New Wakker Hayden Duet

[JimLucas]

There are 2 different ways to connect buttons in an accordion: the stradella bass mechanism, which uses a selective rod system, which is not usable in a concertina, and the parallel link between 2 buttons as found in early/simple free bass mechanisms and right hand 4,5 and 6 row flat and stepped button keyboards.

I think, and this is just my speculation, that links in a Hayden Duet could be done with both buttons each operating their own separate lever and pivot, with the two levers meeting at the single pad. One lever would hold the pad, the other lever would fit under the first lever end and lift it and the pad with it.

 

However, the link button would be lifting two levers and their springs, so would have to feel twice the key pressure. Not good.

EDITED to add: Wait! Only the "primary" lever would have a spring -- the linked button's lever would just lift the primary lever (at the pad) and its single spring; the link lever would have no spring of its own, just its own pivot point.

What about a pad with a single "handle" or "stem", which could be lifted by either of two levers, the other lever not moving? There would be some tricky issues, though, which might well make it unworkable, or at least not worth the trouble. E.g., stability, since the handle couldn't be affixed to either lever. Or the fact that neither lever could be allowed to extend into the space above the pad.

 

But there's another potential solution, used in at least some 50-button Jeffries anglos: two levers for a single chamber, but each with its own pad and hole.

 

On the 50-button Jeffries(es) I've seen that have this arrangement, it's only been done on a single chamber. I'm sure that the more pairs of levers that one creates, the more difficult it will be to create a feasible layout. But that shouldn't be any more difficult than with Ragtimer's suggestion... slightly easier, I suspect, because the ends of the paired levers would have to be near each other, but not at the same point, so maybe there would be more leeway.

 

Another potential concern is that I believe I remember discussions here on Concertina.net where it was said that the relative placement of the pad hole and the free end of the reed could affect reed response. One note that would respond differently depending on which button was used to sound it would not be desirable. However, I just tried the example on my 50-button C/G -- a middle C and the F above, -- and I noticed no difference in response (immediate!) between the two buttons for either note. I do think I perceive a difference in timbre, but it's very slight. There is a significant difference in timbre if I use both buttons, thus opening both pads at once. I think such a difference in timbre could be used to interesting effect... assuming that one could reach both buttons at the same time.

 

Interestingly enough, I don't notice any difference in pitch between one pad open and two pads open, though the common experience of needing to fine tune when merely replacing pads would lead me to expect at least a small shift when both pads are open.

 

Can this be controlled? If it would be possible to construct/adjust two separate pads in such a way that they did result in different pitches, how much difference would be possible? Would it be enough to get (e.g.) distinct non-tempered Eb and D# from the same reed? Since it's still only one reed, you couldn't create a tremolo effect by pressing both buttons, only (potentially) a third pitch variant.

 

Unfortunately, I'm just speculating. I don't have a workshop in which to experiment with these ideas.

[ragtimer]

I think, and this is just my speculation, that links in a Hayden Duet could be done with both buttons each operating their own separate lever and pivot, with the two levers meeting at the single pad. One lever would hold the pad, the other lever would fit under the first lever end and lift it and the pad with it.

 

However, the link button would be lifting two levers and their springs, so would have to feel twice the key pressure. Not good.

EDITED to add: Wait! Only the "primary" lever would have a spring -- the linked button's lever would just lift the primary lever (at the pad) and its single spring; the link lever would have no spring of its own, just its own pivot point.

What about a pad with a single "handle" or "stem", which could be lifted by either of two levers, the other lever not moving? There would be some tricky issues, though, which might well make it unworkable, or at least not worth the trouble. E.g., stability, since the handle couldn't be affixed to either lever. Or the fact that neither lever could be allowed to extend into the space above the pad.

Nice thinking, Jim. Maybe the pad could have its own, 3rd, idler lever, and each of the button levers could lift it. Tho I don't see where that's an improvement over my idea, and it adds yet more hardware into the cramped quarters.

But there's another potential solution, used in at least some 50-button Jeffries anglos: two levers for a single chamber, but each with its own pad and hole.

Now there's a good idea. Better than having two reeds, tho it does take more space for the extra pad.

On the 50-button Jeffries(es) I've seen that have this arrangement, it's only been done on a single chamber. I'm sure that the more pairs of levers that one creates, the more difficult it will be to create a feasible layout. But that shouldn't be any more difficult than with Ragtimer's suggestion... slightly easier, I suspect, because the ends of the paired levers would have to be near each other, but not at the same point, so maybe there would be more leeway.

