Bore Profile Distribution into Multiple Reamers

A forum to discuss the arcane art of making uilleann pipes, reeds, and set maintenance.

Moderators: the plod, dropkick

Post Reply
SeamusRua
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:02 pm
Real Name: Séamus Wade

Bore Profile Distribution into Multiple Reamers

Post by SeamusRua » Sun Mar 13, 2016 1:47 pm

I recently got around to watching Bill Haneman's Notes and Narratives presentation available from the source section on the NPU website(http://pipers.ie/source/media/?galleryI ... iaId=26792), which is very interesting if you haven't seen it. Several points that Bill discussed about reamer sets and how they may have been used for regulators and pitch scaling got me thinking and I decided to investigate the Hannan Coyne bore data a little more closely. I made a chanter based on these plans not too long ago, however I used a single full length reamer rather than several shorter reamers as Bill suggests in the lecture and as others such as David Quinn have suggested elsewhere. So in doing some more comprehensive bore graphing, focusing on chanter and regulator comparisons, I've been trying to figure out how the reamer set would have been broken up. It seems that the same few reamers were used for both the chanter and regulators, as Bill suggested, but that they are arranged in slightly different patterns for the regulators. Hence I've been trying to align the graphs of the different chanter and regulator bores to find where the reamer transitions would have been. However, there are a few areas that I'm concerned, curious and/or confused about:

1. Around many of the toneholes the bore appears to be enlarged. These areas don't strike me as being built into the main reamer set as the other corresponding bores aren't as large there when overlapped. Could these areas be caused by undercutting and be ignored?

2. In the document accompanying the Hannan Coyne plans, it is noted that tampering was suspected of having taken place in the upper areas of the baritone and bass regulator bores. The throats on these two regulators are larger than the chanter throat, rather than smaller, and have an unusual shape, so this must be the area noted in the document. Would these upper areas have most likely been almost identical to that of the tenor regulator or is it harder to reconstruct than that? Maybe Mr. Haneman has a better idea of what tampering may have occurred since he was involved in measuring the set for NPU.

3. Is it known whether or not John Coyne used the same tool sets as Maurice? If so maybe I could use some data from the O'Hannigan Coyne B set also on NPU to help verify these spotty sections.

Other than that if anyone knows anything else about the general reamer breakdown for these old designs, particularly regarding Coyne, that would be very helpful as well. In the presentation, Bill had graphs which suggested three reamers(throat, body, and bell), but elsewhere on this forum he said four may be better. Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance

billh
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:12 am
Location: skerries-by-the-sea
Contact:

Re: Bore Profile Distribution into Multiple Reamers

Post by billh » Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:45 am

Hi Seamus,

Directly under toneholes there will often be a very slight enlargement that is in fact caused by the presence of the holes themselves. In these narrow bore pipes they are generally small enough to be ignored. I am not sure that I understand specifically which bore perturbations you are referring to, perhaps you could take an example...

Note that as the accompanying notes suggest, the Hannan chanter was most likely from a different Coyne instrument originally. As Maurice Coyne seems to have been quite consistent, this is probably not a big issue. For the regulators I would certainly suggest consulting the O'Hannigan plans as well, and in fact would defer to them for regulator lengths and tonehole placement. Geoff Wooff has suggested that the Hannan regulators were originally pitched closer to C, and I tend to agree, although Robbie certainly has had the tenor and baritone going well in B for many years.

There is no reason that I am aware of to think that either instrument was made by John Coyne.

Best regards,

Bill

SeamusRua
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:02 pm
Real Name: Séamus Wade

Re: Bore Profile Distribution into Multiple Reamers

Post by SeamusRua » Sun Apr 03, 2016 11:35 am

Bill,
That's a very interesting theory regarding the regulators. The main difference I saw when overlaying the chanter and reg bores was that there were at least three or four sections that would align, but not all at once, in relation to each other. It's as if there were multiple reamers being used and the bottom reamers were inserted farther in, relative to the ones further up. Aside from the throat area, this was mostly seen in the area of the baritone reg below the end of the tenor reg. The tenor and baritone reg bores were almost identical, however. Could this be some means of either pitch scaling or tuning the baritone regulator?

