 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: JC
Date: 2003-06-05 07:36
Does anyone have any experience with this swab? My mom found an ad for this company in her flute magazine and wants to know if I want to get one when she gets her 'flute snake'. They're made of some synthetic material, so I'm wary, because I've heard that silk is the best material for swabs.
Here's the website: http://www.sandpiper-enterprises.com
Cheers,
JC
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2003-06-05 12:50
I have friends that play flute and use the "snake" and my initial tests are not acceptical for the clarinet. The mechanism of action in cleaning a flute is a little different than the clarinet. IMHO one should absorb the moisture from wooden instruments (the "snake" is made from a water impervious material") rather than trying to wisk it out. This concept works for the metal flutes and also some wooden flutes that have the bore sealed against moisture but the clarinet bore is more porous and water permeable. Wisking water out will not completely absorb moisture that may accumulate at tone hole openings. I am open to any new concept but would have to thoroughly test the product (which I have not done for the "snake") before giving my "considered" opinion and therefore this is a "theoretical" opinion.
The Doctor
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2003-06-05 13:27
Hmmmm......doc, first time I don't wholly agree with you. I never assumed that silk or cotton hankies or wire core swabs got all the moisture out of the key/pad areas either. Can't imagine how they could. Some readers feel that the purpose of the swab is to remove most of the bore moisture and redistribute what's left.......and the inference is that some moisture remains in the hole areas. In my opinion extra procedures would be required to dry tone holes beyond normal swabbing. Of course I haven't done any statistical analysis or methodical scientific measurements. Just one man's opinion.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Horlick
Date: 2003-06-05 14:32
Hey this thing may have some promise. I have some of those fuzzy pad saver thingies for my sax and clarinet, but stopped using them when I realized that they seem to function to just hold the moisture against the bore (and sax pads) long term instead of actually drying the horn.
These "snakes", or even the pad savers may be of value to run through the horn after use and then remove, all prior to a good swabbing with an absorbant soft swab. My thought is that you would remove the bulk of the moisture with a squeege action and then the absorbancy of the follow-up swab would be more effective at getting the residual moisture out!
Jut another theory, Omar!
I normally just use a silk swab, it comes out of the horn really saturated near the top end. My thought on the use of this swab (silk) is that it functions by removing a lot of the moisture and then spreading the rest thinly over the bore so that it has a greater surface area. Liquids spread with a greater surface area will evaporate more quickly, however they will also have a greater surface area of the wood covered for greater absorbtion... sort of a win-loose!
I just may break out that old fuzzy thingie I have and use it as a pre-swab squeege!
IMHO, Terry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Henry
Date: 2003-06-05 15:50
The whole purpose of a swab, "snake", "pad saver", or whatever, is to remove as much free moisture from the instrument as possible. This is of course particularly important for a wooden instrument. This leads me to the following considerations:
1. The material must be as hydrophilic ("waterloving") as possible;
2. The material must be porous (to suck up the moisture into its pores, away from the wood surface);
3. The smaller the pores, the more "effective" in the sense that it is superior in removing water from the tiniest nooks and crannies;
4. However, the smaller the pores, the longer it takes for the water to travel from the wood surface into the material;
5. The more "porous" (i.e., the higher the total pore volume per unit weight), the more water can be absorbed for the same weight of "swab" material.
6. The material should not shed lint to potentially cause pad leaks or cause other mechanical problems because of build-up.
7. The "swab" should not get stuck in the bore.
So what would be the best solution? Honestly, I don't know!! But I could come up with a few suggestions.
1. It would obviously be a very bad idea to use Teflon fibers as the swab material!
2. Is silk superior to, say, cotton? I believe that cotton (with its many hydroxyl groups) is superior to silk (which is more like Nylon in its chemical make-up) in its degree of hydrophilicity.
3. On the other hand, silk threads are finer and therefore silk has smaller pores (although cotton fibers are rougher and thus provide many additional "micropores"). Also, silk is less likely to shed any material.
4. Perhaps rayon (regenerated cellulose) would combine the best properties of silk and cotton! Just a thought.
5. It is not enough to just pull a swab once or twice quickly through the bore. A lot of water will be left because the absorption process takes time! Just let the swab sit inside for a little while. I try to do this with the Doctor's swab, and the difference is dramatic!
6. I think it would be wrong to leave a swab or pad saver in the horn and then close the case. It'll take forever to get rid of the moisture through evaporation.
Sorry for this long epistle. It doesn't give all the answers but may provide food for thought.
Henry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2003-06-05 19:49
I guess that my point about the squeege action is that it rapidly redistributes the moisture and if tone holes are in the path then water is pushed into those areas. At least with an absorbent material you are drawing the water away from the places (tone holes) that you do not want it to accumulate. Swabs, as Bob points out, do not do a great job of actively getting into tone holes to remove moisture but if they are absorbent enough they draw the water by powerful capillary action away from these areas. Silk is more absorbent than cotton - a fabrics characteristics chart will tell you so but the silk must be of the correct weave and thickness to work well as a swab. All silk (especially the scarf or handkerchief weight and weave) will not work sufficiently well as a heavy weight (see previous posts about swab materials) fleeced finish Charmeuse silk swab material. (Disclaimer - I sell silk swabs) Design of the swab leading to the interal compression profile of the swab in the bore is very important too. Often we tend to over simplify and lump things into too broad catagories - e.g. all swabs, swab material (cotton, chamois, or silk), etc.. but a lot depends on the design of the swab, and the particular characteristics of the type of material used to make the swab. As I indicated - my post was not based on test data but only a couple cursory observations and some brain associations triggered by these observations.
The Doctor
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarence
Date: 2003-06-05 20:08
This is one area that I stay simple. A few passes with a cotton hanky swab does the job for me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Henry
Date: 2003-06-05 20:22
Clarence... You may be right. I believe that a quick pass through the bore with a cotton hanky will remove more moisture than the same procedure with a silk swab. However, if you give the silk swab a bit more time inside the bore, it will probably do the better job.
I also agree with the Doc that a hydrophilic swab will indeed draw water from the tone holes by capillary action, provided the water is present as a continuous film on the wood (but is it?) and sufficient time is allowed for the process to be completed. None of these things happen instantaneously!
As stated, I use the Doc's black silk swab myself and I am very satisfied with it. But I have learned to give it time to do its "magic" work. Moreover, its design is such that I cannot imagine it ever getting stuck!
Henry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2003-06-05 20:50
One of my pet theories is that cotton helps to remove "encrustations" better than silk does. I also try to keep simplifying things, e.g.: I made a "clothes pin" type sheet music hold down(for outdoor work) by drilling a hole in the end of a wooden clothes pin and glueing in a small diameter dowell. I use the dowell to push my handy handkerchief through the horn sections thus eliminating a conventional swab altogether. The handkerchief can be used for other purposes as well. But,yes, I do use doc's black jobbie too and a maroon one from another source. No,doc, the light bulb chain has never caused a problem!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2003-06-05 21:03
A clarification: no way would I leave any swab in the bore after using it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
