So firstly, to catch up on how this project started, and progress so far.
This was my first pedalboard, which the current project will replace:
To find that spacing value, BTW, I had to send money to the AGO (American Guild of Organists). No comment as to whether I also had to pass any secret-society ritual tests, to enter into the hallowed hall of knowledge of the Guild. But I did come out with the golden information: the natural-key spacing should be 2.5 inches. This is the only aspect of the AGO standard which I'm following. My sharp and natural lengths are slightly shorter, travel and force will probably differ, and most significantly, I'm building this as a flat pedalboard, and not as a "concave-radiating" type as specified by the AGO. Also, my layout is different from most (pipe) organ pedalboards in that the pedals are hinged at the back, not from a point at the front, underneath the "organ bench". This is because I want to be able to operate these pedals both from sitting down and standing up positions. In fact, exactly what type of "bench" or chair will work for the new kind of music I want to play, I'm not yet sure; possibly a "drum stool".
Anyway, here's a view of the old pedalboard from behind, showing the switch mechanisms.
I'm using those type of switches again in the new pedalboard, but the springs and other details will be different. Here's my little stash of cannibalized switches, desoldered from an old computer keyboard, waiting for that phase of the construction project:
These switches have excellent repetition specs, among other assets (the other main one being cheapness, of course!). Unfortunately, most modern computer keyboards are constructed in a one-piece manner such that you cannot separate individual keyswitches. I covet my old 386-era PC keyboard with the keyswitches soldered to a board; it has gradually given up most of its switches but still has a few to go...
I searched around for a while, looking at different ways to do the springs. I was originally planning to use strorebought coiled extension springs such as I used in the old pedalboard; but I wasn't immediately able to find a source for 32 of them (I guess I cleaned out my local True Value hardware store last time, and they haven't replenished!). Plus, the rather heavy and long keylevers would probably need more spring force than I could obtain with those, from the best available leverage-point. Items which cost anywhere near a dollar each, or more, are right out of consideration for this: a few of those, replicated 32 or 64 times, and the cost is quickly into the hundreds, which is right where I don't want it to go. And plus, use of extension springs tends to lead to a higher profile, since the springs extend above the keys. Given that I want this pedalboard to fold up and be as compact as possible while still being playable as a "real" pedalboard, any extension of height over the minimum implied by the height of the sharp-tops, would be nice to avoid.
So I was pleased to chance upon this idea, which I think will work: Home Depot sells these bundles of straight steel wire, galvanized, 12 guage. They are intended for chain-link fencing, the segments of bent wire which hold the fence against the poles. 50 six-foot pieces, for under $20:
From this material, I will be able to fabricate my own coil-springs, with scissor-style action:
...which I think will have just about exactly the right amount of force, from the given position. Which is now underneath the keys, more similar to other pedalboard designs I've seen.
I made a "video" (really, just a slide-show with voice-over), documenting construction up to this point. Basically, all I have is the rough shapes of the keylevers, naturals and sharps, unfinished. The hinge mechanism (and lazy assembly technique) I designed will, I think, ultimately work; but my first attempt to build it has not worked out, so everything has to be torn down and different wood used. Typical trial-and-error for projects like this; my big effort has been to design the overall process so that the expected errors and failed experiments do not end up, say, eating up 80 feet of lumber.
Sorry about the terrible audio quality, the original recording was pretty noisy and under-modulated anyway (even with normalizing in "audacity"), but goodness, the MP4 conversion really distorts the sound even worse. I've noticed before, this type of sketchy, noisy input tends to fare really poorly with the "MP*" family of compression. Maybe I could have specified a higher bitrate or something.