The throats on all three regulators appear quite rounded when graphed, rather than pointed, like the chanter. These throats are also slightly larger than the chanter throat. They're similar in shape to the Clancy Coyne B baritone regulator which appears in one bore plot in the lecture. On the other hand, the O'Hannigan reg throats are slightly smaller than the chanter throat and appear more pointed, like the chanter throats, when graphed in the extrapolated bore plots. Any thoughts on these differences?

As far as specific perturbations, the main places where the regulator bores are smaller than the chanter bore for long sections are:
1. in the area from just above the high e tone hole to just below the back d
2. just above the f sharp to just below the e
It may be that the toneholes in these areas are close enough together that the enlargements around each hole overlapped. At this point I think I will use the data from the regs in these areas, as well as the smaller enlarged sections, in making my new reamer set.

Thanks,
Séamus

billh
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:12 am
Location: skerries-by-the-sea
Contact:

Re: Bore Profile Distribution into Multiple Reamers

Post by billh » Sun Apr 03, 2016 1:13 pm

The Hannan chanter is doubtless from a different original instrument than the regulators. Note also that the Clancy Coyne regulators are also about the same length and thus probably originally in C. Seems like heresy I know, but the Clancy chanter also does not match the body of the set.

The O'Hannigan Coyne B and also the other Coyne B in the NMI (yes, there are two) tell a different story. I believe that the narrower throats (relative to the chanters) are more representative of the original design. The C chanter and regulators may all have been a bit larger than the B, at least this seems to be the case according to my data (and similarly with C#, where the throat tends to be >3.9 mm, whereas the B chanter throats are rarely that large).

I suspect that there may have been more than one reamer used in a given bore, for instance a throat, body, and bell.

SeamusRua
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:02 pm
Real Name: Séamus Wade

Re: Bore Profile Distribution into Multiple Reamers

Post by SeamusRua » Sun Apr 03, 2016 2:03 pm

Thanks for all the info Bill,

I suppose I have a bit more graphing to do!

If the throats of sharper pitched instruments are larger than the throats of their lower pitched counterparts, does this mean that their tone holes will also have to be larger?

Regarding the drones, do you think that the drones on the Hannan set would have been designed to play in B? Does altering the ratio between the bore sizes of a drone change the pitch, when the length remains constant? Could this explain, for example, how the baritone drone of the Hannan set is longer than that of the O'Hannigan set, and that while their standing joint bores are the same, the slide bore of the shorter O'Hannigan drone is larger than that part of the Hannan drone.

billh
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:12 am
Location: skerries-by-the-sea
Contact:

Re: Bore Profile Distribution into Multiple Reamers

Post by billh » Mon Apr 04, 2016 5:02 am

SeamusRua wrote:Thanks for all the info Bill,

I suppose I have a bit more graphing to do!

If the throats of sharper pitched instruments are larger than the throats of their lower pitched counterparts, does this mean that their tone holes will also have to be larger?
I don't think that follows, no.
Regarding the drones, do you think that the drones on the Hannan set would have been designed to play in B? Does altering the ratio between the bore sizes of a drone change the pitch, when the length remains constant? Could this explain, for example, how the baritone drone of the Hannan set is longer than that of the O'Hannigan set, and that while their standing joint bores are the same, the slide bore of the shorter O'Hannigan drone is larger than that part of the Hannan drone.
It's not altogether clear what the story is with the Hannan drones. There is certainly some evidence, in my view, that they do not represent an intact original set of parts by a single maker. The tenor drone may well be by Timothy Kenna. Its dimensions seems consistent with B. The baritone and bass drone slides appear to be original and intact. I would be more equivocal about the standing joints; certainly the bass shows signs of having some replacement parts. This clouds the issue of what pitch these two drones were originally intended to play in.

Altering the ratio of bore diameters does have a strong effect on pitch. In the case of the Hannan baritone the joints are approximately 9/64" and 7/32", whereas the (shorter) O'Hannigan joints are approximately 9/64" and 1/4". (I tend to think in imperial measurments here as the makers were likely to have been working in fractional inches). Both of these factors would tend to make the Hannan play flatter than the O'Hannigan, but of course the slide position and the reed will have a major impact. In any case, all of the Hannan drones were playing in B with good tone when we examined the set. That said, the reed currently working in the bass drone is very small and odd, and more 'normal' quills seemed to give too low a pitch when I tested them. This may indicate that the current bass drone setup is not quite optimal.

The O'Hannigan drones are, as far as I can tell, an intact set. I have made drones from their dimensions so
I can confirm that they work well also.

It is worth recalling that when the NPU project for providing state-of-the-art measurements and working drawings was carried out, our brief was to measure 'working sets' that would be familiar to members and whose musical characteristics were easily demonstrated. Of course time and availability constraints were also in effect. Thus we chose sets currently in players' hands as opposed to museum sets which, though possibly more 'pristine', were musically something of an unknown quantity.

- B

SeamusRua
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:02 pm
Real Name: Séamus Wade

Re: Bore Profile Distribution into Multiple Reamers

Post by SeamusRua » Mon Apr 04, 2016 6:30 pm

Do you think it's true that a straight bass drone slide would require a different standing section than a slide of the curved type with or without a puck? I believe something to that effect was stated in the Sean Reid Society article about the Harrington body.

Are drone pitches ever scaled by manipulating the bore ratios, or is it almost always proportionally scaling the lengths of each piece? I was just looking back at the David Daye article in the Piper's Review of Spring 2004, but he doesn't discuss altering the bore sizes, just says to keep the ratios constant.

Would the O'Hannigan drones be a fair representation of a typical set of Coyne drones? In particular, is it usual for the two pieces of the tenor and baritone to be nearly identical in length? None of the Kenna or Harrington drone measurements that I have exhibit this. The Hannan baritone and bass drones(with their possibly unoriginal parts), at least to me, seem more alike the ratios of Kenna. Could this show an earlier design ideology(possibly a better match for the early Hannan chanter?), or is it the fault of the replacement parts? You suggested that the Hannan bass drone was not really an ideal setup, indicated by the short reed, but do you think this is the fault of one or two of the pieces or simply that the drone must be scaled down as a whole to play in B properly?

Thanks
Last edited by SeamusRua on Wed Apr 13, 2016 4:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.

SeamusRua
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:02 pm
Real Name: Séamus Wade

Re: Bore Profile Distribution into Multiple Reamers

Post by SeamusRua » Mon Apr 04, 2016 6:42 pm

Also, do you have any ideas about the more inwardly curved, smaller bell of the O'Hannigan chanter?
Last edited by SeamusRua on Tue Apr 05, 2016 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SeamusRua
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:02 pm
Real Name: Séamus Wade

Re: Bore Profile Distribution into Multiple Reamers

Post by SeamusRua » Mon Apr 04, 2016 8:04 pm

This graph section shows the throat areas of the Hannan, in blue(dark is min, light is max) and O'Hannigan(red) chanters:
throats.png
Hannan and O'Hannigan chanter throats
throats.png (19.86 KiB) Viewed 2757 times
The area indicated by the green arrow is the main area of the two bores which is in disagreement, disregarding the differently shaped lower sections. Surely this was intentional?

When comparing the throat areas with the C# and C Coyne chanters shown in your presentation with the Hannan chanter, the C sharp throat area does not include a bump like this, being similar to the O'Hannigan section shown above. The C, however, includes a bump which corresponds to the lower section of the Hannan perturbation. The perturbation on the C chanter, however returns back to the "straight" shape further down than the Hannan chanter does. Could these different designs have been accomplished using the same throat reamers with separate smaller section reamers to produce the perturbations seen?

Another observation regarding these chanters: All of their bores have the same sections of bore shapes which are not at the same depth in relation to each other, when comparing the chanters(the same as I mentioned earlier when discussing the Hannan chanter and regs). The interesting thing is that it seems that if one were to make a reamer set to copy all three chanters in their respective pitches, it would require 4 or maybe 5 reamers, excluding the bell reamers, rather than the three which you suggested earlier. Does this sound reasonable to you?

Concerning the one graph in the lecture which I've referred to above, the one aligned to show the finger hole spacing using the "C#-Coyne, C-Coyne-Keane, and B-JCoyne-JH" chanters... Is the C chanter reed seat simply not shown above the throat, or is part of the throat also not shown? It surprises me that C and C sharp chanters would be that close in length. Maybe this is due to the fact that the middle reamer(s) are inserted further in relation to the throat in the case of the C# to sharpen all the toneholes accordingly. Is this the kind of adaptation of the bore that is required to keep the tone hole spacing constant across the different pitches of chanters?

Lastly, would a Bb chanter have an even smaller throat than a B? Maybe something like 3.6 mm?

