Basic wooden flutemaking method, and resources

The Chiff & Fipple Irish Flute on-line community. Sideblown for your protection.
GreenWood
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: To add to the renaissance flute discussion that is under way. Well, the rest of this field is going to be taken up by a long sentence, which is this one, because a hundred characters are needed before it is accepted.

Re: Basic wooden flutemaking method, and resources

Post by GreenWood »

Another boring bit

Image

Forstner/3d bit style. Self explanatory construction, will detail a drawing once refined. Modified spade bit riveted in steel bar with spurs.

The 12mm diameter bits on a 10mm shaft so far have been slightly variable in accuracy, and possibly using The Flintstone rig that would improve. That is a trial for another day, but the difference as stands is very roughly 0.5 to 1.5 cm for the various bits on 10mm shafts , and 1 to 4 mm for the 12mm shaft, over around 65 cm.

The length is from bearing, because that governs the flex possible more than length of wood.

The first bit I made for the 12mm shaft shown above is nominally 16mm. It looks like a forstner, but the rim is open and the horizontal cutting blades (chippers) stretch to the perimeter. The idea with that is that the bit corrects itself after walking around a knot or similar. A forstner would tend to assume any new direction taken because the rim would act as guide.



This worked quite well both in terms of reaching target, as well as giving a smooth bore. On the first slightly knotty piece of Carob (that I went on to make The Tuareg with) the bore was not ribbed, was slightly wavy (around knots), and slightly rough but only around knots (for grain direction there). On the seasoned dry pear it gave a very slightly waved bore for where it wandered around knots.


On pear I drilled 1cm at a time then allowed bit to cool. Maybe for being dry, but the bit heated up faster in it. A HSS bit could be used hotter I suppose, but this bit is plain steel wings and carbon/tool steel spade bit which might be ruined if overheated. For the Carob it was 3cm at a time. Adjusting the bit further for contact points might allow cooler running, but either way the bit did not become too hot to touch.

The first two bores were drilled before refining the bit, and it was drilling at @ 0.5 cm per minute (total time IN PRACTICE - including clearing swarf etc.) with quite a heavy pressure, giving scrapings more than shavings.

Then a bore was drilled after shortening spurs, adjusting cutting angle, and "in practice" times for part dry Carob were

Hard hardwood medium pressure 3cm in 4 minutes.

Soft hardwood light pressure 3cm in 2 minutes

For Pear seasoned endgrain SPEED TEST it was 2cm in under 15 seconds.

Image



Boring dry hardwood endgrain is difficult, when green a little faster but not easy. A spade bit would drill across the grain at 1cm in 10 seconds maybe, for example. A new ok but plain quality spadebit on the Carob, trying to ream out an already drilled 10mm hole to 16mm was much slower, and slower than the 16mm made bit without that pilot hole. These figures are only relative, i.e. the drill used and the amount of pressure I normally place etc.

It is said cutting spurs are not needed when drilling endgrain, but I think they act as guides to create a smoother bore.



Thinking I deserved some modern bits to compare performance with, a standard 12mm screwed ship auger and a 12mm brad tricut twist drill bit were bought.

The Auger

The standard auger was no good in hardwood endgrain, the screw would pull loose and drilling would slow or stop, smaller pieces of wood split. It might work as hand auger on thicker diameter wood (see video in a link below), on green wood end grain, but dry hardwood end grain on a drill was too much for it . Apparently vintage ship augers were tapered along their whole length (examples in a link somewhere), but more recent ones 1850 onwards maybe, seem parallel. Some drawings seem to show slightly wider tip, but not sure on that. Anyway, this modern basic design creates a lot of friction and heat. On all bits so far the hottest was still cool enough to hold after a few minutes of drilling, but this auger was burning hot after under half a minute of drilling, too hot to hold. So the search was on to turn that auger into a barefoot auger, because they are recommended for end grain and directional stability . I could find no detailed drawing, but a few pictures and descriptions online, for example...


Image

The lead screw is cut off, the cutting edge is extended to (past) centre, and preferably a downward wing is ground to shape to smooth edge of bore (not absolutely nescessary per my trial, very difficult to shape... but worked slightly better once added). My one now looks like this...

Image


I had my doubts if it would cut well , because it looks so basic, but it was fast through the seasoned pear, giving shavings and clean bore. It did not need much pressure either. So good, except for the heating. Supposedly it drills very straight but I must test it on a few bores first. I might taper off the shank to reduce friction, must fit it to a shank (or make similar on end of a shaft etc.) for that, so that is for another day.

Something just amazed me also. To speed test bits I sawed a 20cm diameter log of olive, as basis for hard hardwood. I tried the Tri-cut shown just below on an offcut because it was fast on pear and Carob, but it was quite slow needing a lot of pressure. Oh well, olive is tough. I took the barefoot auger to try that on olive and that bored through fast with little pressure but a fair amount of torque. That was just a couple of cm, so the flutes were not much acting as a screw either.

Tri-cut

This bit is good on soft hardwood end grain . Fast, eventually hot but not as much as the auger, smooth hole, nice shavings etc. At start it didn't mind wandering, so probably not as accurate as the auger in that sense. This needs to be fitted or made on a shaft also to test accuracy. First test on hard olive wood though and it was quite a lot slower, still giving nice shavings.

Image


Here are some old catalogues that include barefoot augers, and show other details...

https://archive.org/details/IrwinHowToS ... 3/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/SnellMfgCo1 ... 9/mode/2up


https://archive.org/details/SnellMfgCo1 ... 1/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/GreenleeCat ... 5/mode/2up

https://archive.org/details/GreenleeThe ... 9/mode/2up


......




That third test piece of Carob wood for a flute was a length I had actually set aside for a trial bore and an approximate design for a cylindrical flute. With the now refined 16mm bit , that drilled at around 1cm per minute "in practice" averaged out, with light pressure. The exit was a measured 4mm out, acceptable but a little much.

Image

The reasons for this off centre is that the Carob has very hard heartwood and noticeably softer new wood (see below for density) , and it is grained out in unusual patterns and towards knots, here an example from online

Image

and as can be seen on the blank also. Also I used a fair amount of pressure when meeting hard hardwood instead of letting the bit do its job accurately.


The previous two were under 2mm out, e.g



Image



The solutions for improved accuracy are therefore either going slow on knots, using a barefoot auger possibly, or I might redesign the above bit with a half rim. That piece of difficult Carob I take as an exception for now though, I knew it would drill awkwardly. I suppose a 15 mm shaft could be used, with 5cm length reduced to 12mm behind bit to collect swarf, that would be very accurate I think, but cumbersome.

......


So there is one idea for a bit. I don't think any other bit would have done the seasoned pear much faster, unless on a lathe, or with high revs and pressure, chip clearance and cooling by compressed air... that is not what this way of making flutes is about though. Gun drills on lathes are self centering due to spinning work not bit. I hope to try the very best available bits on hard hardwood end grain using hand drill at some point, I am starting to think there is a reason there are no videos online of those :/ [and having just tried those, well the answer for hardest wood seems to be to use a bit design two centuries or so old and which is only available by special order nowadays via https://www.wlfuller.com/html/barefoot_ ... ation.html ] . Here is one of the older methods at work ...

https://davidffisher.com/2016/10/12/the-t-handle-auger/

.... a very fine screw tipped auger with a screw reaming channel (to allow self centering ?) attached to a plain shaft is a possible idea, as well as looking at centerpoint bits again for a modified kind.

In practice, hand drill and rig is a quite acceptable way to make a few flutes. As I test and refine the method I will note down improvement. Historically, I expect wood was bored when green if possible.

Engine powered lathes were from mid 19th century possibly, and before that it was manpower or just possibly water powered. Even with a worker dedicated to powering a lathe, to drill a bore in hardwood (and they did) would have been a major endeavour...here is an example of speed in hardwood using the above style auger :

"Diderot writes that one man could bore a 5 cm diameter hole through 11.6 metres of pipe per day in alder or elm, but only 1.95 metres per day in oak. "

https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/12 ... hines.html

Very very roughly, Alder and Elm are around 500kg/m3 and Oak is around 700kg/m3 , depending. The above would have been in green wood also, I guess.

So it is possible to imagine that the flutes made before engine power were very much an artistic labour, where much time was then spent trying to make the best of them for want of appreciating the effort already given .

I should (at some point) run a proper series of trials on different woods at different dryness to see if boring green wood is much easier, and to compare drill bit designs. Clearly that will be limited to battery drill at available torque and revs, but should give an idea. Am just collecting various log ends to do this with now.



