Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Tuner-Technicians Forum McMorrow Duplex Patent Question

Hello Ed,
I Looked at your Duplex patent. It looks very interesting, but I had a question as to if its really new or not. Certainly you use modern materials and your own personal touch in the design.

If I understand you correctly, you are attempting to clean up the tone by filtering out unwanted noise and prevent energy loss.

Below is a picture of an A.B.Chase upright in which they were after the same thing a hundred years ago. As you can see, the figuration is different than yours, but certainly accomplishes the same thing. Isn't the "wooden filter" below the metal rod do the same thing your trying to do. The tone on this upright is amazing by the way.

Oh nice try Chris, Couldn't bring yourself to title the post with the full name of my patent application eh. Afraid it might bring my paltry Google search results profile up if you did huh?

The question of prior art is of course very relevant to patents.

This question is resolved via the patent application process and any subsequent court cases regarding claims. I don't believe you qualify for either. Sorry you are not invited to that party. I do appreciate your interest.

[quote=chernobieff]The tone on this upright is amazing by the way. [/quote]I bet it has great sustain--given the condition of the dampers, anyway.

The frame(plate) seems to be made out of wood not iron.
Is this the case, Chernobieff?

Thank you,

HW

What dampers??



HW

Bingo!

Thank You Ed,
That answers that question.
I would hesitate investing in the patent attorneys.

Herr Weiss,
Do you hearing an annoying buzzing sound?

Anyways, the upright is a trainer for an apprentice of mine. Only 12 years old and would dance circles around these anonymous number people.

Oh, go google yourself! LOL

Did the inventor McMorrow avoid the question? Anyone know the patent number? Or name of the patent?
Thanks

The full name of the Patent I am seeking is: Fully Tempered Duplex Scale. There is an old PW thread about it that you can pull up. You can google the name and read the patent application.

If you have any questions about it, I would prefer if you brought back the old PW thread and we can pick up from there.

Jim Iallegio is installing it under license and I am seeking other licensees as well. I have done about 20 pianos with it so far.

I've known Jim Iallegio for a good while, and I knew he was finishing up on his Chickering. I have an interest in the technology and have investigated it and conversed with Ed by e-mail. But I have not heard a piano fitted with this system, so I visited Jim at his shop yesterday to hear the piano.

What immediately struck me was how very present the tone was in the 5th and 6th octaves. I stood at a distance and listened to Jim play. There was exceptional volume and sustain in the melody line in the right hand. The tone had a lot of body, even with the very light hammers. Very few pianos let the melody speak as an equal partner in the 5th and 6th octaves. This piano did, and that is such a gift to the musicality of the piano. The piano spoke clearly and expressively in soft playing.

For those who are skeptical of this piano technology, let me assure you that this piano sounded very much like what we would hope a piano would sound like. Most never do, despite our best efforts. The sound is not obviously different, just more of everything.

Jim is a very fine craftsman, and certainly some of the credit must go to the fine soundboard that he designed and installed. Where the high quality of the board leaves off and the Fully Tempered Duplex Scale kicks in, I cannot say.

To my ears, Ed's technology deserves our respectful consideration.

Will Truitt

Certainly is difficult to isolate the cause of the good tone when a piano consists of so many elements. Sure would be interesting to get Mr. Ieleggo's impressions on this. I would ask him how it compares to his previous rebuilds? As this is the new element in his process.

I agree with you bobgeorge,first you have chickering's original design, jim's hardwork and talent, then a new duplex bar is what makes all the difference? Regardless, I'm not sure if Mr. McMorrow will post here again, as he was concerned about the google search not linking to the patent.

Could that be you, chernobieff?

bobgeorge,
I noticed you are living in the Seattle area. If you would like to inspect pianos with Fully Tempered Duplex Scales come to my shop in Mukilteo. Call me at 425-299-3431 to make an appt. because I do go out on service calls.

I'd bet on it. Chris has made a mockery of himself and his business. Very foolish - and all because he had some sort of misguided jealousy of Ed McMorrow's accomplishments. It's a shame he decided to take things in the direction he did rather than just learning and discussing from experienced techs.

WilliamTruitt, thanks for the first-hand observations. Was that your first experience playing with lighter hammers? I'm just trying to get a sense of what is attributable to the lighter hammers, and what is due to the duplexes (i.e., much of what I interpret from your report sounds like it is from the lighter hammers).

As it happens, bobgeorge and creeper440.2 are the same person and are (were) also known as chernobieff and Chris A.C.

Now banned under all identities.

Hi A454.7:

I think the rub here and always is that the elements of a piano function as a dynamic, interactive system. Hence my comment about the soundboard, which obviously greatly influences qualities such as sustain and volume, and has to be part of the makeup of Jim's very successful treble area. But that is not to cast doubt on Ed's design. All I can say is that the rarity of a treble of such qualities suggests to me that there is some merit to the fully tempered duplex system.

And, of course, light hammers are very much part of Ed's system. How light does Ed make them? I don't know, but they are very light. I asked Jim for weights, and he had recorded the final weight of each hammer before he hung them. I remember that 88 was 3.2 grams, and 1 was 8.5, graduated inbetween.

I have been moving further in that direction in my own work, the last action had Ronsen low profile Weikert felt hammers - 3.5 grams for 88, and about 9 grams for #1, and graduated to within .1 gram inbetween. So I appreciate the properties that lighter hammers bring to the equation.

So no doubt the light hammers are contributory. It still feels like I was hearing something more than I have gotten only with a great board and light hammers. That is barely more than an impression and likely not satisfactory to some. But I try to be careful what I can say with certainty and what are the limitations of my knowledge.

Jim is the person to give more depth here, as he has a couple of these under his belt now.