I agree with Peter… use a non-destructive probe for measuring bores.
Silicone is too soft and NOT suited for long slender shapes (as in a chanter) it’s good for thick (non critical) blunt shapes, as in wood sculptures or deeply engraved art pieces.
There is a technique where a thin metal rod can be placed into the bore to support the silicone poured in around it but… you have to contend with the tone holes being closed off (probably with wax) or you won’t be able to remove the mould from the chanter.
All this work plus the thickness of the release agents may affect the mould slightly making it a tiny bit smaller than the original bore.
Close enough Tony, I was referring to a metal rod which takes little discs at various intervals to enable you to determine the diameter of the bore. It’s a handy yoke, reliable and not harmful for the bore. It’s used fairly widely, Craig Fisher has supplied some to various people.
It seems to me that David Daye has it all covered here.
http://www-bprc.mps.ohio-state.edu/~bdaye/makepipe/chntcopy.html
His non-metallic T-shaped probes have the merit of not damaging the chanter and more accurately measuring a bore which is not perfectly conical.
Apprenticing to someone may not be as hard as it sounds…I simply made a phone call to Glenn Schultz and off I went. The trick is not that, nor gaining the knowledge…it’s taking it to heart and developing the skill needed to “create” an instrument, rather than simply crank out something using a lathe. Glenn’s lathe didn’t impress me, nor his shop. What was awesome was the way he could talk to me, whistle to himself and file down the blade on a whistle at the same time…he KNOWS what he is doing and can alter any portion of it to suit how he desires the whistle to turn out. I’ve been making whistles for over 2 years at this point and still I discover things while making them which make me pause and scratch my head. I’m sure in the uilleann arena, the learning curve is that much longer…I will admit that I don’t make as nice a whistle as Glenn does, but I don’t make a whistle in the same fashion as he does either. When a craftsman takes on an apprentice, it is with the assumption that that person will take the knowledge and use it…a true master is not threatened by someone wanting to learn his trade.
On the subject of apprenticeships, i spoke with Eugene Lambe several years ago, he said he wouldn’t mind if I made my way there to hang around his shop for a while to pick up some pointers on pipe making. He said he had allowed a couple of US makers in his shop already. I know this is not adequate as far as the level of knowledge needed to make a quality set of pipes, but it does show that there are makers out there that are willing to pass on the tricks of the trade.
Hats off to Mr. Lambe
I’ve been wondering lately what, precisely, makes a (good) Rowsome chanter a Rowsome (since many of the better players preferred them). This article refers to reaming, and then what a maker does to the bore after he reams it. There’s undercutting of course, but I’m not clear if that just means undercutting from (and around) the tone holes inside, or if the maker actually sticks a tool up the bore and undercuts a section under the tone hole, more circular, 360 deg around inside, to raise the pitch. So the inside wall of the bore (up and down) is not stright, nor flaired, but rather wavey and scalloped? This would only be done to bring the finger holes to a more comfortable position, and keep the larger toneholes smaller for less volume?
I’ve heard that Rowsome experimented with different sized throats and overall inner dimensions. Anyone know what size he actually settled on as being the best for the D chanter?
BTW, I know W. Rousome made flat sets, but how about Leo?
Very interesting thread. I have some questions though- How many current pipemakers had formal apprenticeships? Most of the better makers out there had an engineering or mechanical background of some kind, right (Wooff, Froment, etc.)? Second, what about more of a ‘mentorship’? For instance (no promo here, BTW), there is Joe Kennedy from Canada who told me that he rang up Geoff Wooff one day and simply asked the man how it was done. I suppose many conversations and mailings later Joe was able to produce something that most people I’ve spoken with say is excellent for the range of flat sets.
I know its not a parallel thing, really, but when I started building drums, I had no apprenticeship, I chased a “sound” in my head. I got lots of good pointers from Albert Alfonso, but the rest was trial and error and a lot of time and work. But the reality is that there are certainly a paucity of makers making good instruments out there, and I don’t know for sure how to increase that number. Clearly, just increasing the number of makers won’t necessarily incresae the number of good instruments avaiable. I for one, would love to give it a shot (now that I have a lathe in tow), but hardly know where to begin! So, I suppose some prior technical training is critical as well. Just some thoughts.
-R-
The disk type measuring probes only give you the narrowest dimention at a particular depth. With split probes you can get a plot of narrowest and widest measurements and then you can extrapolate a reamer that will give you a result closest to the original bore. An impression of the inner tone hole scallops, exterior measurements might be handy to give you a starting point for tuning the finished product.
Ted
Most makers do an initial pilot bore, smaller than the throat will be in the end, say 1/8," then a first reaming to get the section below the throat. Perhaps the throat is included at this point. Sometimes this section is the entire bore, of course, meaning they stop at that. Some old chanters were parallel for a while below the throat, I’ve been told. Wooff chanters have a “shell” a bit below the throat, according to Brad Angus. A sort of abrupt expansion there.