My previous (but later melted during case hardening) bit left a slightly ribbed bore, and would have been no faster I think than the 16mm bit.



One added problem is that fitting a 16mm bore onto the pole lathe for turning is difficult. I did so with The Tuareg, using a 16mm steel tube, but had to first sand the bore near perfectly straight to do that. I suppose a set of pipes of slightly varying diameter might work, but that is a lot to organise.

Another difficulty is that using The Flintstone, clearance at the point bearings is minimal. For it to drill smoothly, the bit would have to be made on ground shafting (which can be bought). Here I used store bought rod, and spent several hours grinding it near perfectly round. Even so, a tenth of a mm or so makes the revolution uneven, it doesn't catch nor is loose, but there is a fast/slow in each rev due to that uneven friction. It is actually being polished fully round by the bearings, so eventually should run smoothly.

Also, shafting should be very straight. The shop bought rod had to be straightened (the drill tip should spin on one point the whole length of drilling +/- less than a mm). For this I used calipers and not a straight edge this time, mapping out where there was variation along the shaft. To do this support the shaft at ground round ends and measure difference in height at any point along length as turned.

http://www.repairengineering.com/shaft- ... ening.html


For filing the bit to diameter (and the shaft round) I used this jig.

Image


Well, it is a bit that works and costs little to make, except for time. I have to test it on varieties of woods at different levels of dryness to get a better idea, but for now and for the occasional flute it is one solution. I will try making a 12mm / 12mm bit now, probably barefoot auger style, for the bore to fit the lathe, will try refining the above bit, as well as other ideas and will post drawings when I think I have any at best.

The bore drilled the above way with 16mm bit came out at around 16.5 mm on the Carob (for being wetter/softer probably) , and on the pear the start of the bore which sees the drill go past repeatedly was somewhere under 16.5 mm, and at the end was just a tad over 16 mm.

Finally a good description of D-bit lathe drilling, and gun drilling, for those going that way

https://www.labellenote.fr/en/lutherie/ ... ageslongs/


In short, my setup seems more accurate...the D-bit was not timed, but the gun drill is much faster, although first speed test in seasoned pear of the above bit refined would match the speed but for clearing swarf and heating, if I remember the gun drill was on ebony which would take the estimated @ 200 seconds for given length on pear (at 16mm, not the gun drill 3mm) to several minutes or much more. The auger bit might be an answer for hard hardwood though. Either way, accurate fast enough drilling on hardwood without lathe looks possible now.
Last edited by GreenWood on Thu Jun 02, 2022 7:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
GreenWood
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: To add to the renaissance flute discussion that is under way. Well, the rest of this field is going to be taken up by a long sentence, which is this one, because a hundred characters are needed before it is accepted.

Re: Basic wooden flutemaking method, and resources

Post by GreenWood »

End note on the Rudall design.

I had wanted to go through the sort of sound dynamics found on the Rudall, available by change of embouchure and position. Only a recording accompanying those details would have made sense of them, as well as "proving" the explanation. I do not have recording equipment good enough to catch all the detail, and that besides the fact that I do not like doing recording. So it will just have to stay written for now, which is a shame because the information is clearest while just learning to play any flute (for the amount of effort put into trialing different embouchure or style).

I hope to build another Rudall at some point, in tune at D, with some small adjustments (most obviously a larger wall at base for tonehole mod and slightly smaller toneholes etc.).

All descriptions are without tilting the flute.

Without the tonehole mod it played close to in tune (as drawn previously). To do so though, required leaving the flute embouchure very open (blowing more from rim), most open and as well as much pressure for base notes, and fair upper lip cover for second octave. That would not be fun to play that way normally I think, but it was loud :-) . Tone was ok...loud and capable of expression like sligo, but not reedy. For playing other ways it would have been just too far out of tune.

With the the tonehole mod, it plays in tune when played open, as above. It plays in tune also with learner embouchure and some lower lip cover. It tends to prefer a slightly open embouchure unless played reedy, for which the flute embouchure is more covered. That more covered flute embouchure brings out the cleanest tone quality with slightly open player embouchure, on this flute only when played directly across though. When blowing slightly down the flute, it softens the tone a little (both reedy and clean tones), but lifts the base notes, which go out of tune flat in both octaves relative to top notes due to the increased lower lip cover otherwise, when played with medium lower lip cover.

The tuning between octaves is acceptable , 30 cents maximum depending on choice of embouchure, without any effort to correct. In other words it is in a range that could be learned to play in tune with easy corrections. The next flute I hope to bring that all even closer into line.

The connundrum for tuning is which embouchure style to tune it to. If I tuned base up for medium cover clean tone, it would be slightly out for other tones. As adjusting the foot note up would also raise tonehole 6, I have left tonehole 6 flat also. I enjoy playing it as is but should tune it fully.

The base note is slightly soft in tone, but acceptable. It was stronger originally, and with tonehole mod before further adjusting bore (narrowed with sleeve). For me this is ok because I learned to play on a renaissance style flute, and lowest notes on those appreciate a lowering of pressure. In other words, on the Rudall I find a steady note and acceptable tone playing as previously. Others would want a more normal response I expect.

As with the rest of what I am posting here, apart from just documenting learning to make flutes and methods of making possible , the idea is to find simple designs of flutes which are easy enough for someone inexperienced to make, and which play acceptably. It will always be a work in progress, because it is all only as close to workable as I am able to find, the rest being up to others to complete when making any flute. For wooden flutes there are a lack of tried and tested available designs, meaning ones with examples made, played and assessed critically or with sound clip, and there are even less designs that are straightforward builds. Hopefully it will all provide an easier starting point for anyone who might try making a flute, or at least provide some useful ideas or insights.
GreenWood
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: To add to the renaissance flute discussion that is under way. Well, the rest of this field is going to be taken up by a long sentence, which is this one, because a hundred characters are needed before it is accepted.

Re: Basic wooden flutemaking method, and resources

Post by GreenWood »

Notes


Specific gravity

Just by feel gives a good idea of density/hardness (which are closely related) , here I drilled also (visible in picture) which gives a better idea, and finally measured specific gravity (density) also, here on Carob... for good measure.


Image

Goes from not quite centre to including bark, and a square of pear, just to be fair. Some branches don't have heartwood, for some trees the sapwood is as hard/heavy as heartwood, or just simply still hard enough. An Olive sapwood just measured is at 870 kg/m3.

Method for specific gravity (converts to kg/m3) is on a scale with 0.01 gram detail preferably (unless using large wood pieces)

1. Prepare a cube of (standard is dry) wood roughly 2x2x2 cm, though dimension is NOT important. It should be smooth surfaced.
2. Weigh it.
3. Place a small cup of water on scale, ZERO the scale.
4. On a pin, push the wood fully submerged in the water. No large bubbles attached, not touching side of cup. Read weight.
5. Divide first weight by second.


There are videos and explanations online.



Varnish

Some large pine trees were felled nearby. After a sort of melancholy at seeing them felled, later we collected resin to make turpentine and varnish from. At least something to remember them by, in an unusual sort of way.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E_fRnEpQ55E

Pine turpentine can be used to make faster drying oil, is not the same as distilled from mineral oils.

http://violinvarnish.com/more-about-turpentine/


And because I find keeping the outside of well used flutes clean, I will try a violin type of natural varnish on outside of one... if it was good enough for Stradivarius

https://www.academia.edu/14669659/The_N ... nstruments

Some use or recommend modern fast drying bore oils, others say they damage the wood eventually. I will stay with all natural older recipes for oil and varnish.


Cork grease

To be honest, I had never used cork grease, regularly oiling the bore with linseed seems to have kept the cork sealed on my flute. However I needed to be sure I had a good seal on a new flute and had no acceptable grease at hand. So I looked up the recipes and chose the simplest, using bee wax and olive oil (maybe there are better choices). Recipes were less than half wax, but I used half half, heated it all up till homogenous liquid and stirred continuously as it cooled, and the resulting grease seems good.



Time online

I could chat or converse online for ages, would be happy to. It takes too much of my attention though. As you might have noticed, all this most recent series of posts is several weeks of work/"work", even just typing it all up has taken ten hours or so. I could not be doing this even at this slow speed if I spent more time online. So I hope anyone just accepts the "as I am able to" and does not take any lack of reply anywhere, or lack of participation, as rejection. Many times I read a comment and already a whole essay springs to mind...but I know that to write that down would take up the day, and more, probably. I have to actually discipline myself to not visit sites too often so as to not get too involved. Anyway, I hope the research, links and tips will prove more valuable than anything else I might have to say. So I will continue like this, be offline for weeks at a time, post occasionally when I have something prepared, maybe join in conversation for a few days, and so on, and it will probably seem a bit random for that.
GreenWood
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: To add to the renaissance flute discussion that is under way. Well, the rest of this field is going to be taken up by a long sentence, which is this one, because a hundred characters are needed before it is accepted.

