Tell us something.: Playing woodwind instruments for over 70 years and deeply interested in their history, manufacture, technology, and performance practices.
Terry McGee wrote: ↑So do we conclude that the blowpipe section was perched onto the end of the head tube and deftly soldered there with little or no mechanical support? … Can we be sure that the ring is part of the blowpipe, and not part of the headtube?
The ring is unequivocally part of the main casting on mine. It also confirms what would otherwise be the implied precarity of the soldering.
Not really convinced about “tongue” or “bit” (unless they prove to be inescapably popular back in the day). I’d advance “blowpipe” or “mouthpiece”. We certainly wouldn’t want to confuse it with “windway” as we use that for the duct.
“Tongue” is attested. Not sure about “bit” but can snoop further into it. If we regard the “mouthpiece” as part of the head joint on wooden instrument that have them, it suits me okay for now. It’s also appropriate to the single piece metal jobbies.
Ah, that makes more sense (the ring on the tube). Now is there anywhere where you can measure the wall thickness of the tubing? Either directly, or (OD-ID)/2.
Reason I ask is that I'm told it's not easy to cast thin tubing* - hard to convince the molten but goupy metal to flow into the thin spaces between the inner and outer formers without leaving air bubbles, etc. So it would be interesting to see what they managed.
*It's hard enough with casting big items like bells to avoid air bubbles. And when you are making idiophones (things that give a note when struck), you can't afford any variation in density such as air bubbles would present. Instead of bong, they go thuck! Or clank.
It would be interesting to compare the weight of this whistle with other instruments of the same pitch. I'm guessing substantially more. Or do you also have a D whistle in Depleted Uranium?
Tell us something.: Playing woodwind instruments for over 70 years and deeply interested in their history, manufacture, technology, and performance practices.
Terry McGee wrote: ↑Now is there anywhere where you can measure the wall thickness of the tubing? Either directly, or (OD-ID)/2.
Judging from the exposed edges of the fingerholes and window, the wall is slightly over a millimeter thick. I’ll be able to measure directly if I can get the schnoz off.
It would be interesting to compare the weight of this whistle with other instruments of the same pitch. I'm guessing substantially more. Or do you also have a D whistle in Depleted Uranium?
The nearest thing I have to compare it with is a Copeland but there’s still too much apples and oranges about it.
Yeah, I think around a mm is about as thin as you can go with metal casting unless the item is pretty small*. And around 3 times thicker walls than our typical cylindrical metal whistles. But also around 3 times thinner than our wooden whistles. And tapered, but not as boldly as some. It's in interesting territory.
*For example, the pad cups on my flute keys are considerably thinner than 1mm, but are not very big and are well fed from the thick stem during the casting process. And these days I'm sure they have more advanced processes than back in Mathieu's day.