The rest of the bore is reamed with other tapers, for various reasons, some making more complicated bores, others less. Leo Rowsome used three tapers in his chanter bores, for instance. Leo’s chanters had 1/2" (12.5mm) bores on the “small” end (Paddy Keenan, for instance), and something like .522. Not quite 17/32. Liam O’Flynn’s, for instance.
Leo made C pipes, he plays a set he made on the Ri na Piobari record, with one of his father’s chanters. Not many of 'em kicking around, I only know of one in private hands. He made a C# chanter for the O’Meally set Joe McKenna used to play, too.
Seth Gallagher has two employees learning the trade in his shop and so does Andreas Rogge in Germany.
Didn’t Seth get his start in the business at the Von Heune Workshop in Boston? Kevin Rowsome attended an instrument making school/college in England for a few years.
Access to good instruments is not a problem as so many examples of all types have surfaced in the last 30 years.
Metalworking classes seem to be everywhere.
Sourcing materials seems to be easier than ever. Finding quality wood probably the most challenging.
Information and access to it seems to be overwhelming these days.
I have been reading this thread this morning with great interest…especially as I was moaning to a prominent maker only yesterday about the seeming paucity of people willing to give pipe making a shot, at least for a hobby (I was talking more about players of some years experience who perhaps wanted another set, say a flat set, to complement their concert pitch one). After all, the cost of outfitting a modest shop is on a par with, or less than, the price of a new set…and armed with the gear one can make as many sets for oneself as one cares for.
Treated as a hobby, pipe making is indeed a fascinating thing to get into and extremely satisfying (well, on a good day)…doing it professionally on the other hand carries with it extra responsibilities that can be very stressful…especially if one is relying on it to support a family. In addition to learning how to actually make them, one has to be very well organised, have more than a modicum of business sense and, perhaps most importantly, have the required level of self-motivation to get out to the shop and put in the hours…even if one would prefer to just go fishing or whatever. Added to that is the never ending after sales problems and the patience and politeness needed during customer relations (I know of one instrument maker here who refuses to make any more UPs, because of all the after sale hassles…he now concentrates on single octave instruments, which give him far less problems all round).
I have found some makers to be very encouraging to newbies and more than happy to help them get started (within reason of course). One young lad here took himself off to Craig Fischer’s for a few weeks and returned, not only with a headful of new knowledge, but also a very playable 3/4 B set of his own making…he was over the moon, and is now right into the craft.
As for the availability of information on the net…well, it’s a lot better than in ages past, no question, but still in need of improvement. David Daye has done some great things on his site to pass on what info and knowledge he has, as have some other makers regarding reed making for instance. But it is not enough so far.
I would suggest therefore that a new website be established (either privately or under the aegis of, say NPU), that deals exclusively with the art of UP making. It could contain sets of measurements provided by whoever is generous enough to share them (without betraying any confidences of course). In addition, like Wikepedia, knowledgeable amateurs and professionals alike could submit articles on all sorts of related topics…tube rolling and/or bending, silver soldering, reamer making, accurate boring etc etc.
I know this info is available in a patchwork way on forums like this one, and some other good sites, but it lacks structure and is often contradictory…too hard for someone starting out.
As I’m retired, I would be more than happy to devote some of my time to help establish such a site.
What does everyone think? Any takers?
Cheers, Phil.
I think that’s a great idea Phil. Have you spoken to Craig Fisher about the progress of his book on measurements?
Evartjan t’Hart had a site of reed measurements that people could send in their measurements that worked in their pipes thus building a database of information. Last I heard it was, very unfortunately, falling by the way side. If anyone knows the address of that site can they post it here?
But getting back to you Phil. This is a great idea.
Patrick.
Would be great, Phil. Contradictions should not be eliminated, though, or you’ll become one yourself. Ideas can be presented with multiple viewpoints. When people challenge ideas, in any event, that’s what often moves things to the next level.
I’d be willing to help, both with editing/writing and website creation and hosting. I’m an newbie piper, so don’t have much knowledge to contribute, but I am an engneer by training, I’ve worked as a consultant and am used to critical thinking and challenging ideas.
Plus being an amatuer woodworker and general all around handy guy doesn’t hurt. I just taught myself and my two kids to weld so we could build a go kart together.
Regards,
Gary
Thanks Patrick,
Since floating that idea, I have been getting more and more interested in the whole concept. I have webspace on my ISP I could use to get it going, but not enough to really do it justice; we would probably need a backer to provide the necessary megabytes of space as the scheme grows.
As for Craig’s upcoming tome on UP measurements, I can’t really say. As I understand it, Craig’s intention is not to just publish a book of measurements, but a much more comprehensive study of the whole subject, which could still take some time to complete (I may be mistaken here of course). In any event, Craig certainly has measured a lot of chanters/sets and may be able to share some data on such a site.
