the “Flute” is talking about normal irish flute, what’s the math relationship between flute inside diameter with the hole located percentage ? if you know the formula, please post, Thanks
( if you don’t know anything about this, please don’t comment, Thank you. )
I can’t guarantee that no one ignorant of the matter will comment (nor do I wish to), but you probably should use this: http://www.cwo.com/~ph_kosel/flutomat.html
::::::::::::WALDEN::::
Season’s Greetings to All
And a Safe, Prosperous,
and Blessed New Year!
[ This Message was edited by: Walden on 2002-12-24 06:18 ]
lkt,
I believe most folks here read both whistle and flute forums, but… for reasons of finding this information at a later date (search feature) your question would have been best asked on the flute forum.
hmmm, alright, Tony
Wal, the site for wood, PVC, metal or all the same ?!
[ This Message was edited by: lkthomas on 2002-12-24 08:59 ]
( if you don’t know anything about this, please don’t comment, Thank you. )
aye-aye, Sir!
If you look at the flutomat page that was referenced, you will find that it takes only inside diameter and wall thickness into length as the variables of the material. For example, a tube with an ID of 3/4" and a given length will have an air column that will resonate at a specific frequency, no matter what the material of the tube (assuming it is smooth enough to not damp the resonance). The wall thickness and diameter of the fingerholes are used in the calculation of “chimney effect”. There is not one formula involved, but a series of interacting formulae. Peter Kosel’s “flutomat” calculator is excellent in it’s incorporation of all.
Happy holidays, 
serpent
OT, but, lk, it would be nice if you would sign out of chat before leaving it for an extended period, especially if you’re the one who created the channel. Remaining signed in prevents anyone else from changing topic, or doing other channel operator chores. Shutting your browser down doesn’t necessarily do it. You need to click the “sign out” button.
Thanks, and Happy Holidays,
Bill Whedon
On 2002-12-24 03:20, lkthomas wrote:
( if you don’t know anything about this, please don’t comment, Thank you. )
Ahh, see, now you’ve just done gone and challenged me! [toe scrapes dirt] Let’s see you cross this line, c’mon, I triple-dog dare ya!
Sign out CHATTING or BAN!
To coin a phrase.
Stuart
On 2002-12-24 11:44, OutOfBreath wrote:
c’mon, I triple-dog dare ya!
Now you’ve done it- a dare like that can cause someone to get their tongue fronzen to a pole (obscure reference to “A Christmas Story”)
But do any of us really know anything?? (if you do indeed know something, please don’t comment.) 
Mischievous Meldie-Pie Faery (since the elf-market is pretty well filled up here ),
Andrea ~*~
no problem, I will signout next time
serpent, hmmmm, so does the sound have a big different between wood and PVC ?!?
On 2002-12-24 15:03, lkthomas wrote:
no problem, I will signout next time
serpent, hmmmm, so does the sound have a big different between wood and PVC ?!?
Frankly, I can’t tell the difference between one metal and another, all other things being equal, but there does seem to be some difference between wood and plastic, though not much (to my ear). I do know that there are makers who deliberately perturb the bore of their wood whistles to attain a characteristic sound. This is also very much true of shakuhachi - in fact, the best shak sites talk directly to that perturbation.
PVC plastic and wood are both relatively low-density, in comparison to metals. The materials have physical characteristics that bear on the material’s resonance, as well. You can make a marimba, but it won’t ever sound like a xylophone. Conversely, one xylophone sounds much like another.
I think the answer is going to require that you get wooden, plastic, and metal whistles in the same key, and record the waveforms from each, plus from different varieties of wood and plastic. Quantitative analysis, along with some qualitative. I would strongly suspect that this research is available somewhere on the Web - in fact, I know that some of it is. I also am pretty certain that no one of us makers has all the answers, or believe that we do.
In the long result, the thing you need to do is to listen to a bunch of whistles and decide which ones you like, then buy them and play them. All the music and acoustical theory in the world isn’t going to be able to describe the “Ideal Whistle” for you, or for anyone else! That said, however, it certainly doesn’t hurt to know the tech specs! 
