Re: power tool woes - filer/sander
> 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 theI would think so, too, EXCEPT the three curly maple G flutes were
> combination used.
> Cheers, Don
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).
- 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]