 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: richard smith
Date: 2015-02-26 00:22
Accuracy is becoming better and will permit your favorite mp to be dimensionally duplicated, and perhaps materially also, eventually.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClaV
Date: 2015-02-26 00:48
Direct 3d prinitng is largely limited to thermoplastic materials with some compromises in strength and dimensional stability.
Hopefully, utilizing a lot of similar developments to 3d printing, more affordable simple CNC machines will be developed for custom cutting. Then combined together, CNC and 3d printing may bring custom-made clarinets in every household
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2015-02-26 02:11
The art is not in producing that stuff. The art is in making the best use of it.
(Brad, Clark, David, others - no offence meant....)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2015-02-26 03:03
Scanning has limited resolution and will introduce errors. It might be limited to convex shapes too. Scanning the interiors of a mouthpiece might be difficult. All laser scanning techiniques I know have problems with edges.
Printing will also produce errors. I attended a speech by James Kanter and it became apparent that the required accuracy for the facing of a mouthpiece, down to 1/10000 of an inch, is way too high for today's 3D printers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClaV
Date: 2015-02-26 03:36
Johan H Nilsson wrote:
> Scanning has limited resolution and will introduce errors. It
> might be limited to convex shapes too. Scanning the interiors
> of a mouthpiece might be difficult. All laser scanning
> techiniques I know have problems with edges.
>
> Printing will also produce errors. I attended a speech by James
> Kanter and it became apparent that the required accuracy for
> the facing of a mouthpiece, down to 1/10000 of an inch, is way
> too high for today's 3D printers.
Those who look for limitations - will find their limitations.
Those who look for solutions - will find their solutions!
I would love to see some experimental/research evidence to support the required accuracy of 1/10000 of an inch.
In any case, the piezo technology in the heart of printing makes possible precise position easily better than 1/20000 of an inch. The issue is how to squeeze and precisely position such small droplets of materials - which, I believe, can be successfully resolved, provided enough interest/resources.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2015-02-26 05:28
Quick item of curiosity - when I see 3d even when it's followed by the word "printing," my first reading of 3d is "third." I know, there should be an 'r' - 3rd, but it happens to me often when I see news headlines in any kind of text media. I'm used from many years of reading about 3-dimensional imaging to seeing "3-D" or at least "3D."
It only takes a second for me to work out what it means. I had a bit of a struggle years ago when I started reading about mics in articles about audio equipment (I'm sure it was once spelled "mike"), so maybe I'm just slow to deal with change.
Not that I'm criticizing or asking anyone to change their spelling - I'll learn to adjust eventually. I just wondered if this problem is uniquely mine.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClaV
Date: 2015-02-26 05:36
kdk wrote:
> Quick item of curiosity - when I see 3d even when it's followed
> by the word "printing," my first reading of 3d is "third." I
> know, there should be an 'r' - 3rd, but it happens to me often
> when I see news headlines in any kind of text media. I'm used
> from many years of reading about 3-dimensional imaging to
> seeing "3-D" or at least "3D."
>
> It only takes a second for me to work out what it means. I had
> a bit of a struggle years ago when I started reading about mics
> in articles about audio equipment (I'm sure it was once spelled
> "mike"), so maybe I'm just slow to deal with change.
>
> Not that I'm criticizing or asking anyone to change their
> spelling - I'll learn to adjust eventually. I just wondered if
> this problem is uniquely mine.
>
> Karl
The same here!
When I started to write my post, I wrote 3-D but then changed to comply with other posts.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ursa
Date: 2015-02-26 17:25
My first reading of "3d" is invariably "Three Pence"....
At that price point, expectations from a mouthpiece would be quite low.
Post Edited (2015-02-26 17:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: derf5585
Date: 2015-02-26 17:29
"My first reading of "3d" is invariably "Three Pence"...."
Speaking of money. Can a three dimentional printer print money?
fsbsde@yahoo.com
Post Edited (2015-02-26 17:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2015-02-26 19:54
Living in the U.S., I hadn't thought of that reading.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2015-02-27 00:28
ClaV wrote:
"Those who look for limitations - will find their limitations.
Those who look for solutions - will find their solutions!"
Que? I'm talking about the current state of 3D scanning and printing. Sorry for being too rational and not enough emotional for your taste.
James Kanter did not reveal exactly how he makes his mouthpieces, nor which shape of the facing he seeks. Between the lines it was apparent he uses high resolution measuring equipment (which he inherited from a friend) but no machinery like CNC mills or 3D printers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClaV
Date: 2015-02-27 01:59
Johan H Nilsson wrote:
> ClaV wrote:
>
> "Those who look for limitations - will find their limitations.
> Those who look for solutions - will find their solutions!"
>
> Que? I'm talking about the current state of 3D scanning and
> printing. Sorry for being too rational and not enough emotional
> for your taste.
>
> James Kanter did not reveal exactly how he makes his
> mouthpieces, nor which shape of the facing he seeks. Between
> the lines it was apparent he uses high resolution measuring
> equipment (which he inherited from a friend) but no machinery
> like CNC mills or 3D printers.
Sorry for being too proverbial.
What I meant (and mean), there are no theoretical limitations on the feature size using piezo positioning and, lets say, dilute polymer solutions.
Current 3D printers already achieve 15-30 microns feature size (~1/2000 of an inch).
By no means I am an overly optimistic person, or any zealot of 3D printing. At the same time, so many negative forecasts were just shed to dust - take blue (and white) LED for instance - where one person just made it despite all the theories proving that it is hardly feasible! Those white LEDs are now all around!
No revelations - no reliable information (oops, sorry going there again).
Actually, 1/10000 of an inch made a good sense to me upon thinking - it is roughly 3 micron or 0.003 mm. If mouthpiece facing is specified to 0.01 mm (practically it is only within 0.02 mm to the best of my limited measurements) Then 1/4 of this is a good ball park for the required feature size upon machining/manufacturing, so 0.005-0.003 mm seems quite reasonable.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: derf5585
Date: 2015-02-27 02:41
I believe some day they will be able to cut 1 planck length
1.6 x 10-35 m
And why do mouthpiece makers and users think that old (antique) mouthpieces are better than new ones? Nothing new under the ligature?
fsbsde@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2015-02-27 03:49
I own a Kanter mouthpiece, which I got from him personally at a Clarinet Congress 20 years ago or so. He did the final voicing for me in the usual way, with files and sandpaper.
His rails and tip are quite a bit wider than is typical from other makers. This created a very smooth sound, at the cost of a lot of back pressure. Martin Fröst uses one, which produces what I think of as the typical Kanter sound.
The old Chedeville rubber formulation was illegal to make for many years because it gave off toxic fumes during manufacturing. Bred Behn and Omar Henderson ("The Doctor") advertise that they have created mouthpieces using the old Chedeville rubber.
I've played a couple of old Chedevilles and found that they they have a unique "gleam" to the sound.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClaV
Date: 2015-02-27 05:23
derf5585 wrote:
> I believe some day they will be able to cut 1 planck length
>1.6 x 10-35 m
Never say never, but the size of atoms is ~10-10 m, so that would be deeply subatomic reality
I understand the reason for machining mouthpieces out of the rod rubber. But then to me recreating the material of old mouthpieces may be akin of trying to make modern skis out of the best good old wood. Similar to skis it should be advantageous to use composite materials, and likely to make rails and chamber out of different materials (IMHO). Back in 1920-ies, the hard rubber was just a very convenient material to make mouthpieces.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
