Millennium Mechanics

Paolo, are you even wasting lines on these people?? I don't think anyone reading this discussion has difficulty understanding who the troll is... A user with only three messages active?? Come on, what are we talking about?
Just kick them out and goodnight. Not only does he deny the evidence but he charges in blindly to defend the user Fra, who is 33 years old and can perhaps defend himself; in fact, Fra contacted me privately, serenely accepting the ban... He plays defense lawyer for lost causes, admitting he knows nothing about piano technology but continuing to push his idea (evidently wrong in light of the posted video and the articles published not on "pizza and figs news" but in one of the most important newspapers in this sector). He comes to other people's homes and mentions other forums (which I knew, I use the imperfect tense since unfortunately the late Maestro Macaro, administrator of that forum, is no longer with us) with which I have no friction at all, quite the opposite. Like a child, he stamps his feet because he doesn't know what else to say...

And you actually start talking about it?
Ban, end of story. I don't see the problem...

Dr. Adm.. will kick you out immediately!! Let's be clear, not "delete me," it is I who am kicking you out! We are the trolls in here—the ones who don't want them!

I was reading as a guest and decided to register to contribute to this discussion.

There are many technicians, even illustrious ones, who use talcum powder as a lubricant on the repetitions or on the soundboard of the grand piano; it was used even before powdered Teflon was introduced to the market.

Talc is applied with a felt strip by dabbing onto the repetitions, so that the leather retains only a thin film. In this way, it leaves no residue and does not damage the action in any way.

It is a hygroscopic material, this is known to everyone, as are most of the materials that make up the piano, namely the felts, the woods and, just think about it, even the graphite that has been used for over a century on the pusher or other wooden parts.

The piano, precisely because it is made of hygroscopic matter, must be kept—as everyone knows well by now—in a climatically healthy environment with limited humidity. Under these conditions, it is difficult, if not impossible, for talc or graphite to clump together and create problems; if that were to happen, our strings would already be quite oxidized, our soundboard would perhaps be warped, and I don't know what other scenarios might arise, but this is the rare case of instruments kept in very humid taverns or cellars.

Removing clumps of talc at this point, assuming they have formed, would be the simplest operation of all, because it actually does not affect the wood or the leathers.

I therefore find it excessive to want to demonstrate the inadequacy of talc by pouring water over it, because in the same way one could demonstrate the inadequacy of felts, woods, and the entire piano being stuffed into a humid environment or immersed in water!!!! What a discovery.

One could then try putting water on the hammers to verify their effects; or throw a piano from the fifth floor to see if it holds its tuning; would any of you perform these tests on your own instrument? I believe not.

Experiments should be conducted with all surrounding conditions clearly in mind, using scientific method but above all common sense. For example, one could keep a bit of talc and a bit of Teflon in the same domestic environment to evaluate whether an alteration occurs in the two products after some time, but how much time? I would say the time it takes for the effect of the Teflon or the talc on the piano repetitions to last (a few days at most, depending on use). In your opinion, what surprising results could we ever obtain?

Trying to discredit one practice or another with such ruses is a waste of time and energy, both for the writer and for the reader.

To me, both are valid techniques. Those who know nothing about pianos might not give proper weight to all these arguments seasoned with good eloquence and might think their own technician is unprofessional because they use talc instead of Teflon or because they express themselves in dialect; meanwhile, real disasters on pianos are found more and more frequently, caused by inexperienced people convinced they are good because they are supported by a technical journal or an online forum that can never, in my opinion, provide training at the same levels as a craftsman raised with years and years of simple practice in dusty workshops or factories.

Discussing finishing details too much, in my opinion, sidelines the true mission of the piano technician and only serves to instill doubt in the uninformed client, to give importance to a performance that is sacrosanct but useless in the presence of a poor instrument, which remains poor regardless.

It would then be more interesting to touch upon other topics that can teach us to distinguish a bad instrument from a good one, to avoid purchasing it—topics that must first and foremost be supported by a good knowledge of the design phase, the construction phases, and the corrections that can be made to a finished instrument even during restoration (I am thinking of the amount of tension, the stiffness of the soundboard with its braces, the calculation of the string scale, the positioning of the bridges...). All this cultural background must be guarded and known by a complete technician or a well-informed pianist, depending on the degree of depth and treatment, without risking falling into the banality of final interventions aimed perhaps at recovering a repetition that should be thrown away and replaced, for example, like all practices useful for the overhaul of a piano when an aspirin-based therapy is used for a terminal patient.