Re: Basic wooden flutemaking method, and resources

Post by GreenWood »

When I describe wood:

Softwood is softwood (i.e. pine), they tend to have a density around 500 kg/m3

Soft hardwood is a hardwood with lower density around 700 kg/m3 (for example various fruit woods).

Hard hardwood has a density of towards 1000kg/m3 OR is one that is particularly hard to drill or work in comparison to softer hardwood.

Greenwood is fresh cut and water saturated. The density of water is 1000 kg/m3, and so greenwood will normally feel heavier given most woods are under that density when dry. Heavier does not mean denser or harder in this case, because though most wood becomes lighter as it dries, it also shrinks to become more compact. In other words drilling through water is not hard, or drilling through water expanded wood is easier. Add to this that the bit stays cooler, that shavings instead of scrapings are easier to obtain, that sap might make chip clearance harder or gum up the bit, and try to figure it all out. So there aren't set rules, but in general greenwood is easier to drill and work. Here I will say greenwood (over fibre saturation point, say 35% moisture), part dry (under 35% moisture), dry ( under 20% moisture) , and seasoned (fully dry around 10% or less moisture). Rough guide only, because equilibrium moisture content varies. For an explanation


https://www.wood-database.com/wood-and-moisture/


Seasoned usually means maybe a year or more of storage, but because I air dry wood it takes several months at least to reach that level and I think its hardness is then close enough to seasoned. Also wood found that I use often has been outside drying by itself for several years. To denote long seasoned wood (over years) though, I will say fully seasoned.


Soft hardwood can have knots or reaction wood of hard hard wood.

Hard hardwood can have soft hardwood layers, or sapwood/heartwood boundaries.


The heartwood of a hardwood tree is usually a denser storage wood at centre of a trunk, sometimes absent on branches, sometimes half the diameter or more of a trunk.

The new wood (sapwood) is between the heartwood and almost to the bark. It is the more active living wood.

The heartwood is often denser, stonger and more stable than the new wood. On some trees the new wood is denser. The difference is not always great, the acoustic properties between them , and their stability, might vary, and not nescessarily in favour of heartwood. Heartwood is usually more resistent to water, mould, insects.

Though I am not going to search through for examples for those differences in density, examples might be 850 kg/m3 for heartwood, 750 kg/m3 for new wood, or 800 kg/m3 for heartwood and 850 kg/m3 for new wood. One example at hand for oak, states that hardness and density difference are negligible.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Heartwood



The new wood and heartwood shrink and react to moisture differently, absorb oil differently, and so on. Ideally one side of a flute is not heartwood, the other new wood, for example. The shape, structure and stability of any wood over time depends on method of seasoning, how the wood was prepared (split is recommended over cut in a late 18th century guide for example) and basically so many other factors that related lore is as much anecdotal as proven. The woodworkers of before knew wood though, they worked closely with it without modern machinery and had to understand it well to both save effort as well as to actually make their work reliable.

Moisture content of a not completely dried or seasoned wood will vary. If you take a measurement at surface it will be low (even if sealed), if you saw through and measure centre it will be much higher. For example a log drying for a few months, surface might be under 20 %, but at centre 40 %.

Just so anyone knows what I am talking about, because definitions vary.
GreenWood
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: To add to the renaissance flute discussion that is under way. Well, the rest of this field is going to be taken up by a long sentence, which is this one, because a hundred characters are needed before it is accepted.

Re: Basic wooden flutemaking method, and resources

Post by GreenWood »

The Tuareg cont......

A short clip to try to give idea of tone on the Tuareg flute, mostly scales and boring etc. , as usual on phone and no effects of a couple minutes or so recording condensed to least un-listeneable version . The flute is NOT finished tuning, that will be on next one hopefully, but I include brief design measurements below for now anyway, as stands it is thirty to fifty cents off D, or measure from soundclip. Highest note second octave is not too hard to play, in the clip I work my way from reedy, to softer, and the very last scale is purposefully beginner style emboucher. Still some discrepancy between octaves, some notes low or soft, but close enough to work from. Whenever I have the design refined I will post it in detail.

Recording does not pick up all the sound detail but it gives an idea. As far as comparing it is possible with a Pratten or Rudall, it is somewhere between the two with bass more Pratten. So there are tunes which demand good response in lower octave that fit well on it, for example. It is medium loud.

https://e1.pcloud.link/publink/show?cod ... 9diLwh6AYk

..the idea of this flute is of being an easyish straightforward beginner build to suit beginner playing ability, and that is maybe slightly nicer than a plastic or metal homemade flute, and that has a range of tone that partly overlaps with Irish styles of playing. I appreciate the support a smaller flute embouchure offers to the lower lip, and usually play with rim of flute embouchure at or just below that of the lip, giving a medium to tight size embouchure and a lot of control of the embouchure. When I first tried the larger embouchure Rudall it was like someone didn't put the rest of the flute there, but after a month of playing it... it now feels quite normal also without the lower lip support, but is slightly different to play for that.

Image

....

The "being refined" Tuareg flute at the moment is at this...

Image

Before and after turning (different scale).

It was a pig on the lathe though, lots of chipping and cross grain. I had just worked my way past a pre-existing small crack between new and old wood, when the chisel caught and it split ten centimetres along the same margin. This caused a brief change of composure that was noted by others.

After all though, this was chosen as a rough piece of wood to work out design on, and it had been difficult from the beginning. It was a nice straight ground level branch of Carob about twenty centimetres across, that had dried out as the canopy grew, was completely seasoned.



As I reduced it to blank size, the sapwood was very soft and I thought it would not be usable, it was only approaching center that it hardened up. I measured it at 650 kg/m3 for the sapwood part of flute, which is just about ok, another narrowish Carob branch without heartwood came out at 700 kg/m3 (the original Tuareg) which is ok also, and turned more easily . I think the softwood was from it growing in shade for a while. Anyway, it has some nice heartwood/knot pattern , and though inclusions and cross patterns are not really the idea on a flute, they might at least be nice to look at when finished... if nothing else a shelf flute. The trouble is hard boundaries between sapwood and heartwood can be weak. So I knew drilling the bore would be a difficult test also, as well as the lathe work. I suppose we have glue for that nowadays, if chosen.

The sapwood part was thirsty as anything for linseed oil also, just soaked it up continuously and after a while I figured it would have to do, that if I gave it more it would just sink. The change in colour from the above was quite strong also when oiled, darker and so more uniform looking.

So this had me wondering how it is Olive and Carob have such unusual but attractive heartwood grain patterns sometimes. I might link the studies later, but the short of it is that the trunk or branches have a tendency to add wood unevenly, especially in natural Mediterranean climate of rain then drought. If watered the grain is more even though . Often tree rings merge into one another in places, as they are placed so tightly. In nature Olive often forms larger trunks by merging several original shoots, which adds to the grain pattern. Olive is known for checking along or across certain features, I expect Carob might act similarly.

So in short, for making a flute of these woods, normal sapwood branches of five to ten centimetres are acceptably hard enough. Some of those might include some heartwood, but should be fairly consistent except if they have a large knot from a sidebranch. If using much thicker stock, it might (or not) contain strongly patterned heartwood. Carob particularly seems to have high density difference between heartwood and sapwood, though transition seems more gradual on younger wood.




A different point is the description of the sound of olive wood as "milky sweet" found elsewhere (fourwinds) . For the Rudall derived flute of olivewood that was the description I was looking for, I just could not place the feel of the tone. The "Unique Pratten" was less that way, possibly because it was lighter newer wood and thinner walled.

Another unusual idea I just read is that less dense hardwood helps the shift to second octave ... not sure about that one at all but I do think that the sound of slightly softer hardwoods is "as good" as say blackwood, they sound different and each has its merits I suppose.

Carob was used by Torres on some of his guitars, on modern ukuleles also I think, but best of all it was used for dulzainas. In Spain there are a range of smaller double reed instruments still played, and dulzaina is one of those...why not a short documentary of a luthier as example...in Spanish....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Xlre9_w6Swg

One site (below) says (male/wild) carob was the original choice of wood, others list Carob amongst the more modern alternatives...

"La dolçaina ha de ser de madera compacta y resistente. Antiguamente se construían de madera de algarrobo borde, pero ahora se han encontrado otras maderas que tienen mayor sonoridad."


https://www.balansiya.com/herencia_tabalydulzaina.html

...though it is hard to find details of very early instruments, a couple here look like Carob.

