why so relatively expensive?

GaryKelly · Post by **GaryKelly** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:34 am

But! Let's not forget the wall-thicknesses, else how can we determine how much more metal there is in the Howard? Plus, don't forget to remove the amount of metal drilled out for the finger-holes in each whistle...

I always did hate maths.

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:58 am

Jens_Hoppe wrote:
Wanderer wrote:
Henke wrote: I would think it's about double the size of a high D Gary
Double the length
Double the width
Quadruple the size (volume)
Actually, double width <=> quadruple cross section area.

If also double length, it's eight times the volume of a high D.

You are right..of course

Where's that "doh!" icon when I need it?

trisha · Post by **trisha** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 5:04 am

Volume or V O L U M E

happyturkeyman · Post by **happyturkeyman** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 5:10 am

Here's my thoughts on the subject:

We could do this dark ages stylin' by getting a large container of liquid and seeing the difference in the amount of water displaced when you submerge each whistle.

Or we could pull out a periodic table and some scales and see which tube has more molecules in it (and by what factor). Of course this would be much harder if the material of either whistle were an alloy (brass) or something like nickel-plated copper. Would work great with pure nickel or pure copper tubes, you know. I like this idea but then we'd end up neglecting the fipple in the mix. oh well.

And the volume of hollow tubes isnt that hard to work out. Its just pi(r1squared - r2squared) times the heighth of the tube.

r1 is the radius of the whole thing and r2 is the radius of the bore. Speaking of bore, im boring myself. Yawn.

(pardon me if my math is wrong, I haven't factored out so much as an x for about three months and its four in the morning.)

happyturkeyman · Post by **happyturkeyman** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 5:13 am

Sadly, the water barrel would be the most accurate method.

Those dudes really knew what htey were doing.

Jens_Hoppe · Post by **Jens_Hoppe** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 5:27 am

happyturkeyman wrote:Here's my thoughts on the subject:

We could do this dark ages stylin' by getting a large container of liquid

Mmmm!! Large containers of liquid... Pint-sized, I'd say!

Cheers,
Jens

happyturkeyman · Post by **happyturkeyman** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 5:33 am

Jens_Hoppe wrote:
happyturkeyman wrote:Here's my thoughts on the subject:

We could do this dark ages stylin' by getting a large container of liquid
Mmmm!! Large containers of liquid... Pint-sized, I'd say!

Cheers,
Jens

You aren't gonna fit a low D in a pint. Maybe a giant container of alcohol. What is beer brewed in, anyway, a vat? a tun? My grandma's bathtub?

GaryKelly · Post by **GaryKelly** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 5:41 am

happyturkeyman wrote: You aren't gonna fit a low D in a pint.

But!! If you cover all the finger holes and the airway, and *suck* the pint up with the low D, you get drunk really quickly! And it's sooo much cooler to use a Goldie than a common plebby drinking straw (plus no other goit can get their straw or their Low D into yer pint while you're doing it!). Woohoo!

happyturkeyman · Post by **happyturkeyman** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 5:52 am

I have a feeling I would get tarred and feathered around here if I advocated temperence... so I try to play along. TeeHeeHeee!

Jens_Hoppe · Post by **Jens_Hoppe** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 5:56 am

happyturkeyman wrote:You aren't gonna fit a low D in a pint. Maybe a giant container of alcohol.

You are right. The problem definitely calls for bigger solutions.

"I'd like a gallon of Guinness. For a physics experiment, that is."

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 6:32 am

happyturkeyman wrote:We could do this dark ages stylin' by getting a large container of liquid and seeing the difference in the amount of water displaced when you submerge each whistle.

Pythagorean geometrics rock!

GaryKelly · Post by **GaryKelly** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 7:05 am

Walden wrote: Pythagorean geometrics rock!

Archimedes' Pet Rock!