Klarinet Archive - Posting 000767.txt from 1998/09

From: "Dee Hays" <deerich@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Solid Aluminum Clarinets?
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:54:25 -0400

-----Original Message-----
From: GTGallant@-----.com>
Date: Monday, September 21, 1998 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: [kl] Solid Aluminum Clarinets?

>In a message dated 98-09-21 19:21:55 EDT, you write:
>
><< Using cast material would be very expensive. >>
>
>
>The exact opposite is true. Machining is more costly in the longrun. More
>material is wasted and extra steps (which costs $$$) in production are
needed
>to make a finished product. On the other hand, building 3 or 4 metal
>clarinets out of raw aluminum stock would definately be cheaper than
molding.
>In a production capacity, molding is the way to go. This is exactly why
>student plastic clarinets only run around $250.00. Molding eliminates
boring,
>reaming, exterior shaping, tone hole placement and cutting, etc. Those
small
>hand-labor tasks cost money.

Molding plastic and/or hard rubber is an entirely different thing than
casting metal. Castings take a lot of finish machining if you want a smooth
surface since the as cast surface is quite rough. Some casting processes do
yield better surfaces than others but they would all need substantial finish
machining.

Also a metal casting MUST be a certain minimum thickness for good results in
the casting process (generally 2 to 3 mm which is about 1/10 of an inch).
This leads to excess material usage and excess weight. The resulting
product would actually be HEAVIER than wood or plastic as metal is much more
dense than either of these materials. So this also eliminates casting as a
viable means for producing metal clarinets.

Metal clarinets of the past were NOT made by machining but by rolling and
forming from flat sheet stock. It is unlikely that any finish machining was
required or done (or any other type of machining).

Dee Hays
Canton, SD

-------------------------------------------------------------------------