Image

What surprised me though is that I previously described the reediness available on flute with Carob as more oboe than clarinet. Maybe I had read of Dulzainas at some point without taking note, but definitely I was going by the sound when played when offering the description and only later noting that Dulzainas used carob ... it is a very subtle quality of the tone, but not present on other woods so far. I have no explanation for it sounding that way, and it does not need one either.

....

I found a temporary/workable way to fix larger bores to the lathe spindle. Starting with a bore sized steel tube that will not quite fit, I hacksawed it in half for about a third or more of its length, then a tapered split collar at each end secures it open (tight), as well as to the spindle. It seems to hold it straight enough. The string for the pole lathe must go around the tubing or work, because the spindle is not very tight to the tubing. A wrap of electrical tape on the tubing helps the string grip.

Image

....

And finally the pear wood. It took me a long time to turn it, partly because it is well seasoned and partly because I started with a very oversized unbalanced shape, because I don't use large power tools, and because after drilling the bore I thought taking an axe to it might ruin it. It was very nice wood to turn though, and gave a beautiful silky fine finish... so if anyone has a choice on wood to work with , pear should be contender for the above alone . It will darken once oiled.

Image


.....

This is an edit in addition on density testing for previous post on that topic

[Edit in.

Just to note. The density test is weight of dry wood vs its volume, where the volume is calculated by weight of water displaced when immersed. Ideally distilled water with any other correction etc. is used, but for the purpose of simple approximation as described is easily close enough. What does matter though is that the wood does not have bubbles on its surface, that it is fully submersed, that it is not touching the container. Usually I use a transparent plastic cup.

When I tried the test on a very dry porous piece of carob wood, I noticed that it literally fizzed as it soaked up water. This will not give an accurate result, because the volume of water read as displaced by the wood will be less than the dry volume of the wood. All other pieces I tested did not absorb water this way, and the test till the reading is stable is only a few seconds. So, to overcome any possible water absorption, AFTER initial weighing, the surface should be sealed (oil, light varnish etc.) or else the wood wet briefly and patted surface dry of free water just before weighing in water. All that, if the wood seems to be porous in some way. Equally, after one weighing in water, the wood can be patted dry, the scale reset, and weight measured again, until reliable.

This way of testing is a sort of rough accurate or orientative, I think it will give figures that place the wood within 50 or so kg/m3 of accurate , and so allow some idea and comparison, with estimates of actual dryness of wood etc. having to be taken into account also for better understanding . ]

......


I leave it all there for a while, a finished Tuareg will be some time because final adjustments are slow and only after playing it for a whille. Drill bit speed test and so on will be as and when.
GreenWood
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: To add to the renaissance flute discussion that is under way. Well, the rest of this field is going to be taken up by a long sentence, which is this one, because a hundred characters are needed before it is accepted.

Re: Basic wooden flutemaking method, and resources

Post by GreenWood »

Drill speed test.

12mm tri-cut
12mm barefoot auger
16mm own forstner / 3d

Image

Double readings were where in the first the drill seemed to slow, ironically that was while it was actually cutting faster. There is obviously some margin in the results, but I tried to keep it all even, with drill cutting steadily. Medium sort of pressure, always increased to point where bit is biting well. I kept holes as close as possible to similar ring of wood. The tri-cut has always been slow in olive, the barefoot auger is the surprise for olive, just seems to like it for some reason.

In reality, for a 60 cm bore, the actual drilling time might be a choice of between the roughly 2 mins or 10 mins presented here for different diameter and bit. However clearing swarf, heating / recharging and general messing around will add another half hour to that roughly (depending on drill/lathe setup) , and so accuracy and smoothness of drilling come into play and are probably more important than speed. Smoothness of bore, drill maintenance and so on might also be considered depending. Here, the barefoot left a very slightly marked bore, the other two were smooth for example...but for a 12mm pilot hole the barefoot would be fine, or as bore would want a light sanding.

Drill used was B&D BDCDD12 10.8v, all holes were started to a few mm as guide to avoid walking, then timed with that depth measured and subtracted. Battery kept fully charged.
GreenWood
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: To add to the renaissance flute discussion that is under way. Well, the rest of this field is going to be taken up by a long sentence, which is this one, because a hundred characters are needed before it is accepted.

Re: Basic wooden flutemaking method, and resources

Post by GreenWood »

Tuareg Continued...

After moving the top toneholes slightly north and trying to balance out octaves there, I decided to try out larger toneholes to achieve that, to increase venting, at the same time just playing around with different undercuts to understand those better. The result isn't particularly pretty, but if I decide to finish this flute I think three flush bands over the infilled toneholes would make it presentable. This flute is chunky because it wanted to come off the lathe sooner than later, and though I sanded down wall thickness along embouchure and toneholes, to make it slightly more elegant the rest would have to follow. Maybe because of current thickness, maybe because this particular branch of wood is not so resonant, but it lacks some of the timbre of the original Tuareg. It still sounds ok though, and toneholes this way bring the octaves (and so eventual whole scale) to around 10 to 15 cents, which is ok I think. I would prefer slightly smaller holes at top, and the tuning needs some adjustment so that is for next flute of refinement.

Image


Also it was short, meaning the embouchure ended up near end, which still works, and appears to be the flutes way of searching out and introducing me to its brethren of named likeness, one of which (in fact the only existing record of one as far as I know) I then just happened upon (below) .


Image




"It appears that there are no transverse flutes currently played in North Africa
at present, to judge by surveys such as Collaer & Elsner (1983). However,
they do picture (p. 173) a remarkable transverse flute, gaṣba (Pictured Above),
from Westsahara, the former Spanish Sahara, now a disputed territory
annexed by Morocco. No details are given in the text and the morphology of
the flute is unclear from the photograph. However, its presence does raise the
possibility that it is a survival of the
old North African transverse flutes
that made their way into Spain in
the Moorish period. "

Roger Blench

The transverse flute: its worldwide
distribution and organology

http://www.rogerblench.info/Ethnomusico ... s/General/

I hope he does not mind the clip and reference. At some point somewhere I will link in various studies on flute, Roger Blench seems more orientated towards ethnic distribution and local setting, where other (often flautist) writers tend to focus as much on music and more official social narrative as on grass root history and archaeology, which leads to slightly different perspectives.


Apart from most of moorish cultural history in Iberia having been pretty much erased, there are a few very early references to flute in Spanish texts, and an unanswered question over what flute was played in moorish Iberia, end blown or transverse (Nay or Tuareg), though I also think it can be said with certainty that there would always have been some transverse flutes of some kind in any country or territory, at any given point in time. I will have to catch up with Roger Bletch to see if he can expand on "survival of the old North African transverse flutes that made their way into Spain in
the Moorish period" , because I don't have any reference to those, just text which could mean either.
GreenWood
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: To add to the renaissance flute discussion that is under way. Well, the rest of this field is going to be taken up by a long sentence, which is this one, because a hundred characters are needed before it is accepted.

Re: Basic wooden flutemaking method, and resources

Post by GreenWood »

Build log...

I don't intend to describe every flute made here. As this design (or similar) is where anyone might realistically start making wooden flutes (unless determined to go for a conical bore), I figured it good to give descriptions of time taken, difficulties, design process/errors and so on. In reality anyone building their first few flutes will come across any variety of challenges. All these flutes are well playable though, even if not "perfect", and any would be better if I had decided to try adjusting it further instead of leaving it as example. Most of the tuning error in first octave is easily corrected with infill or shortening length slightly, or top toneholes can be reamed out vertical sided and filled with a neat peg, for another go at placement...various times...for example.

Though in general it is enjoyable making these, and without rush over a week or two would be light work, there is work and effort involved... my suggestion is just to pace that work to avoid frustration or getting fed up with any project. I find if just left, after a while there is a moment where you are wondering what to do.... carry on with the flute....nah...and a day or two later you look at the workspace again and think something along the lines of "might as well just sand that part down, it needed doing" ... and so on.

Anyway....

Image

Came out within a mm or two...

