In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


I am unclear what you mean by "details" If they have the same
"general behaviour" how do you explain the difference in harmonic
structure of the sound produced by tubular and conical bore
instruments?

Again, I guess that shows you aren't either a physicist or mechanical
engineer.

Indeed. In the same way that neither you or I have knowledge or
expertise as musical instrument builders:-)

Agreed.

No matter. A UKRA "lurker" has put me in touch with a gentleman, who,
before his retirement, was a woodwind designer for Boosey and Hawkes,
London at the time they took over Buffet Crampon, Paris.

He has already told me that the difference between tubular and
cylindrical bore is, to use his words "of the essence". I look forward
to further discussion with him.

Yes. I'm sure that the details of the specific arrangement affect the
results, and that what is required depends on the application.

So far as physics is concerned this is little different from using Newton's
Laws when designing a car and a Saturn V. The applications are quite
different, so the design details and performances are different. But the
physics of dynamics upon which they are based is shared. I've never
designed either a car or a moonshot, but physics is physics.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html