In my opinion, talc and Teflon are equivalent for the described use and in the environments where the piano can be housed without being damaged. The technicians who successfully use talc—for decades—do so because it is easily available, economical, and because it has never caused damage to the

pianoforte. It even smells!

I don't understand the connection with Kawai mechanics; I find the presentation of topics sometimes confusing and rambling, so I get lost easily—maybe it's also due to advancing age. I found the contributions from users very interesting, even in other spaces, who have documented complete restoration works on prestigious instruments, valuing that wealth of knowledge passed down through generations in this craft, from a time when American magazines didn't even exist. It is a profession that, if we continue this way, is destined to disappear due to the lack of trust once held toward the professional; I am deeply sorry that such interventions have not been duly appreciated and discussed, but rather dismissed with total coldness and disinterest, like everything that requires effort and is not an immediate source of income.

Kind regards to all

What I will say below is not absolute truth but rather considerations dictated by logic, which should and would like to be something objective.

I appeal to logic insofar as I am not a piano technician; I am a pianist and an engineer passionate about my instrument, but I refrain from trying to teach anything regarding piano technology—so much so that I do not host video tutorials on piano technology and rarely intervene in these sections. In light of these clarifications, therefore, I leave everything strictly connected to piano technology to the other true experts in this field.

However, I feel compelled to say this...

Polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) was discovered "just" 74 years ago. One of its first applications was in atomic bombs (around the 40s, considering the years of experimentation), followed by pans; therefore, I assume that its commercialization (especially in fine powder form to be used as a dry lubricant) is quite recent. Now, I do not know if talcum powder was previously used for applications inside the piano. Logically, however, materials science advances and, as long as the world turns, if a material is discovered that performs better than another for a specific application, it is replaced. One only needs to look at history to see how we moved from huts over time to terracotta brick houses, and then to reinforced concrete. Returning to the piano, I had such an experience with my piano that I would like to recount. I had a string pedal that moved the action correctly, but upon release, it no longer returned to position, remaining, so to speak, stuck, with the possibility of returning to the original position only with my help—that is, by grabbing a few black keys and moving it, without much force, back to the initial position. A tuner came, removed the piano action, and put some talcum powder on the keybed. Once the action was reinserted, everything worked perfectly. The problem is that this did not last more than two or three months, and I assure you my house is anything but humid; let's just say it certainly isn't a damp cellar.

I called another tuner; he came to my house, opened it up, and realized there was baby powder on the keybed. He asked for a vacuum cleaner and removed all the talcum powder. He applied Teflon powder, and since that day (about 4 years ago), I have not had any kind of problem. This is to say that perhaps, even if talcum powder was once used for this purpose (and it serves it excellently for a very limited period of time), I don't see why we cannot use Teflon now that it exists! Having made it clear, however, that the manufacturer, at least in my instrument, had applied graphite patches to the keybed as a dry lubricant. As I repeat, I leave the floor to the experts; here I only want to mention my experience and engage in a discussion based on logic.

Speaking instead strictly of materials, logic also tells me that dividing the materials listed into hygroscopic and non-hygroscopic is quite simplistic. Okay, these are two classes, but I believe it would also be appropriate to evaluate how hygroscopic these materials are—that is, to derive subsets from them—which is by no means a given for the purposes of this dispute. I am ready to bet, and if desired, a scientific experiment (a real one) can be done without much difficulty by putting equal amounts of wood and talcum powder inside a humid chamber prepared for the occasion with a humidifier; we could evaluate the amount of water retained by the wood and the amount of water retained by the talcum powder. I am almost certain that talcum powder absorbs more. Speaking specifically of quantities, in chemistry there is a scale that defines the degree of hygroscopy. I would dare say that talcum powder, in addition to being hygroscopic (capable of exchanging water molecules with the air), is also hydrophilic (capable of absorbing water in liquid form, which means that if placed on another hygroscopic material, it does nothing but absorb the amounts of water contained in the material onto which it was applied, especially if the latter is not very hydrophilic, due to the water balance between materials of different natures having contacting surfaces, and clumping in case of friction; therefore, if talcum powder were hydrophilic—and there is no doubt that it is—its lubricating property would, over time, be further halved) and it is by no means certain that hygroscopic materials cannot be hydrophilic; see wool. Speaking of hydrophilicity then, I would trust climbing onto a raft made of wood, but I wouldn't trust doing the same on a raft made of talcum powder (noting that in this example I have not considered the specific gravity of talcum powder and the possible manufacturing geometries).