Best wishes - see you on chat!
Bill “serpent” Whedon
so serpent, are you using that web calculator to make your whistle ? or there have another better calculator around internet ? Thanks.
Just to comment, if you are making a normal Irish Flute, remember that the bore is tapered (conical).
These calculator programs do not handle tapers. There is supposedly a formula for it but it is difficult to express on reiterative spreadsheet program or visual-C.
Peter Hoekje gave it to me at one time but I’ve unable to find it in my email collection.
Funny thing about sound, I’ve noticed that some chatter patterns in the bore may actually sound good. I’m not sure why that is.
[ This Message was edited by: Daniel_Bingamon on 2002-12-26 22:58 ]
I found it!
Here it is:
OK, I think I have a simpler answer for you. I gather you are specifically
speaking of the most apparent differences between cylindrical and conical
bores. Art included a term in the length correction formulae specifically
for this, appearing as an additive (1/x1) term in certain denominators,
where x1 is the distance from the hole to the hypothetical apex of the
cone. For example, in the single open hole formula, the correction is
Cs = __te
(b/a)^2 + te (1/D + 1/x1)
b/a = ratio of hole radius to bore radius
D = distance from hole to open end
x1 = distance to cone apex ( >0 for oboes, <0 for baroque flute)
te = effective wall thickness (incl. acoustic effects)
The equivalent formula for a tone hole lattice proceeds in the same manner,
but gets a little complicated. But, the results are similar to the
above. If you put some realistic numbers into that formula, you’ll find
the overall magnitude of the correction, and then can decide whether you
want to do anything about it. You’ll see, anyway, that this expression is
much more sensitive to details of the hole geometry than on the conicity…
a little more paint on the inside, or a little taken off, can have as much
effect.
On the other hand, if you just ignore it, it will act as a combination of a
slight overall length offset and a slight change in the overall scale, and
both of these can be fixed by little changes in the mouthpiece/headjoint
area, for conical instruments.
Cheers,
peter
On 2002-12-24 22:42, lkthomas wrote:
so serpent, are you using that web calculator to make your whistle ? or there have another better calculator around internet ? Thanks.
I do, indeed, use the flutomat for initial calcs of fingerhole placement. Then I test the whistle produced, usually for Cnat OXXOOO crossfingering tuning, and if that is not right, adjust the hole sizes and run the calculator again.
So far, I have observed that the whistles made using the un-touched calculations will all be completely in tune in the first octave, and often through the second. You have to be “off” on hole size ratios by quite a bit, to get one that doesn’t even come close octave-to-octave. The Cnat cross fingering is a bit more finicky, but it’s possible to find a good compromise in just a couple of tries, if you use your head and do your hole sizing based on the concept that they will get bigger, rather than smaller, as you tweak. Wastes less material.
All in all, the flutomat saves me time, which is the most valuable commodity to me. With it, I am able to always begin with an in-tune barrel, and tweak from there, rather than playing with ratios and having to enlarge and/or drill multiple holes just to get on key. And since I don’t do conical bores, that’s about all I need to keep me happy!
Cheers,
serpent
Daniel_Bingamon, a lot of value that I don’t know what should I subin, for example, what is the result of Cs ? te, the effective of wall thickness ? what is effective ? how can I define this value ?
also, this formula can apply on ANY instrument ?!
Thanks, serpent, hmmmm, hopfully the calcuator wouldn’t have problem for flute ( non-whistle instrument )
If you have a copy of Benades formulas, the CS value is part of the ‘single hole correction’.
The formula is detailed at the following address:
http://www.rogo.com/folkstuff/fluteinstruct.html
If you have Hoekje’s spreadsheet, you can make the necessary modifications.
Flutomat is a nice program but I like to graph the cutoff frequencies to get better response and an Excel spreadsheet makes it a lot easier.
Daniel_Bingamon, you seems know a lot in those things, possible to chat in IRC ?