Image


Which is good. This is a Carob branch from a nearby orchard that was cut down to plant citrus, and what could be carried away was, the rest ending up on a bonfire. The wood was collected a couple of months ago, with moisture at centre around 30%, so part dry. The 16mm forstner/3d bit was used, and I took time to measure speed of drilling to compare with speed test. Speed test was @ 3cm in 15 seconds on dry Carob. Here I was drilling (just the drilling) 3cm in 45 seconds. Same drill bit, and sharpened. Reasons for this are older drill, friction at bearings, friction from swarf. The swarf compacted in the flutes of the bit and was slightly gummy, causing friction. You could tell when at capacity, because speed of drilling slowed. So it was in goes of half a cm at a time, then clear swarf, etc. With drier wood tipping the rig vertical would usually empty swarf, but here I had to empty the flute of the bit by hand, withdrawing it each time. So time taken was somewhere over an hour. That is ok, I don't expect to drill a full bore in five minutes, but would be happier if I could bring that down to half an hour or less, maybe other wood will be faster...and at some point will try a barefoot auger at 16mm possibly. I just came across a method on lathe by Walter Sweet, so I will link that also

https://www.finewoodworking.com/2005/10 ... -the-lathe

Besides the fact that I'm (usually) quite happy with a workout on the pole (bungee really) lathe, I should really be reducing the blank to a manageable diameter somehow before starting. As is I put it on as seen above, and the result is two hours to bring it to 3cm diameter, then slightly less to work it to shape. Those times depend on how dry the wood is, much easier when green, and even on this part dry piece, when left on the lathe for a few hours and returned to, the first ten minutes are harder work for the wood having dried more.

Also to note is that it does shrink as it dries on the lathe. If all work is done in a day, I think it would not shrink itself onto the spindle. Here it was turned over a period of two days, and the bore was an exact fit to the pipe used as support, and it was too tight to remove when finished. So it went into a closed container, separate from a litre of hot water placed inside also, and after a few hours had expanded enough to be pulled off the spindle. I knew it might shrink fit and it is good to know humidity is able to expand it off. If left to dry too long on a tight spindle though, it is possible the wood might crack. I had thought that if I were to leave work on the lathe overnight , I might cover it with a slightly damp cloth, or a plastic wrap to seal it, and might do so next time.

I decided to adjust the "being refined pig on the lathe" flute and try to clean it up a bit also, as it just looked sad with plugs and all.

Image

Not quite there, the veneer was not thick enough and it needs a bit more tea...and the lower toneholes need trimming etc. ... and it still soaks up linseed oil...but it plays ok. Something to do when I feel to be trivial. I will put full dimensions, a clip, and a description for all of these flutes so anyone has a start if they are trying to make their first flute, when I have that done...will be a while. Inset at right is changes to tonehole size after veneer, with image overlay. Note the curving away not in line toneholes ... artistic license and not meant to be a trademark . :-)
GreenWood
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: To add to the renaissance flute discussion that is under way. Well, the rest of this field is going to be taken up by a long sentence, which is this one, because a hundred characters are needed before it is accepted.

Re: Basic wooden flutemaking method, and resources

Post by GreenWood »

Here is a finished cylindrical flute in D.

Image

Inset is before oiling.

I will just keep calling it Tuareg. Actually it is three designs built around a similar basis, and I will explain some of the differences I have found between them, and the rest with design details in a later post.

Image



The third and finished one, is tuned up to within around 25 cents across two octaves. The first one had slightly more discrepancy between octaves and I didn't finish the rest of the tuning, moving on to the second one that had good octaves (within 10 or 15 cents) but I still did not correct the rest of the tuning well, plus plugged some toneholes.

So the finished one took most of the octave accuracy of the second and corrected the rest of the tuning well but using tonehole size of the first for lower set of toneholes.

Embouchure shape is as similar between each as I could manage, but that might account for some of the differences described below.

Wood density is different across the three.

One interesting thing to do is to take a flute and let it suspended vertically (I had better add in over a soft surface, like a sofa) , held between two fingers around two thirds of the way between top tonehole and embouchure, there is a sweet spot to hold it at. Then with the side of the thumb or a not too hard implement the flute can be rung like a bell by tapping it. It gives a note. This might not work with sectioned flutes or ones with tuning slide, I don't know. Anyway that note is the natural resonance of the flute, I think. It will depend on thicknesses and design as well as wood density. The second flute was well lower than the first, and the third flute was quite a bit higher than the first even though near identical design. It sort of gives an idea of what sounds will be amplified by the flute.

Remembering the different tonehole sizes come into play for sound also. In my opinion they affect tuning and response more than tone, which simply becomes wider or more focused for larger vs smaller holes.

The low resonant note No.2 flute had second octave easy in tune and fairly crisp sound, with the bass full but slightly mellow. It sounded more like a Rudall.

The medium No.1 has second octave clean (but slightly out of tune), with bass more resonant than full, say towards a Pratten.

The higher No.3 has second octave just slightly out of tune and going on a recorder sound, and the bass not so strong but with a resonance to be found.


So, anyone playing around with this as a starting design has many options, and there is a fair leeway, as visible in the different choices of spacing. I would not make TH6 much smaller than the last because it is borderline soft sounding already, or TH1 much larger because that can make top of second octave more difficult in my experience. TH5 cannot be moved south without enlarging it further, it is already well undercut.

All can play Irish style music with practice, but they are not as loud as a conical bore and don't have the full full range of its expression. In exchange they have that expression in a more subtle or reduced way but with some added stability. Any flute will have its own character depending on many variables.

No.2 is most Irish sounding in terms of being flexible and open, so say Josie McDermott playing amongst others goes well. Second octave is easy to play in tune.

Flute No.1 has faster response and good resonance, so tunes like Maid Behind the Bar or some of Kevin Crawfords songs go well on it.

Flute No.3 is clear sounding and talkative, and Rosie Finn's, Road to Glountain (both after Matt Molloy) I like playing on it already...more Galway style, closer to my Rennaisance based flute also.

Obviously all tunes can be played on all, I'm just using known examples to describe the difference in sound.


The newest of these did put on a very slight curvature as it dried, the first to do so besides one mentioned before with a very thin section. It is just visible, any movement on others would need a straight edge to tell. I might brace it to exact shape and let it season like that, but most likely will just keep it as is. Sanding outside profile would correct that also. "Obviously" , if anyone wanted to be sure they had a perfectly stable flute, then they would choose fully seasoned fully dry wood to start off with... even that can warp though as it becomes rehydrated.

Flute No.3 did not need much oil. All of these are Carob wood, so you can tell with just one kind of tree there is a vast variety of wood available. The picture at top has a picture of before oiling included. Sometimes colour change is dramatic, sometimes there is hardly any. Flute No. 3 wood is harder or denser than the others I think.

I will post full design detail, clip, and tuning for each, plus any other notes at some point (likely to be a little while). That way anyone has a start for making a first flute.

Related is finding good embouchure position to achieve in tune scale without tilting or lipping (I think they call it). This deserves a separate topic post because it is not often discussed and relates to how flutes were previously made and played. In other words, position when octaves are most in tune would/should likely have been/be used to complete the rest of the tuning. Some flutes then go way out across a single octave scale if embouchure is much adjusted, others not so much at all...but all flutes can be played out of tune if chosen. This also means different flutes are suited for different embouchures and styles of playing, in terms of tuning alone, which is also why people talk of finding "their flute", or "easiness" of a flute....I think.

[ I will just edit in a short clip of the 3rd flute, here being played for cleanest tone, it is a very bright sound in second octave, and that can just about be made out from the recording...as usual, on phone no effects

https://e1.pcloud.link/publink/show?cod ... PCXbUskGvX

]
GreenWood
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: To add to the renaissance flute discussion that is under way. Well, the rest of this field is going to be taken up by a long sentence, which is this one, because a hundred characters are needed before it is accepted.

Re: Basic wooden flutemaking method, and resources

Post by GreenWood »

How the 16mm bit is made. It could possibly be tweaked better, but is fine as is.

Image
GreenWood
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: To add to the renaissance flute discussion that is under way. Well, the rest of this field is going to be taken up by a long sentence, which is this one, because a hundred characters are needed before it is accepted.

Re: Basic wooden flutemaking method, and resources

Post by GreenWood »

Some notes on tuning.

Most if not all flutes can be played in a range. So for example if you tune the flute to D 440, in reality it might be played reasonably between a quarter note (25 cents) higher and a quarter lower. Some flutes lose their tuning to one degree or another in the process, others are more stable.

Cylindrical flutes seem more stable. However the tuning between octaves is sensitive to flute position. On a cylindrical flute it is the top notes which appear more difficult to line up, on conical bore flutes it is usually the lower notes.

When tuning a flute, in this case a cylindrical flute, each time it is adjusted and then tested for tuning, there is no guarantee you have placed the flute in exactly the same way as before adjusting it. The more experienced anyone is the closer they will be, but it is still largely by feel.

Even then, say you have tuned bass D at 440, when you tune higher notes the bass will then descend in pitch due to bore volume change. Therefore when placing the flute and sounding D at 440, so as to compare if a higher note is in tune with it, gradually the flute position will be being changed, until it is noticed the D seems low when just played "normally", and is then tuned a tad higher. Tuning it higher will lift the next note slightly also, and that new highest note of the scale becomes the reference for the flute, unless it is filled in.

So a certain amount of intuition is needed as to when or where to adjust next. Clearly, it is better to keep notes below the one being tuned, in tune. Within reason. So if TH 3 for example is opened from a drilled 3mm to 5mm, and is still a bit low, a good idea is to tune up TH 4,5 and 6 again. That alone might put TH 3 in tune, or at least the maker will be playing the flute in a more normal position to tune it up in comparison with bass D. I expect anyone has their preferred way if tuning though, so this is just one idea.

Once first octave is closely enough in tune, it is time to be more detailed on positioning, because with a cylindrical flute the discrepancies due to change in position appear between octaves mostly FROM second octave, whereas on conical bore so far I have found discrepancies between octave occur mostly FROM first octave bass notes changing tune. This is a functional or anecdotal way of understanding the differences, and to be accurate someone would have to measure precisely all parameters and contest that "no, actually on conical, 1st octave bass changes linearly, but 1st octave top notes and all second octave rise in unison in an exponential fashion" . Fine, but for the flute maker all he or she has to go by is which seem out of tune depending on if the flute is rolled out or in, placed roughly at standard position to airstream, with roughly same blowing effort being made.

There is also a similar argument to be had over when a flute is considered to be in tune. I think most agree that a flute that can be picked up and played without great effort being made, and sounding in tune, is considered an "in tune" flute ? Then there are those that are difficult to play in tune, and those that cannot be played in tune (by most people) which are considered out of tune. I have listened to various recordings of much respected flute players, and at times found playing that is noticeably out of tune (due likely to the flute) , even where a note is completely missed (for not being blown as needed), and so way out. So this all becomes very very subjective and therefore open to arguments. An acceptable flute can be played out of tune, and difficult flute can be played in tune.

So this set me thinking about how to present tuning. On the Ruddal based design I just figured "well, without tilting between note what is the closest tuning I manage with acceptable sound". Then you realise not all players are going to, or are able to, adjust embouchure to achieve tuning. When playing above begginer level, embouchure is always being adjusted though, very subtly. Sometimes the lips, sometimes shaping air direction in other ways, and so on. Therefore it would seem unfair to demand a flute be in tune without those... but then every player has a slightly different technique which might or might not result in a flute playing in tune. It would not be fair to expect a learner to be given a flute that only plays in tune after a year of practice either.

So, what I have now chosen as presentation is tuning with beginner style embouchure, just using extra air to jump octaves. That ability carries through to when eventually using a finer or more controlled embouchure. That also assumes the player will take the effort to set the flute precisely to achieve good tuning, and that is where the last few parahraphs join back up with "Once first octave is closely enough in tune, it is time to be more detailed on positioning...".


For someone just learning flute, they might not concern themselves with second octave for some time. On cylindrical flute the bass notes almost always play closely in second octave, and the upper notes might stay a work in progress in terms of sounding them for quite a while. Fortunately for cylinder flutes, if the design is ok (i.e. tonehole size and placement etc.) , then second octave "should" follow through from first on those higher notes, but according to whatever discrepancies are known to exist, and when the flute is set correctly.

So we might start with a flute, using a chosen note to match up all first octave to, taking it close to D440 as a whole, taking it close to specifications of design. Most cylindrical flutes play to TH 4 second octave in tune with themselves no matter your embouchure or how the flute is set. It might then take minutes or weeks to be getting a sound from all of 2nd octave reliably, depending on experience. Then the flute is played for a while. Then adjustments are made for final tuning. A learner should be able to find 2nd octave TH 1,2 and 3 by blowing harder, but only once comfortable and in control of set and airstream direction and pressure will they be able to do the following well.

Firstly we try to play TH 1,2 and 3 in tune across octaves. Blow steady in 2nd Octave TH 3 and tilt the flute away until it drops to 1st, then tilt it slightly back again. Then lower pressure and you are playing 1st octave again, slightly more pressure and you are into 2nd octave. Around this setting you should find closest octave difference, no matter embouchure style, no matter lower lip cover. Now, you have to be able to reach TH 1 2nd Octave with the flute set like that. If not, then adjust where the flute is SEATED slightly, until you find you are able to play TH 1 well, and do similar for TH 1 as was done for TH3. Adjust the tilt until best octave difference is found, then try for lower notes without adjusting tilt. To see how they sound. If the difference is greater on one then adjust tilt till best, then try TH 1 again. Try playing the whole 1st and 2nd octave from that setting. All there, sound ok ? If not more adjustment of set, or learn pressure change for weaker notes. And so on. It is likely found that best 1st octave sound doesn't always give best 2nd octave sound at first. This is a question of learning any flute, and of learning set, embouchure and pressure refinement, to achieve best sound. That takes quite a long time. It takes practice also to gain confidence at say sounding a high 2nd octave note in tune straight off, sometimes you just have to jump to higher pressure and meet that point without hesitation, if not it will be more out of tune.

Once it is thought that best tuning is being played, then it might be tweaked a little, leaving any octave gap spaced around center frequency for example, if any note really sounds out. With experience it is possible to play even "standard embouchure out of tune" flutes close enough in tune. For example the first ones of these I made I enjoy playing, but I suppose it isn't the idea to have a standard technique that say always lifts certain notes... because then later, on a more in tune flute, you might go playing those notes too high.

I don't say the above is "the" way to approach tuning, it is "a" way. It is an interesting topic for discussion, but that would deserve its own thread somewhere.

That all introduces the designs presented in the following post.
GreenWood
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: To add to the renaissance flute discussion that is under way. Well, the rest of this field is going to be taken up by a long sentence, which is this one, because a hundred characters are needed before it is accepted.

Re: Basic wooden flutemaking method, and resources

Post by GreenWood »

The design offered below takes the maker to somewhere close to an in tune flute in D.

I include the first two versions also because they show variation possible and differences due to that. In reality every flute made this way will be slightly different, because even if main measurements could be made to better than half a mm, to ensure an identically drilled bore, density of wood and so on to that sort of degree would not be possible due to the nature of the material over time, for example. It is up to the builder to shape the flute as best to their ability and liking, and so I don't say the design is fixed, but one to work from. The toneholes are spaced similar to a Rudall or conical bore flute, for ease of transition, but that might be altered slightly. The result is a flute that a learner should be able to sound throughout the range quite easily, that tends towards being in good tune, that encourages embouchure refinement by rewarding it...and that is made of wood, so providing an introduction to the colour available from it. So a beginner flute that plays well and that might be taken to a higher level of playing if so chosen.

The design of these that is closest in tune is Tuareg 3. The whole range is within about 25 cents. It plays both sides of D 440, depending on set. The tone is steady and it jumps octaves relatively quickly, whereas Tuareg 2 allows more expression from changing pressure, and Tuareg 1 has more resonant bass notes. Whether these differences are due to bore diameter, wood density, tonehole placement or any other combination is not clear for now, I think bore diameter and wood density have much influence. Tuareg 3 2nd octave is easy but needs practice to approach best tuning of around 20 cents. Tuareg 2 2nd octave is the closest and easiest to find at best tuning of around 10 or 15 cents . Tuareg 1 2nd octave is the most out, but can be played close enough with practice at around 25 or 30 cents. Those cent differences are for most out of tune note between octaves (I find it is usually TH2), with the rest being closer.

In other words, DON'T use Tuareg 1 and 2 designs directly as presented to make a flute . Most of their tuning error is obvious and easily corrected , but it is nescessary to know what that error is so toneholes are placed correctly to start off with. Later I will post sound samples, tuning values and so on, so that anyone wanting to approach any of the designs has information to properly work from for each flute.

As can be seen, the amount of variation possible is endless, even with such a set or simple design. I don't pretend any plan presented here is "best" , just workable for anyone to further explore making playable cylindrical flutes, or even just to be able to make only one for own use, with Tuareg 3 being the most suitable for that in my opinion.

I will post design details now, and sound samples and tuning values later.

These are Tuareg 3 dimensions

Image

And based on similar format details for Tuareg 1 and 2

Image


The following is approximate undercutting on each flute

Image


Image

And finally a view of embouchure, which is as described somewhere previously.

Image
GreenWood
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: To add to the renaissance flute discussion that is under way. Well, the rest of this field is going to be taken up by a long sentence, which is this one, because a hundred characters are needed before it is accepted.

Re: Basic wooden flutemaking method, and resources

Post by GreenWood »

This is the last example of drilling accuracy on the Flintstone I will post for the 16mm bit on a 12mm shank

Image

Measured 2mm out ( by drilling through dimple left in end plug, there is a green and red target dot) , actually less because of small error when fitting to window. I have not omitted any results etc. , and have posted all so far. If I find any circumstance where it is less accurate than a few mm I will post about that.

The above wood is fresh carob from a fallen branch. It drilled more smoothly than part dry. While drilling I was thinking of any advice to write down :

I drill vertically to place a fair weight on the bit, at start the drill is quite high so careful to apply pressure in line.

On battery drills you can sense from smoothness of bearings that you have all in line. If the shank is pulled to one side it will flex the tip out of line slightly.

Sometimes the bit will just sink in, others it will drill slow. That might depend on what wood it is meeting, and if so you have to judge best pressure to apply, or whether to go slower. Usually I apply enough pressure that I sense the drill is labouring.

Check sharpness of main cross blades occasionally, I usually do this once or twice drilling each bore, and also if it seems slow. If an edge seems less sharp then a light file to it. At the same time I usually wash the bit with a little alcohol, just to remove any sap etc.

Drill in small distances, you soon learn how far before swarf is packed onto the end of the bit.

The idea is not to go and drill for an hour straight. You could, but much more reasonable is five minutes or less even, then let everything cool and recharge the drill. The work can stand in a corner over a day or two and just be drilled when felt to.

Well, the above blank is for another Tuareg to see if my idea for keys is any good, and the 12mm barefoot auger on a 10mm shank needs making and trying, and then it will be a go at making a baroque flute maybe, and another attempt at a Pratten or Rudall design , a wider bored cylindrical flute at some point also ... just the tuning values and sound samples for the Tuareg on the must do list and the rest will be in its own good time :-)
GreenWood
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: To add to the renaissance flute discussion that is under way. Well, the rest of this field is going to be taken up by a long sentence, which is this one, because a hundred characters are needed before it is accepted.

Re: Basic wooden flutemaking method, and resources

Post by GreenWood »

Choosing branch wood for making flutes.

Most professional makers of flutes choose heartwood of a trunk to make their flutes. This is understandable in the sense that it is more reliable of density and more dimensionally stable than new wood or branch wood. Often it is more resistant to mould and water transfer. For all of those positive facets there are exceptions, and in fact high or top quality wood which has all of those attributes is not easy to come by. There are stories of how certain instrument makers simply went out of business for not being able to guarantee quality due to change in supply. Not only that, but to make a flute this way usually means a whole tree has to be felled.

Branch wood is looked upon as of lesser quality, and the reasons for that are understandable. It tends to have more knots, be of greater variation of density, and formed under tension or with adaptation to tension, due to its more horizontal nature.

From when I started making flutes I just followed whatever seemed obvious in choosing branches to use. As straight as possible, as round as possible, with as few knots as possible. Normally these would be branches that are around a 45° angle or steeper, sometimes new trunks that have copiced around an old one. This approach has worked well, in that distortion present after making the flute has been minimal, no matter if green or part dry when worked. As a rule though, the drier the wood when worked, the less likely that any distortion will take place.

Knots do not seem to have great effect on the dimension, so far at least, but often some checking will appear across them, sometimes just around them. These can be sealed and depending on size with linseed oil, linseed oil and fine sanding, a drop of superglue, or sawdust pushed into any gap and then a drop of superglue on top. For the last method, which works for insect damage like part of a tunnel also, I do that before a final good sanding, and also sprinkle sawdust onto the superglue once it has sunk in enough, so as to mop up extra and to make sure the surface is higher than that of the flute. The final sanding brings everything level and cleans off any excess.

If a flute plays better after being well oiled outside, it is likely there are fine cracks somewhere. Oil will eventually harden and seal them near permanently, a fine sanding with oil helps further, for including sawdust in those cracks. Superglue seems to be the other choice.

When I make a flute that is more a new design, or that might be adjusted much, I choose branch wood that I have that I would not use for trying to make a finished instrument. The reason for this is obvious enough, the kind of preferred straight branch is hard to find, over a year and surrounded by much forest, I have collected maybe twenty pieces of that kind. For example, below is a picture of a large fallen branch of a Carob tree. Actually the main branch is not visible, just a part fallen one, the whole is from around four meters off the ground, with the branch being the size of a small tree in itself, maybe forty centimeters diameter at its thickest.

Image


There must be about thirty meters of wood thick enough to make a flute of there, but short of processing the thickest part of the branch, I came away with three pieces to make three flutes, and possibly could have chosen two more. Of those pieces, only one is well straight and I think eventually stable enough to make a "proper" instrument out of. The rest of the wood just lacked clean, untensioned looking, straight and long enough sections, but for processing the thickest part of the branch which might provide a few more but is quite a lot of work, especially as that part is still resting a couple of meters above ground, and is also very heavy. That is work best left to those who are experienced, or for if that part eventually makes its way to ground level.

Well, there is a reason I decided to write this, because I finally managed to make my first well curved flute from one of the "workable but not ideal" branches from the above tree. The flute is to try out a key system on, which explains the wrap of masking tape.

Image

As can be seen, the branch was very knotty, and I actually liked the rustic look that gave. The bark left on gives that straight from the nearest tree to the pub look, as opposed to the inverse which undoubtedly some are familiar with. It was bored (line marked in) and turned near fully green, and gradually changed shape as it dried. It still plays as well as any other.

So, why not explain a little of what is happening here, why did it curve.

Most wood shrinks towards the center (radially) or around the center (tangentially), with values of around 5 to 10 % depending on wood type. Along the trunk or branch (longitudinally) , it does not normally shrink (values given are 0.1 or 0.2 % of length). So a branch or trunk will remain nearly the same length as it dries.

The exception to that is reaction wood. Reaction wood is different wood, usually appearing as thicker rings, that helps keep a tree or branch straight, against the weight of gravity, or sometimes frequent strong wind from a consistent direction. Reaction wood shrinks to 2% or more longitudinally. As it is usually more on one side than another, your branch or trunk will try to shrink more along that side, and you end up with a curved flute if it included much reaction wood. The reasons for this extra shrinkage are given as a pre-existing tension, and because fibres are not arranged straight along the branch as normal, but also slightly across the branch. These fibres shrink together as the wood dries.

There are two kinds of reaction wood.

Tension wood is the kind that is usual in hardwoods (and from which most flutes are made). It pulls the branch towards what is pushing it down.

Compression wood is on the other side of the branch, trying to push it upwards. This occurs on softwoods, not really on hardwoods. Hardwoods might put on extra normal wood on the underside of a branch to help support it, but it is normally not considered compression wood or behaving as compression wood when drying.

Whichever way it is looked at, the answer is relatively simple. A bore formed along a straight branch, starting and ending at center of rings, is not going to include much or any still active reaction wood. It will be better even if the rings which make up the flute are of even appearance around that center, and even more so if they are even (circular) across the whole branch, and even more so if that branch was not completely horizontal, and even more so if it is allowed to dry out first to a great degree before boring.

However, wood is not completely predictable as a material, and so far some flutes have ended up straight even though I thought they would curve, and I should think that at some point I will make a flute and expect it to stay straight, and it won't.


So as pictured here

Image

The above flute was bored as in No 1 example, but the idea is No 2 example, choosing the start and end point that appears most balanced (usually the center of the rings) , where it is also known that that center runs in a relatively straight line between start and finish.

There are plenty of links available in search on the topic, some are

http://www.estgv.ipv.pt/paginaspessoais ... dInUse.pdf

https://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/woody/reaction-wood.shtml

https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/F-72-11

https://treewright.blogspot.com/2010/04 ... -wood.html
GreenWood
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: To add to the renaissance flute discussion that is under way. Well, the rest of this field is going to be taken up by a long sentence, which is this one, because a hundred characters are needed before it is accepted.

Re: Basic wooden flutemaking method, and resources

Post by GreenWood »

A (sort of) easy low tool way to make a cylindrical wooden flute.


This post is just about my playing around trying to make a flute with minimal tooling. I'll just throw down some pictures taken along the way and let the reader try to figure out what I'm talking about....


Image



Above. The part finished flute, I present it like that so different details are visible, i.e original seams.



I thought I would try to make a wooden flute with the least amount of tools nescessary. In other words what many have at home already. After gluing an extension on a flute and that holding well, I figured that that way could be used to put a flute together. I know some manage to drill long bores freehand with extension shafts and so on, but already we are talking buying extensions as well as some level of skill.