SeamusRua
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:02 pm
Real Name: Séamus Wade

Re: Bore Profile Distribution into Multiple Reamers

Post by SeamusRua » Wed Apr 20, 2016 5:40 pm

Actually, the C and C sharp chanters shown on the tone hole placement graph in the lecture seem to both have throats of about 3.9 mm. Does this mean that a Bb chanter of the same design parameters might have a throat that's the same size as the B, which is 3.7? Interestingly enough, the Coyne narrow bore d chanter, discussed in the Seán Reid Society article by Craig Fischer, has a throat of 4.2 mm. That leaves us with Coyne throats of 3.7(B, and Bb?), 3.9(C and C#), and 4.2(D). Does this sound accurate?

billh
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:12 am
Location: skerries-by-the-sea
Contact:

Re: Bore Profile Distribution into Multiple Reamers

Post by billh » Fri Apr 22, 2016 2:52 pm

SeamusRua wrote:Actually, the C and C sharp chanters shown on the tone hole placement graph in the lecture seem to both have throats of about 3.9 mm. Does this mean that a Bb chanter of the same design parameters might have a throat that's the same size as the B, which is 3.7? Interestingly enough, the Coyne narrow bore d chanter, discussed in the Seán Reid Society article by Craig Fischer, has a throat of 4.2 mm. That leaves us with Coyne throats of 3.7(B, and Bb?), 3.9(C and C#), and 4.2(D). Does this sound accurate?
I would make several observations. One is that the Coyne narrow bore D has quite a different bore shape and seems to be rather a different item from the others. Another observation is that there are certainly 'outliers' in terms of throat dimensions within a given pitch; for instance I have seen larger and smaller B throats compared with the Hannan and
O'Hannigan, and a smaller C# throat compared to the two examples in my talk.

All that said, I do suspect there is an overall trend towards _slightly_ larger throats as pitch rises, in the work of Coyne.

Also bear in mind that the O'Hannigan measurements are rather sparse compared to the others, and there are inherent measurement uncertainties. I think the bell differences are partly real, but the shape of the bell between actual measured points is guesswork. This may impact on some of your other speculations/questions.

I don't think the reamer insertion differences, which in any case are relatively slight at least relative to the reed seats, bear much on the matter of similar intra-hand tonehole spacing.

- B
Last edited by billh on Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SeamusRua
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:02 pm
Real Name: Séamus Wade

Re: Bore Profile Distribution into Multiple Reamers

Post by SeamusRua » Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:00 pm

Thanks Bill

The throat of the c chanter appears to angle in more than the others just below the throat, and the throat also seems closer in diameter to the C sharp than the b. Do you think this is the way it was intended, maybe made with a different throat reamer?

billh
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:12 am
Location: skerries-by-the-sea
Contact:

Re: Bore Profile Distribution into Multiple Reamers

Post by billh » Fri Apr 22, 2016 3:18 pm

SeamusRua wrote:Thanks Bill

The throat of the c chanter appears to angle in more than the others just below the throat, and the throat also seems closer in diameter to the C sharp than the b. Do you think this is the way it was intended, maybe made with a different throat reamer?
Well a lot of time has passed since those chanters were made. They were also made of different timbers (C and C# vs B). Measurements were also made by different people with different tools. Given all those factors it's a bit of a leap to conclude that a different throat reamer was used. Maybe, but maybe not. Also consider that there was probably some means of step boring or piloting, and that a reed seat reamer was used. All these things can lead to small inconsistencies in the critical throat area, as can a roughly handled metal rush, etc.

Deciding what is signal and what is noise is one of the big challenges of this field.

SeamusRua
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:02 pm
Real Name: Séamus Wade

Re: Bore Profile Distribution into Multiple Reamers

Post by SeamusRua » Sat Apr 23, 2016 2:42 pm

billh wrote:They were also made of different timbers (C and C# vs B).
What types of wood would that be?

SeamusRua
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:02 pm
Real Name: Séamus Wade

Re: Bore Profile Distribution into Multiple Reamers

Post by SeamusRua » Fri May 27, 2016 12:50 pm

With this Coyne based concept of scaling where the throat sizes increase with pitch(not sure to what extent this applies to the works of other 19th c. makers) would this throat size difference affect the volume of the chanter? If so, should drone bores be enlarged or decreased with the chanter throat size in order maintain the balance of volume?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests