | Hale | Nov 1915 | A |
1512699 | Korach | Oct 1924 | A |
1693292 | Frauenberger | Nov 1928 | A |
2172355 | Brady | Sep 1939 | A |
2751805 | Leftly | Jun 1956 | A |
2802388 | Luckenbach | Aug 1957 | A |
5490437 | Hebert et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
6101903 | Negley et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6202518 | Moffitt et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
20040020330 | Hu | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040177733 | Peters | Sep 2004 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20060117934 A1 | Jun 2006 | US |