So I started the project by buying a 2m maple curtain pole, 28mm in diameter. In fact it was of four or five lengths of maple scarfed together, not obviously visible when buying, but no matter because the flute was going to be built of 10cm long pieces.


The scarfs were not used. The design I chose was a keyless cylindrical flute with parabolic head, sort of like a Boehm but without the keywork.

Six 10cm lengths were cut, and where ends joined was marked so that when reassembled a good fit would result.

This took five minutes, or at most ten, and I'm picturing making a flute in an hour or two :-) .

To drill a centered pilot hole even for 10cm is not easy. Maybe someone with a drill press might have a way, but otherwise a guide is needed. So I made this


Image


It started by shaping an initial cutout to where a 10mm drill bit touched the opposite side after being drilled through one end, so that the piece of flute sat with centers at start and end of drill path. The wood was wrapped in foil and resin packed under it when in correct place, to leave an accurate seat. So I started drilling the various pieces but even like that there was too much play on the drill and end points were sometimes 5mm or more out. The design had a tolerance of 1mm or maybe two, because the pole was near correct size.

So I messed around making a steel tube bearing, but that still had play, then made a pipe drill bit but that would jam in the tube and so on, and generally had fun for a few hours without sorting anything out. The idea is there and would work with right set up. Eventually I discovered that the pipe bit was good for straightening already bored holes, using it sort of like a chisel but on the drill, starting from an end that had the hole already centered.

In reality, the 10mm holes took a total of five minutes to drill, the rest was straightening them.


Using a guided paddle bit, working from the other end of the jig, the wood pieces were reamed wide. The final 2 cm of pilot hole and reaming was outside of the jig, because length of drill bits being a bit short.

16mm bit would drill through each piece within five minutes. Overheating of drill bit meant stops were nescessary on top of that.

So there is a half an hour for reaming a full length 16mm bore.

However the main bore on this flute was to be around 19mm. The 19mm paddle bit when starting with pilot hole, drilled about 5mm in two minutes, very slow. It drilled 5cm a minute though when the bore was already at 16mm. So I drilled 16mm for a few cm, so the (longer guide) on the 19mm would still reach the pilot hole, then drilled 19mm, and so on.

So there is around 15 mins for a half length bore of 16mm (to be reamed to parabola), and 20 mins for the 19mm section.

Glueing

I glued two halves of the flute of three pieces of wood each. Each piece of wood was joined to the piece it had been cut from, the various ends being labelled. That the pieces fitted flushly was checked. The bores only had a slight variation off center, the flushness was checked with bores lined up. For ends that were not part of previous piece of wood, extra attention, sanding and so on to line them up flush is needed.


Then superglue was added to one side until it was a bead the whole way round over all of the end, and the pieces held together till stuck. I wore latex gloves for this so that I could check the seam was flush. Where the bore line up left an uneven seam, I would line up the bore with a pipe inside the bore, and remove it before it was glued. I don't know if there are better glues for this. The joins have been strong enough for normal handling and sanding, but I don't think would stand great pressure across them. I don't know how the join will react to or affect wood expansion and shrinkage, that is something that would only be obvious over time. In other words, I cannot guarantee that a flute made this way will not fall apart while playing a lively jig or when the mists roll in.


On the first picture I have covered a seam with a ring of wood. I chose to file down as in detail 1 in image above.

Then from a spare bore length cut a piece to width, sanded inside until about 2 mm thick, then cut that ring and slid it to place, where it is eventually superglued. I left that in the picture unfinished, but I will not sand it flush and instead leave it as a feature. For the rest of the seams I will do same but sand flush I think. There are many ways to reinforce these seams, so it is up to anyone to choose. Priority is to have fibres/strength running parallel to the flute across the join. Even cloth wetted in superglue straight on outside will do, will leave sanded ridges as feature.

As I am calculating time nescessary to make a somewhat reliable flute, but minimal time, I will add in 30 mins for doing that. Glueing the initial joins was maybe 15 mins.

In reality the method I chose is half an hour extra for each seam though. This can be done at leasure if the flute made is liked etc. , as long as anyone is a bit careful.


Shaping the parabola.


This is where it started to get difficult. For the parabola, which is just this build as other previous designs are made with full length at 16mm for example, I made a sanding reamer shape (the kind used on conical bored flutes), for the roughly 20 cm of parabola.



MAPLE and sanding.

Maple is a medium density hardwood, but it has a hardness near higher density hardwood. The maple sold (white coloured) is the new wood of the tree, not the old wood, because the new wood has the better properties. There are different varieties of maple, the various others are supposedly not much different than the "hard maple" variety, though I don't know what kind I had bought. From online

"Hard maple is one the toughest to sand because there is minimal grain and it is very hard."

I will compare it with olive, because that has similar hardness but higher density, because I am familiar with working olive.

So, using quality 40 grit paper that would have many putting on a plaster if it was just brushed over the knuckles, olive will be slow but give a smooth slightly oily powder whichever way it is sanded. With maple, I could bring back the end of the flute quite fast, good. I could sand along the grain of the outside of the flute and slowly bring it down, with a light fluff of sawdust coming off, ok. I could sand across the grain of the flute at one place on the outside using a backing block and bring that down about as fast as olive, ok. The main difference with maple is that deep, difficult to sand out with finer paper , scratch marks would be left from coarse grit paper, and haphazardly.

The inside of the bore though :-( . With olive it just was like the outside, a bit slow but very reliable. To make a whole conical bore needed two wraps of 40 grit if I remember, then I think one of 120 (or one, then two).

On the maple I started by trying to widen the very end from 16mm to 17mm, for 4cm, with a dowel on a drill, the dowel wrapped in 40 grit. After half an hour I was at 16.5 mm, at best. So I turned to reaming, from 16 to go to 19mm at start, and 16mm to go to 17mm at end, over @ 20 cm. On the olive wood the initial steps were of 2mm not the three of 16 to 19, but all else was roughly the same. The first wrap engaged, sanded a bit then started complaining. It had taken off the initial 3mm edge, then worn through the sandpaper over a few cm. To be expected maybe. Then the next the same, it engaged and sanded for a minute before complaining, and in fact the grit had sanded through the paper and was starting to sand the wood of the reamer. I was there for about three hours trying to get the parabola reamed. I got through several large sheets of sandpaper. I think what was happening is that the grit was just getting pulled straight off the paper as soon as I gave any pressure, then sanding the paper away, then the reamer. If I didn't give pressure it just would not bite and no sanding would happen. In the end I drilled 18mm to depth needed, went a bit lighter, and eventually finished that end of the flute. Probably four or five hours in all, and as a bonus the bore outside the parabola ended up at over 20mm for all the sandpaper moving past it.

The only suggestion I have to resolve this on hard to sand wood is to first drill the most possible out in steps. I had thought of soaking the wood also, but am not sure if that would have helped.

A 20mm Bore

So, because the bore there started at 20mm, I then drilled the other half using a 19mm bit which gave around 19.5 mm and nearer 20mm after some sanding. At least, a 20mm bit fitted in for some way at each end.


Drilling toneholes and minimal finish (tuning, embouchure, sanding outside and bore, some oil) I will put down as an hour.

I actually spent several hours on the tuning because of working it out from small pilot holes. I started by using near to placement of Terry Mcgee's cylindrical Boehm style flute, which I will link when I post design. Reaching max tonehole size and undercutting, I had to either add bore at end and infill some undercutting (to fit lower pitch), or infill some toneholes south (to reach 440). I chose the first , pitch of flute is 50 cents under A 440. Octaves are good. Tuning is now within 25 cents with some infill, still visible in first photo, to be sanded back.


And there is a flute. Cost of wood 15 whatever, enough for two or three flutes, and 5 for sandpaper. I didn't write a more certain method or description because really I was just spent the week more messing around with ways of making it than actually setting to a work. As always, with difficulties often it is better to put the work down and return to it later if losing patience or getting too frustrated.

Except for the parabola (different wood or much step boring ?) starting from scratch and making all of the above might be a few hours a day over a week for anyone. Someone used to woodwork and who works efficiently might make all in four or five hours.

The time to make only the flute (and not including parabola) with all material at hand and jig working is about two and a half hours for minimal finished for someone confident and working steadily.

In reality most people would take more time.... the time that suits, better finish, thinking through difficulties etc.

The flute sounds good though, is easy to play and has expression, is responsive at embouchure. I will post a pdf of the above, plus design and soundclip. Then separately later tuning values alongside those of the Tuaregs when I get around to recording and calculating all of those.

:-)
Post Reply