(in relation to Archimedes' principle and therefore its eventual feasibility); here I attach the documentation for talc where, in the meta name "physicochemical characteristics", reference is made to its ability to absorb water. I recall that, from an encyclopedia (also providing the link to the documentation here), Teflon is instead an impermeable substance, extremely resistant to impacts, also resistant to high temperatures (over 200°) and with the lowest coefficient of friction known... All this obviously I am not saying, the encyclopedia says it. It seems to me therefore, always strictly following logic, unless one doesn't even want to trust the encyclopedia, that Teflon, in applications where one seeks to minimize friction as much as possible while also considering durability over time, wins out above all compared to talc. Whether it was used before Teflon I don't know, but now that we have cement, why continue to build houses with sticks, straw, mud and animal skins?

If you have followed my logic and agree with me up to the point we have reached, then perhaps you will agree with me when I conclude by saying that talc and Teflon are not equivalent, at least strictly according to materials science; as for the application on rollers, I don't know, probably the difference is so imperceptible as to not involve appreciable changes for the pianist, I don't know, this is not my field, I just limit myself to playing... They have different characteristics anyway, different physicochemical properties, and for the purpose required, talc is certainly more useful for body care than for dry lubrication (which, according to the documentation above, is not dry); therefore, I do not believe the pianist needs to smell the perfume of the piano, perhaps they are more interested in durability and the correct functioning of the mechanics. Even if we are not talking about surprising results, I believe everyone is aware of this, especially—I am not speaking with firsthand knowledge, but just by intuition, I repeat, in the case of rollers. Furthermore, I do not believe anyone has ever said that talcum powder causes problems to the mechanics. As far as I am concerned, I simply responded to other users who claimed that Teflon becomes pasty with water... In light of the encyclopedic documentation, being impermeable, it is a fact that it cannot become pasty and the video was made solely for the purpose of providing this demonstration; so much so that at the end of the video I quote verbatim "Teflon does not become pasty and therefore can be used on rollers" (implying that, since we were talking about "pastes", talc was more prone to becoming pasty). End.

Regarding the technicians, I hope I have misunderstood your subtle allusion because perhaps to express such peremptory judgments they lack a few steps (one cannot shoot blindly at those one does not know), but if the idea is directed in a general form, I agree with You; however, the fact remains that personally, and I agree with you, I trust technicians with years of experience much more than someone who has only read a few books or magazines, but I must specify that I trust even more those technicians who, in addition to having years of experience, have also studied, experimented, researched, visited, and had relationships with the factories of the manufacturers of the biggest names. To demonstrate this statement, always in the spirit of logic, if we were satisfied with an individual having quality x, then all the more reason we should be satisfied with another who has the same quality x plus qualities y, z, and t....

Regarding the interventions of other users concerning restoration, personally, I feel I must say that I appreciated them very much as an enthusiast (not a professional technician) of my instrument.

It is true that, always this blessed logic, makes me think that there are strange particular contexts in these exchanges of opinions because you see: the law of large numbers teaches us that any combination of elements, with the elements we have at our disposal, is verifiable even if with a very low probability, but even considering permutations here, the percentage becomes very, very low.

In particular, I am led to reflect on this:

- This post has been abandoned for almost a year

- Corollary to the previous: having had few replies, it has been little indexed, so much so that it appears in third position on Google only when writing the keyword "Millennium mechanics" -> this leads me to think that although not impossible, it is truly very difficult that two users interested in this discussion, both focused on the refutation of Teflon (which was not the subject of this keyword), came within just two days of each other after finding it precisely by searching for the keyword "millennium mechanics"... Anyway, anything is possible

being...

- Corollary of the corollary: these replies in defense of this refutation are all, and I emphasize all, that have emerged after the ban of user Fra, another coincidence that makes the probabilistic event unlikely.

- But the icing on the cake comes now and this is the thing that most strengthens the aforementioned doubts, namely that by tracing the IP addresses that these two users leave on my server, they all appear to me to be connected either closely to Milan or to Sardinia, just like the last two connection IPs of the banned user. (Which significantly impoverishes the already poor probability statistics).

Tutto questo a rigor di logica è quanto meno veramente poco probabile... o forse, a occhio e croce, così senza fare i conti, probabile come fare un terno secco al lotto la prima volta che lo si gioca... Ma tutto è possibile e per questo il mio amore per la matematica mi incita a non voler dubitare di nessuno...

Cordiali saluti anche a lei e buon Ferragosto.

If we consider the history of the piano over its 250 years (?), Teflon has been applied recently, we can say that, right? It is a material with characteristics superior to talcum powder, it certainly is and I believe no one would dare say otherwise.

