Reply to more questions.
Q Would it not have made more sense to put all the effort into creating a chanter bore that would take a generic staple/reed made with tubing, say 52mm staple 1.5 eye 82mm oal . As Brian has said his orignal reasons for working on the staple was for his own chanters,this would suggest there was a probelm with the chanter ,so why not correct the chanter.
A. First thanks to Ted for his answer but I think I can add a little more detail.
Instead of thinking of a chanter bore, a staple and the cane bit, try thinking of a complete air column that is “held in place” by these three components. It is desirable to have each of these performing at an optimum level. This has been done in the chanter by evolving the shape of the bore, sound holes, the iris etc. All these are connected and have been evolved together.
I used parallel tubular staples for years with good results but started metal spinning tapered staples and found them much better. In parallel with this I was evolving bore perturbations in the chanter and it seemed a good idea to try the same in staples. This proved successful and I have not used a parallel tube staple for about 15 years. The “all-over”
machining of a stainless steel staple is just a progression that gave more accuracy and repeatability.
Having a standard staple has enabled me to improve the “cane bit”. For instance the variations in cane seem less important.
One thing though, when you move away from a parallel tube the length of the staple changes with the geometry. My staple has had to change in length and is coincidentally more in line with an oboe staple.