Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: power tool woes - filer/sander

Expand Messages
  • greatwave
    ... they ... I would think so, too, EXCEPT the three curly maple G flutes were all the same length. The bore size was different on the first one with the
    Message 1 of 4 , May 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > Bore cubic volume largely determines pitch, everything else
      > being equal. And bore diameter contributes exponentially when
      > used (times bore length) in computing the volume of the bore. It
      > determines the bore cross-sectional area. Diameter, therefore,
      > has effect that intuitively may seem out of proportion to an
      > apparent minor difference between comparable bores.
      > Pi times the radius squared yields the bore cross-sectional
      > area. I think that a 7/8" bore works out to be more than a third
      > larger in area than a 6/8" bore. So small differences in diameter
      > result in large difference is effect.
      > Either of those diameters can make a workable flute in either
      > key. One combination would yield bore lengths very close in
      > physical length. Their bore ratios would just be different, and
      > might have different playing characteristics depending on the
      > combination used.
      > Cheers, Don
      I would think so, too, EXCEPT the three curly maple G flutes were
      all the same length. The bore size was different on the first one
      with the larger fingerholes as well (which would INCREASE the bore
      volume because larger fingerholes LOWER the fundemental). So, with
      these examples the empirical data being the actual flutes on hand,
      doesn't hold out to what the "formulas" predict.
      I'm not saying Lew's formulas are unworthy, only that when the actual
      flutes are right there to test, the preditable results and the actual
      physical results leave me scratchin' my head. This is why I brought
      all 3 flute to the Florida show.
      Since the rule is that everything affects everything, one would
      need a super'puter to figure out all of the realtionships at any
      given moment in time. Latitude and longitude of the sun, close
      proximity to coffee shop, my mood, mico and gamma ray bursts, nearest
      black hole...everything. All my Relations.
      Besides, things change, ie. "upgrades" to old software. As with
      all products, including the evolution of my own flutes, the latter
      ones are usually better than the older ones. "New and Improved" is
      another way of saying the old stuff isn't quite correct. But you
      don't see a box of soap that says "Old Unperforming Soap" next to
      the "New and Improved" soap.
      For all of the newcommers in here, most of what I've tried to
      convey is a PROCESS that will lead you to create a flute without too
      much thinkin'. Make it long. Tune the TSH well. Then cut it up to key
      and APPROACH your target. You may decide to stop 1/2 step long
      (lower) or cut it up 1/2 step higher than the intended target voicing.
      In this process, if you skip a step you may miss the mark completely.
      That would be like turning over a motor before you put in the oil.
      Having those three curly maple blanks and making them all perform the
      same although they were of 2 different bore diameters and very
      different fingerhole sizes and locations leads me to wonder about the
      formulas. My perferred formula of using the bore center as the
      baseline for the knuckle method measurments and NOT the foot or the
      TSH sits very well in my psychie as a solid theory to use in this
      craft. Center is center is center (after TSH is made and the flute
      cut up to key).
      I get a lot of input from folks who have flutes with wide finger
      spacing on the bottom 3 holes who cannot play the instrument. I
      cannot play a guitar with a wide neck. Or dunk a basketball. So I
      don't play those things.

      OK..I'll do this. I'll make a series of flutes of the same key in
      different bore diameters and different fingerhole locations and
      spacings and HOLD ONTO them so dogfox or anyone with software and
      calipers can go to town and measure all of the variables and plug
      that into the 'puter formulas and see if the results bear out what
      the emperical actual flutes "say" with there own voice. I'll make
      them this summer and bring them to Musical Echoes next year and
      whoever is up for this experiment can bring a 'puter with the newest
      software loaded and we will go to town and dig deep for conclusions.
      That's why I have a PhD (in Coyote Medicine).
    • pipukwes@aol.com
      Beautiful explanation of how the formulas are not an exact science. I liked your qoute Make it long cut it to the key you want. Thats all you really need to
      Message 2 of 4 , May 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Beautiful explanation of how the formulas are not an exact science. I
        liked your qoute "Make it long cut it to the key you want." Thats all you
        really need to know. Experimentation works just fine.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.