Yes, the maker would have more freedom in lever placement -- but he would have to place two pads instead of one as in my scheme. Someone would have to try laying out a complete instrument in order to compare the two approaches. And at that point, he might as well go ahead and build it

(BTW, "my" scheme may be what Rich Morse was thinking of. I don't recall Rich telling me the details of his link system, tho he might have. I hope I'm not giving away any trade secrets! Nor taking credit for another's idea.)

Interestingly enough, I don't notice any difference in pitch between one pad open and two pads open, though the common experience of needing to fine tune when merely replacing pads would lead me to expect at least a small shift when both pads are open.

 

Can this be controlled? If it would be possible to construct/adjust two separate pads in such a way that they did result in different pitches, how much difference would be possible? Would it be enough to get (e.g.) distinct non-tempered Eb and D# from the same reed? Since it's still only one reed, you couldn't create a tremolo effect by pressing both buttons, only (potentially) a third pitch variant.

Now there's an idea I really like -- non-tempered "enharmonics", so we can get meantone tuning's perfect 3rds. I really hate the sound of tempered major 3rds on my box. Getting both pitches out of one reed would really be a winner. That is, till my next session with the band ...

Unfortunately, I'm just speculating. I don't have a workshop in which to experiment with these ideas.

Same here. But the fact that your big tina produces the same pitch and timbre from either pad makes me doubt that the enharmonic trick could be made to work. Tho I'd love to see a maker with time on his handds (oxymoron right there!) tinker with it.

 

Does anyone still own/play an EC with non-enharmonically tuned Eb and D#, or F# and Gb?

--Mike K.

[wim wakker]

I think, and this is just my speculation, that links in a Hayden Duet could be done with both buttons each operating their own separate lever and pivot, with the two levers meeting at the single pad. One lever would hold the pad, the other lever would fit under the first lever end and lift it and the pad with it.

 

However, the link button would be lifting two levers and their springs, so would have to feel twice the key pressure. Not good.

EDITED to add: Wait! Only the "primary" lever would have a spring -- the linked button's lever would just lift the primary lever (at the pad) and its single spring; the link lever would have no spring of its own, just its own pivot point.

So -- key pressure would be the same on both buttons, and this is a workable scheme!

 

And thanks for giving us a professional maker's view of the problems.

--Mike K.

 

 

As they say, one picture says more than a thousand words…

 

 

There are a few problems to solve:

 

1 the obvious problem: space. This drawing shows the right side of our H-1. try to reach the second location following these rules:

 

A: maximum lever lengh 6 cm (longer requires heavier levers to provide enough stability)

 

B: preferably in a straight line, with room for the pivot. The more you bend a lever, the more side pressure it creates. You won’t notice this when an instrument is new, but in time, it will cause action noise…we expect our instruments to last at least 100 years……

 

C: You can not change the order of the pads. The size of the reed chambers (underneath the pads) vary too much to be able to move them around. The instrument is completely ‘full’, with no space to spare.

 

D: because of the way our action is balanced, there is not enough room underneath the shorter levers for an other lever to pass. Especially if it has to be wider to provide enough stability.

 

2 key travel. Each pad has to open a certain amount to provide the necessary air flow. If a pad opens too far too fast, you will/can hear the ‘turbo’ effect of the reed: the pitch will be raised slightly due to the extra burst of air ( reed amplitude too high at the beginning of the swing cycle). We don’t like this, certainly not in a duet…

If you have 2 levers with different lengths meeting at one pad, you’ll need to adjust the pivot point of the longer one in order not to get the turbo effect. The ‘pad height’ of the long lever has to be exactly the same as the short lever.

 

3 because of the difference in lever length, you’ll need springs on both levers. Especially when moving the pivot point forward (lever weight, unbalanced lever, friction of the second lever)

 

Good luck! Let me know if you can figure it out….

 

Wim

 

P.S. In order to protect my design, I "added" 6 mistakes....enough to prevent a copy to work...sorry

[mike byrne]

Here is a Crabb C/G Anglo concertina No. 18590 which the G/A buttons linked.

It only uses two reeds instead of four and both reeds sound the same when either button is pressed.

 

 

 

 

[JimLucas]

P.S. In order to protect my design, I "added" 6 mistakes....enough to prevent a copy to work...sorry

So if someone wanted to make a "pirate copy" of your Hayden design, they would first have to buy one of your instruments.

Or maybe justs get friendly with someone else who did buy one?

[JimLucas]

Here is a Crabb C/G Anglo concertina No. 18590 which the G/A buttons linked.

It only uses two reeds instead of four and both reeds sound the same when either button is pressed.

Interesting. How does it feel to play? I.e., is there any difference in the feel between those two buttons and the rest?

 

But the lever arrangement looks a bit convoluted to me, though it's only one pair of linked buttons. If I were trying to make that principle work for a half dozen pairs of buttons, I would definitely want to get paid by the hour.