I did not like your persistence in wanting to demonstrate or insinuate that talcum powder is harmful to the piano; that is not true. Regarding your problem with the piano, I understand that the effectiveness of the talcum powder was limited over time but not that it caused damage, is that correct? The loss of responsiveness in the action is not caused solely by friction on the keybed; there are n factors to verify, such as the correct height of the bushings... Inexperienced technicians tend to raise them too much, for example. I must have an old Steinway manual somewhere that recommends the use of talcum powder on the repetitions, just imagine! If I find it, I will send you an excerpt. But feel free to look at American websites; when technicians speak of dry lubricants, they refer to "Talcum" or "Teflon" as alternatives, even though Teflon is superior. Feel free to tackle technical subjects even without being a technician; it is legitimate to do so, and the spread of information today is such that everyone can talk about everything—this forum is an example of that.

Regarding the references you alluded to and your measures, I have not expressed myself and do not intend to do so; likewise, I would ask you not to portray my intervention as a personal defense or a personal attack on any user; that is not my purpose.

My neighbor and esteemed friend Cesarino Tallone used to put talcum powder on the repetitions of Ciro Michelangeli's piano before concerts; I can assure you that nothing ever happened. I have had at least 50 pianos, treated with talcum powder on the repetitions at every tuning, and nothing ever happened. I also frequented Tallone's workshops and they used talcum powder; the same Giovannino Sangalli, who cared for my pianos as long as he could, for years Cesarino's right-hand man, used talcum powder and nothing ever happened.

Like you, I am also an engineer and a pianist, though with white hair, and after many years I have learned to trust experience in addition to logic and mathematics—a subject I assure you I master very well.

A happy Ferragosto to you as well

pietrorocatelli wrote:

Teflon, if we consider the history of the piano over its 250 years (?), has been applied recently, we can say that, right? It is a material with characteristics superior to talcum powder, it certainly is and I believe no one would dare say otherwise.

I don't understand if you have only glanced at my post or if you have read and understood it... Because it seems to me that you are agreeing with me here but then retracting...

I did not like your persistence in wanting to demonstrate or insinuate that talcum powder is harmful to the piano, it's not true.

Excuse me, could you quote my intervention where I say that talcum powder is harmful to the piano? Perhaps you imagined it; I don't recall writing that anywhere. My considerations in previous posts are aimed at demonstrating the superiority of Teflon over talcum powder regarding hygroscopy, hydrophilicity, and the ability to eliminate friction. Show me where I said that talcum powder is harmful to the piano and I will have no difficulty acknowledging it.

Regarding your problem with the piano, I understand that the effectiveness of the talcum powder was limited over time but not that it caused damage, is that correct?

Absolutely correct!

The lack of return in the action is not caused solely by friction on the keybed; there are n factors to verify, such as the correct height of the bushings... Inexperienced technicians tend to raise them too much, for example.

I don't know, these are topics for technicians and I repeat that I am not a technician, but for certain things one always returns to logic: if simply replacing talcum powder with Teflon powder solved the problem and it did not reappear for 4 years, perhaps I can conclude from my experience that in that context Teflon was more performant... Reapplying talcum would surely make it work again, but after 3 months I would be back at the starting point. As you see, I am not saying that in this context it doesn't work, but that the other lasts longer... Honestly, I don't understand this persistence of yours!

I must have an old Steinway manual somewhere that recommends the use of talcum powder on the repetitions, just imagine! If I find it, I will send you an extract. But feel free to go to American websites; when technicians talk about dry lubricants, they refer to "Talcum" or "Teflon" as alternatives, even if Teflon is superior. Rest assured about tackling technical topics without being a technician; it is legitimate to do so, and the spread of information today is such that everyone can talk about everything—this forum is an example.

Fine! It couldn't be any other way! Battles are won with the strength of reason and one's own ideas; this is my opinion, especially so that those who read can choose whom to support. I believe this is the height of democracy.

Regarding the references you allude to and your measures, I have not expressed myself and do not intend to do so; likewise, I would ask you not to let my intervention pass as a personal defense or a personal attack on any user; that is not my purpose.

Very well, I am glad that is not your purpose. Every intervention and exchange of views is welcome if others' opinions are respected; that is why I am glad you use talcum powder on your piano. Please accept the use of Teflon on mine.

My neighbor and esteemed friend Cesarino Tallone used to put talcum powder on the repetitions of Ciro Michelangeli's piano before concerts; I can assure you that nothing ever happened. I have had at least 50 pianos treated with talcum powder on the repetitions at every tuning, and nothing ever happened. I also frequented Tallone's workshops and they used talcum; the same Giovannino Sangalli, who cared for my pianos as long as he could, for years the right hand of Cesarino, used talcum and nothing ever happened.

You continue to insist on putting words in my mouth that I did not say. I renew my invitation to quote my intervention where I expressly state that talcum powder ruins the piano.

I too, like you, am an engineer and a pianist, but with white hair, and after years I have learned to trust experience in addition to logic and mathematics—a subject I assure you I master very well.

Have a good Ferragosto as well.

I don't doubt it, although I don't understand the tone of this last message of yours. The fact that you have the same qualifications as me but with white hair should automatically place you several steps above me? I don't understand; you don't know me just as I don't know you. Wouldn't it be better to respect each other by exchanging peaceful opinions?

anche se divergenti ? Personalmente non credo che far valere le proprie opinioni sia sinonimo di fare a gara a chi ha più fogli di carta in tasca.

Rinnovati saluti,

Answer one question for me, though...

If you write this:

Teflon is [...] a material with characteristics superior to talcum powder, it certainly is and I believe no one would dream of saying otherwise.

On your piano, do you use talcum powder or teflon?

Congratulations on owning 50 pianos!!!! Furthermore, treatments, combinations, all with talcum powder on the rollers.

Well. I believe it is time to cease this exchange of ideas regarding talcum powder and teflon. It was not born well and it is not closing well. This, I feel compelled to say, from the heart, and I am sure it will not compromise or spoil many good and healthy discussions that have arisen on our site and on our Forum. However, if I may say, if I am permitted to clarify one last thing, we have stated that in case talcum powder can create some problems over time, not before a concert. Sometimes a lubricant that works in the moment can cause long-term problems. Let the readers reflect freely and choose what they deem most appropriate. I also emphasize what Simone Renzi wanted to specify, namely that, since teflon was born 74 years ago, "micropowder" arrived in piano supplies not many years ago. Therefore, it has certainly been difficult to remove consolidated beliefs held even by eminent technicians. Let us therefore leave it on an improvement level, reiterating however that talcum powder, over time, if not removed and renewed, can create problems; I would personally like not to return to this subject, especially so as not to bore the readers who are instead oriented towards more interesting and substantial topics, as you, pietrorocatelli, justly call for—topics that in this site and in this forum we have indeed often sought and will always seek to address.

Thank you

Mr. Renzi, I did not intervene because I was particularly interested in this discussion; I only wanted to propose a less analytical and more practical approach, a spirit of debate and collective growth, without closing any doors.

What I wrote—forgive me if I do not stop to quote parts of previous interventions—and that you wanted to imply that talcum powder was harmful to the piano, even if you did not write it directly.... Remember that just above you replied to a user: "does Pianoexpert know that you put talcum powder on the repetitions?" As if it were a forbidden practice, and then, again in response to a user, you performed a demonstration by letting water flow to convince us (?) that it is a hygroscopic substance... Therefore, I felt compelled to intervene and clarify that many technicians still today use talcum powder without damage, and not out of particular convictions as one might want to believe; obviously, the instrument must be checked periodically and cleaned at every service, because even dust clumps with humidity and causes damage in the long run. It is normal. I am pleased that Mr. Pianoexpert has led us all back to moderation in this sense and has grasped the spirit of my interventions.

I never intended to attack anyone with my words, nor have I ever used bold vocabulary to emphasize concepts or a violent syntax; I went to school many years ago and certainly do not need lessons. I believe that readers can attest to my good faith.

Yes, some people are being ironic, but I think I have truly had 50 pianos in the course of my life; I have always preferred to take advantage of rentals to change them for new ones year after year, even more than one at a time. I currently have some excellent instruments in my home; after years of experience, I have managed to find the best for my tastes and for my hands. It is difficult to find the right piano and, as my technicians have always explained to me, temporary interventions such as talcum powder and teflon on the repetitions cannot provide prolonged benefits if there are defects in the construction and placement of the action.... For this reason, today I no longer need teflon or talcum powder, as thanks also to the consultations of my experts and prepared technicians, I have been able to purchase good pianos.

It is with great humility that I learned what I know today, through listening and debate... never with aggression or conceit.

I believe that, as someone suggested, it is better to end the discussion here.

A cordial greeting.

In reality I never said it, I only quoted what was heard from pianoexpert in other contexts. Phrases that do not belong to me. To summarize, I never wrote anything like that, also because not being a technician, I am not in a position to say whether talcum powder ruins a piano or not.

Anyway, I agree, I think it is better to end the discussion here. What needed to be said from both sides has been said, I don't think it's possible to add anything else. Those who read will form their own opinion...

Regards to you

PS. If you have nothing else to add, I will close this discussion.