Klarinet Archive - Posting 000149.txt from 1999/12

From: "Karl Krelove" <kkrelove@-----.com>
Subj: RE: [kl] Maybe not so OT
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 16:09:33 -0500

Since I think I'm responsible for the current incarnation of this thread,
let me jump in for a minute and try to refocus, for my own benefit, on my
original question. We've revisited saliva vs. tap water and gotten into
microbiology, which may well have a central part to play in the eventual
decay/destruction of a reed. Malia's original post had to do with _rapid_
deterioration of a reed's vibrating properties (over a few days). My
observation was that the cane had not necessarily "died" (i.e. been degraded
to a point of uselessness) but had merely had changes take place in its
physical dimensions (and perhaps its density if solids were precipitating
out of the evaporating liquid when the reeds dried). I also said that most
reeds that started out vibrating well could be reclaimed at this stage by
adjustments that, in effect, restore physical dimensions that may have been
compromised over the first few uses. In other words, in my experience, reeds
at this stage have not been destroyed, as most of the microbiological
explanations seem to suggest is happening by virtue of enzyme or bacterial
activity, but are still quite viable and have relatively long (in terms of
weeks) lives ahead of them.

I'm postulating a simpler, less biological explanation for the very rapid
and generally reversible "break-in" effect. What I am most curious about is
how, if I were, for example, to approach one of our science teachers at
school for help, any physical changes in the reed could be observed and
measured. As a start, how would I (with help) compare reeds soaked, perhaps,
in distilled water (which should be pH 7.0 and have no suspended minerals to
precipitate out) with reeds soaked in saliva and those soaked in tap water?
Obviously, adding a play-test stage would confound the results because I'd
be introducing saliva into all the samples during the play-test, so my first
observations would be (if I knew how to make them) simply looking for
changes in the wood structure or dimensions from just the soaking. Is this
basic microscopy (what do I see that looks different?), or are there more
sophisticated ways of doing this? I emphasize that I'm not really thinking
about the longer process that eventually does (or seems to) irretrievably
destroy cane reeds. I guess basic to this is the question of whether or not
both phenomena ("break-in" and eventual "break-down") are really stages of
the same continual process or have different causes.

Enough noise from me. I'll settle back now and read whatever comes in.

Karl Krelove

> -----Original Message-----
> From: W. Edinger [mailto:wde1@-----.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 05, 1999 2:42 PM
> To: Klarinet list
> Subject: [kl] almost totally OT
>
>
> Some comments on cellulose digestion - humans, porcupines, any
> animal (including termites, believe it or not), are completely incapable
> of digesting cellulose, so that's not what's happening when reeds break
> down. Technically, even termites don't have the capability of digesting
> it - it's actually the bacteria in their guts that make the enzymes
> (cellulases) that can do it (this may seem like a minor technicality to
> most people, but of major significance to a microbiologist :-)). But I
> do agree that there is most likely some enzymatic activity contributing
> to the aging of reeds. I'd bet that the mechanical action of vibration
> does more than anything, though, and based to a large extent on the
> original density/cell morphology of the cane, which perhaps explains why
> some go faster than others. Cleaning them with hydrogen peroxide sure
> makes sense to me, but as we all know, they'll still wear out
> eventually. Also, as Fernando pointed out, the acids, bases, and
> enzymes in saliva are pretty dilute; and the ionic strength of tap water
> is so low, and thus the buffering capacity so low, that minor changes in
> acid/base content reflect changes in pH that seem more significant than
> they really are. Finally, most pH meters will read tap water - yes,
> even certifiable pH 7.0 tap water - at around 5.4-5.7 due to a fluke in
> the way the electrodes work. If you didn't do a major or minor in
> biochemistry though, don't blame yourself. Just use pH papers to get a
> more accurate reading for tap water.
>
> Bill E.
>
> Did you know that OT also stands for Occupational Therapy? Just ask my
> wife. ;-)
>
> --
> ****************************
> "Music and wine are one."
>
> - Ralph W. Emerson
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
> Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
> Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
> Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org