Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: possible easy solution 2 Jay's pet peeve


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Jay Bertolet on July 15, 1999 at 14:47:09:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: possible easy solution 2 Jay's pet peeve posted by Gerald J. on July 15, 1999 at 11:20:08:

It is interesting that the same principles of electrical current flow rates apply to acoustical flow rates as well. What I am proposing is not a sudden expansion of the backbore diameter which would result in a lumped element to the distributed path. Rather, I'm hoping that what I do makes the backbore as nearly evenly cylindrical as possible such that the diameter of the resultant "tube" wouldn't start to change shape until after the leadpipe venturi which would be into the conical expansion of the instrument proper. Of course, since metal will have to have some thickness, however small, I know that I cannot completely avoid a bump of sorts where the mouthpiece leaves off and the leadpipe takes over. I hope to minimize this as much as possible so I really think it is a matter of degree and not so much scale. Since I have a french horn style non-receiver, gap shouldn't be an issue because there isn't any.

I hope I understood your comments correctly. Just being a tuba jock myself, I don't deal much with engineering speak. If I did understand it, you present an interesting parallel to this discussion.


Follow Ups: