Rudall & Rose flute (or its data) needed....

[benhall.1]

I've got four, from the 1820s to 1830s. You'd have to send someone to measure them, though, because I haven't a clue.

[kkrell]

Jon C. has a few belonging to others & can probably measure, if he's willing.

[jemtheflute]

Hi Casey

I'd really like to get as close as we can to the one that Rockstro measured. I think he mentioned about 1828, which would be about RR 1000. But thanks for the offer!

My earliest one is #2130 (c1831-2), but it has a Bb foot. I also now have RRC&Co. #6409 (formerly Ben's) and some others in the #5xxxs. But, as previously noted, I've no bore-measuring tooling. Like Ben, I'm open to well-equipped visitors!

FWIW I reckon #1000 would have been about 1827 +/-1 year. You'd expect roughly the #12xxs to be from 1828. They were averaging 200+ p/a in that period.

As I mentioned, #6845 went to Oz - perhaps it can be borrowed if my purchaser still has it???? I can try to find out if that would be any help....
An additional point about that particular flute, especially given that we have Sebastian's measurements of it, is that my videos demonstrating it could be RTTA analysed.

[jemtheflute]

Sebastian has now kindly come up with the tone-hole measurements he took for the two flutes he measured. He only took external tube diameter measurements for one of them. I have added his two documents to the folder in my Box resources: https://app.box.com/s/qiyn6pvgsltmqyzaa9dtn9cs3gk3g5y3

[benhall.1]

Hi Casey

I'd really like to get as close as we can to the one that Rockstro measured. I think he mentioned about 1828, which would be about RR 1000. But thanks for the offer!

My earliest one is #2130 (c1831-2), but it has a Bb foot. I also now have RRC&Co. #6409 (formerly Ben's) and some others in the #5xxxs. But, as previously noted, I've no bore-measuring tooling. Like Ben, I'm open to well-equipped visitors!

FWIW I reckon #1000 would have been about 1827 +/-1 year. You'd expect roughly the #12xxs to be from 1828. They were averaging 200+ p/a in that period.

As I mentioned, #6845 went to Oz - perhaps it can be borrowed if my purchaser still has it???? I can try to find out if that would be any help....
An additional point about that particular flute, especially given that we have Sebastian's measurements of it, is that my videos demonstrating it could be RTTA analysed.

You know that I have at least one that's at least that early, if not earlier, yes?

[Terry McGee]

Sebastian has now kindly come up with the tone-hole measurements he took for the two flutes he measured. He only took external tube diameter measurements for one of them. I have added his two documents to the folder in my Box resources: https://app.box.com/s/qiyn6pvgsltmqyzaa9dtn9cs3gk3g5y3

Tunborough, how close do you reckon we are to being able to make a start with the data Jem and Sebastian have provided? The initial study doesn't have to be the "final word" - if it is enough to alert us to the issues we have to deal with we will be well advanced. We will know what we need to find out. We can then reconsider what to do next.

I'm reminded of the Hitch-hikers' Guide to the Galaxy. The Super-Computer Deep Thought was able to determine that the Meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything was 42, but then revealed a much bigger computer would be needed to work out what was the question. And so the Earth was created. Our question is perhaps a little more tricky ....

I'm guessing that, if we were to model 4683, we would see a tuning regime similar to what Rockstro and Ellis found back in the 19th century. And we can compare that with what Jem has found more recently (although we need to be aware that Jem might be skillfully disguising the tuning issues by redirecting the energy into the second octave. We may learn that too.) All of us would then be free to suggest alternative bore shapes to see if any of our theories look plausible. We could model some level of overall shrinkage, bold and subtle levels of alleged tenon constriction, possible effects of back-reaming, combinations of the above, and anything else that occurs to us.

Whadeyarekon?*

*[That remarkable compendium of all knowledge, the Hitch-hikers' Guide to the Galaxy, identifies "Whadeyarekon?" as a common query used by the Antipodean ape-like inhabitants of a watery green world third from its sun in the unfashionable west sector of the known universe. It translates (as best as can be determined) as: "Do you have a clearly-formed view on this question?"]

[Terry McGee]

Ah, and another thing I imagine we can try (is this possible in the modelling, Tunborough, or do we have to tweak it subsequently?) is to see how the intonation of the flute would look if we set the pitch to:
- around 420 Hz - where flutes had been early in the century
- around 430 Hz - Low Pitch
- 435 - Diapason Normale in France
- around 445 Hz - a compromise pitch proposed by the Society of Arts
- High Pitch up to about 455.