[Richard Morse]

I've already stated that Rich Morse planned on using such links. But I can imagine that implementing them is tricky, since they're at opposite sides of the button field.

Quite right! Also tricky is getting the button pressures to be the same as the others, forces aligned, friction minimized, pad clearance uniform, etc....

 

I borrowed heavily from transverse accordion action design to come up with a remote action that MAY work well on our Haydens. In this solution the "normal" action is unhindered by the "remote" buttons.

 

The remote button levers to the transverse bar are direct. Those levers are secured solidly to the transverse bar such that when you depress those buttons the bar rotates. The bar IS THE PIVOT. The bar runs in a tunnel within the actionboard (the bar rotates freely on pin bearings at either end). At the other side of the bar is another lever which is solidly secured to the bar which lifts the "normal" action lever at a point that works out for pressure balance and pad lift.

 

Basically both actions are separate yet have a single spring. The trick is that the position of the pivot (post or bar) needs to be the same percentage along the arms - even if the arms are of different lengths. Then the button depressions and pad lift will be the same.

 

The pic below is from our "old" Hayden design which still had a few minor action things to deal with here (such as the small amount of slightly oblique force where the remote lever lifts the normal lever). I've since scrapped that as we're working on a new model hybrid in a 7" hex, so our Hayden is being redesigned up from the 6 3/4" to 7" to take advantage of the commonality of frames, bellows, etc. as well as the extra ROOM! It'll make for less linkages or more buttons. We'll see....

 

-- Rich --

 

[ragtimer]

I borrowed heavily from transverse accordion action design to come up with a remote action that MAY work well on our Haydens. In this solution the "normal" action is unhindered by the "remote" buttons.

 

The remote button levers to the transverse bar are direct. Those levers are secured solidly to the transverse bar such that when you depress those buttons the bar rotates. The bar IS THE PIVOT. The bar runs in a tunnel within the actionboard (the bar rotates freely on pin bearings at either end). At the other side of the bar is another lever which is solidly secured to the bar which lifts the "normal" action lever at a point that works out for pressure balance and pad lift.

Great thinking, Rich! A fine example of thinking outside one "box" while thinking inside the other kind of "box." This gives a new meaning to "hybrid concertina!" And many thanks for sharing your secret with us.

I've poked around inside two accordion LH sides, but couldn't make the Leap of Faith ...

 

BTW, someone might worry about friction in your design. Yet, the LH buttons of an accordion are very easy to press, even though 3 or 4 pads are being lifted by each button.

 

I wonder if you'll have room for more than one link roller between each row of buttons? In the new design?

The pic below is from our "old" Hayden design which still had a few minor action things to deal with here (such as the small amount of slightly oblique force where the remote lever lifts the normal lever). I've since scrapped that as we're working on a new model hybrid in a 7" hex, so our Hayden is being redesigned up from the 6 3/4" to 7" to take advantage of the commonality of frames, bellows, etc. as well as the extra ROOM! It'll make for less linkages or more buttons. We'll see....

-- Rich --

Fewer linkages, as in a few redundant reeds? Might as well. But I'll vote for more buttons.

 

Very glad to hear you're working on the Hayden yet again. I'll be saving my pennies. I don't think anyone should object to the slight increase in diameter. Still 1/4" smaller than a Stagi

--Mike K.

[ragtimer]

Here is a Crabb C/G Anglo concertina No. 18590 which the G/A buttons linked.

It only uses two reeds instead of four and both reeds sound the same when either button is pressed.

Interesting. How does it feel to play? I.e., is there any difference in the feel between those two buttons and the rest?

And I wonder if the riveted joint where the links come together makes any extra action noise?

 

But this is a good example of the link principle. Note that the two buttons are fairly close together, unlike a Hayden's.

But the lever arrangement looks a bit convoluted to me, though it's only one pair of linked buttons. If I were trying to make that principle work for a half dozen pairs of buttons, I would definitely want to get paid by the hour.

ATT Bell Labs paid me a handsome salary to lay out printed circuit boards, which is very much like laying out levers and links for a concertina. You have to snake around pin-grid arrays of connector pins. No worries about relative pivot-arm lengths or side forces, though. I'd have to be paid in concertinas; wouldn't do it for money!

 

Continuing the printed-circuit board analogy -- what Rich has done is the equivalent of "multi-layer boards" -- let links/wires cross over each other at will, but on different levels.

 

BTW, other than some very short levers, I found only one error in Wim's posted diagram. I won't mention it in detail, but some pirate might find that 42-key Haydens are hard to hustle, except to aliens with two left hands