Regarding Jim’s point about contradictory methods or ideas…well yes, I agree with you. There are many ways to skin a cat for a UP bag and it would be silly just to present one way of doing things. Take the subject of step boring the chanter prior to reaming …I can think of several ways that this can be done, each with their pros and cons…I think they should all be included, along with comments by people who use the various methods and why.
I might start off a sample site this week to give me some sort of feel for the layout and invite interested people to donate information, articles and measurements. It may also be possible to include already written pieces from NPU and “The Piper’s Review” to get things going, should permission be granted. Request for how to’s by selected makers may well also produce some good articles on specific topics involved in UP making.
Hey, I think this is going to be fun.
Cheers, Phil.
Thanks Gary, I’ll put you down on the list!
I’ve got a boatload of web creation software here and have experience setting up a site…but obviously the workload could get out of hand pretty quickly. Any help would be appreciated. Just the job of scouring list archives for good information on a particular topic could take up a fair bit of time.
People with good contacts with pipe makers, both amateur and professional, not to mention the makers themselves, would also be very handy. I know a few myself of course, but by no means all.
So, as Buzz Lightyear would say,
“To infirmity and beyond!”
er, did I get that right?
Cheers, Phil.
Evertjan 't Hart’s reed websites:
http://www.hartdd.com/reed/
http://home.wxs.nl/~ejthart/Reed/reed.html
Here’s one maker’s contribution, Bruce Childress. He gives the bore width
in 1000’ths at each depth (inches) into the chanters.
http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?p=138020&highlight=#138020
B-Pitch Chanter from the bell to the throat and reed seat in inches. Note
that the throat diameter is a bit les than 11/64":
Depth Diameter
0 0.4275
0.35 0.422
1.5 0.407
2.95 0.391
4.07 0.375
5.16 0.359
6.4 0.349
7.33 0.328
8.32 0.313
9.25 0.295
10.03 0.279
10.76 0.265
11.5 0.249
12.39 0.234
13.23 0.219
14.19 0.205
15.35 0.188
16.59 0.171
This point would be the throat.
16.975 0.171
17.155 0.188
17.305 0.205
17.445 0.219
17.555 0.234
17.825 0.2635
Tone hole size and placement from bell (D-Pitch nomenclature):
Ghost D 3/16" 2.95"
E 9/64" 4.31"
F# 15/64" 5.55"
G 3/16" 6.88"
A 13/64" 8.98"
B 3/16" 10.56"
C# 11/64" 11.87"
D 3/16" 12.77"
You can take the measurement of the bore and graph them out to see the
basic shape of the bore. Also, because the measuring rods either will not
pass through the throat, or will pass throught it loosley, you can
determine the exact throat diameter by interpolation on a graph. Where
the reed seat line, and the bore line meet is the throat diameter.
Here be for the D chanter. Same rules apply:
Depth Diameter
0 0.4895
0.18 0.483
0.92 0.47
1.79 0.452
2.58 0.437
3.36 0.422
4.28 0.407
5.09 0.391
5.82 0.375
6.52 0.359
7.16 0.349
7.93 0.328
8.58 0.313
9.23 0.295
9.94 0.279
10.62 0.265
11.27 0.249
12.08 0.234
12.73 0.219
Here be the throat
13.51 0.219
13.65 0.234
13.78 0.249
13.9 0.265
14.05 0.279
14.17 0.295
14.33 0.313
14.45 0.328
And here is the tone hole size and spacing:
Ghost D: 7/32" 2.367"
E 3/16" 3.588"
F# 5/16" 4.886"
G 13/64" 6.106"
A 17/64" 7.52"
B 1/4" 8.823"
C# 7/32" 9.976"
D 1/4" 10.768"
For both D and B pitch chanters, the outside is a straight taper from the
Thumb D hole at .65" to the ghost D hole at .85". There may be variations
on the outside diameter, though.
A D-pitch staple is 2 1/8" long, in 3/16" diameter, .014" wall brass tube.
The B-Pitch staple is 2 3/16" long, 5/32" Outside diameter, .014" wall
brass tube. The head of the D pitch reed is .472" and the B pitch reed is .425".
Thanks Lorenzo, much appreciated.
I’ve copied those measurements to disk and backed up on CD.
I have a collection of measurements myself of course; those that I can share I will post up as soon as I get a draft site underway.
One thing that arises from this data is the old metric/imperial divide. I measure and plot stuff out in millimetres, though I will also happily combine metric and imperial measurements when making something, as many people do. I guess we’ll have to provide both on the site.
As for graphing, I use MS Excel worksheets which provide both tabled data and graph pages. I suggest that such files be the standard for the measurement pages along with ordinary text for those without access to Excel.
Cheers, Phil.
Phil, if I may make a suggestion here, you might want to consider doing your work-ups in Excel, but then transferring them to Adobe Acrobat, which is a (slightly) more universal form for document sharing on the web.
djm