The results Rockstro and Ellis posted suggests the flute body would have been happier at a low pitch, although that wouldn't explain all the bumps and grinds. Of course a lower pitch would have been an impossible thing for Rockstro to have admitted, as he had claimed elsewhere that British pitch had never been low. But if that were the case, why did Rose bring out his Patent Head?

As Sir Walter Scott had observed some 70 or so years earlier:

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive!"

[jemtheflute]

Hi Casey

I'd really like to get as close as we can to the one that Rockstro measured. I think he mentioned about 1828, which would be about RR 1000. But thanks for the offer!

My earliest one is #2130 (c1831-2), but it has a Bb foot. I also now have RRC&Co. #6409 (formerly Ben's) and some others in the #5xxxs. But, as previously noted, I've no bore-measuring tooling. Like Ben, I'm open to well-equipped visitors!

FWIW I reckon #1000 would have been about 1827 +/-1 year. You'd expect roughly the #12xxs to be from 1828. They were averaging 200+ p/a in that period.

As I mentioned, #6845 went to Oz - perhaps it can be borrowed if my purchaser still has it???? I can try to find out if that would be any help....
An additional point about that particular flute, especially given that we have Sebastian's measurements of it, is that my videos demonstrating it could be RTTA analysed.

You know that I have at least one that's at least that early, if not earlier, yes?

Yes, Ben, indeed. But yours and my #2130 haven't been measured. I can't do it....

[Tunborough]

Thank you, Jem, and my thanks to Sebastian. It will take me some time to translate the relative positions of the holes to absolute positions, but for #4683 at least we have enough for the geometry of the tone holes.

We're still missing the geometry of the head joint, particularly the length, width, depth, and position of the embouchure hole. I've never had the chance to peer into one of these, so I have no knowledge of things like where the tuning slide fits in to the geometry. Does anyone have a diagram that might help me?

[jemtheflute]

Thank you, Jem, and my thanks to Sebastian. It will take me some time to translate the relative positions of the holes to absolute positions, but for #4683 at least we have enough for the geometry of the tone holes.

We're still missing the geometry of the head joint, particularly the length, width, depth, and position of the embouchure hole. I've never had the chance to peer into one of these, so I have no knowledge of things like where the tuning slide fits in to the geometry. Does anyone have a diagram that might help me?

Terry has Patent Head details a-plenty, methinks, including the Patent drawings - cf his pages on them. Of course, each embouchure cut will be unique. Also, because of their structure PHs have a shallower embouchure chimney than other heads, a fact which didn't seem to trouble John Rose.

But subject to tenon fit other heads can be used. I can probably do basic measurements of #4683's PH and of one or more of my other R&R heads, though not properly of details like embouchure undercut.

[Tunborough]

But subject to tenon fit other heads can be used. I can probably do basic measurements of #4683's PH and of one or more of my other R&R heads, though not properly of details like embouchure undercut.

Yes, please. I don't need any details of embouchure cut beyond depth. The hope is that the model calibration captures any finer details that affect tuning.

[Terry McGee]

Sounds good. See these two sites for how the Patent Head works:

http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/patent.html
http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/RR_Patent_Head.htm

If we feel that adding the Patent Head mechanism adds too greatly to the complexities, we could choose to substitute a more typical head of the time. I don't expect the Patent Head to do very much in terms of tuning, but more in terms of optimising tone and clarity, by automatically adjusting the stopper distance.

I can probably help with any missing information. But be aware I expect to be called away to Canberra for possibly the next three weeks to wrap up (hopefully!) the upgrade to the National Carillon there. So I may not be able to respond quickly.

Hmmm, three weeks of intensive full-time work, clambering up, in and around the bells. When should I start "acting my age"?

Terry

[m4malious]

PM sent.

[Tunborough]

I finally found some time to start putting together the model for #4683. A couple of issues with the body measurements from Sebastian ... The measurements for the Eb and C# holes are larger than the bore diameter at those points. Is this true? If the keyed holes look like the picture of #4185, the keys sit on landings cut into the outside of the bore, so those toneholes won't be as deep as the outside diameter would indicate. What would be reasonable for these depths?

Terry gives some lengths for the patent head at http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/patent.html, but those are from the lower end of the headjoint. To relate that to the Sebastian's body measurements, I need to know the depth of the headjoint socket, or the corresponding tenon on the left-hand section. What slide extension should I use for A440 tuning; does 10 mm sound about right? What inside diameter should I use for the headjoint?

[jemtheflute]

I'll answer some more of that when I can next week, Tunborough.
Meanwhile, here's a video explaining/illustrating the footjoint tone-hole cuts: https://drive.google.com/folderview?id= ... hYvNXKTu5i

Yes, all the keyed holes necessarily have pad seats/beds which are cut into the tube wall, recessed a little below the surface. On #4683 they are shallow concave seats.