Chiff and Fipple Forums

I've had an idea which may or may not be new, but if it is new I don't want to patent it as it could do immense harm for one manufacturer to dominate the market using it. Here's the plan then:-

Think about how half-holing flattens notes. If you have a tube within a tube with the same holes in them and in perfect alignment, when you rotate the inner one (by turning the ring at the bottom of the tube), you can partially close all the holes and flatten the instrument across its entire range - you just need the bell note to be vented with an open hole in the side of the tube so that it is tuned along with all the rest. So, instead of changing the length of the instrument to adjust the tuning, you change the sizes of all the holes. This has a huge advantage in that the tuning can then be correct across the range instead of having the higher notes in the octave go flatter relative to the lower notes as you lengthen the tube with a traditional slide. (The disadvantage is that the instrument will become a little bit quieter as you tune it flatter, but that's so trivial that it likely doesn't even qualify as a problem.)

There's no issue with air leaks and tight seals, so this would be low maintenance - the seal is made on the outer tube by the finger/key pressing in, and any air finding paths through between the tubes won't find shorter escape routes to the outside.

There is an issue of holes not all being the same size, but if you make them all the same width and have them closer to rectangular than circular, it should be possible to make the tuning shift the same for all the notes so that you don't need to make separate adjustments for each hole.

This system should be able to provide good tuning across a range of a semitone using big holes at one end of the range and small ones at the other.

With ideas that seem to have merit but haven't been realized in a product yet, I'd say, make one and see how it goes. One idea can lead to the next as experimenting proceeds.

I could be totally off-base here, but my immediate thought is that this would be a solution in search of a problem. Or, at any rate, an expensive and complicated solution to a problem minor enough that it doesn't warrant the solution.

Yes, it is *slightly* annoying that you have to play differently in different temperatures to account for the tuning errors created by pulling the slide out different lengths. But it's not really THAT annoying. You can correct it with breath control most of the time, same as you would on the flute or any other wind instrument.

But a tube within a tube? Now you've got to worry about building two tubes instead of one, making sure they're exactly the right size to slide between each other without sticking, etc. And that's just on the production side of things. The owner has the trouble of needing to grease it to make sure it doesn't stick. It will likely become stuck easily given how much the two bodies will have to mesh together and how tight they'll have to be. Finally, there are at least two disadvantages with it: First, as you say, volume is negatively affected. Second, it seems like it might make undercutting (which is used on some of the better whistles out there) basically impossible. Are these disadvantages minor? Perhaps, but the benefit seems equally minor.

It's a great idea, but you're 110 years late. It's been done and patented: US Patent no. 1,103,462 (1914)

"An interesting attempt to adapt to unstable pitch levels was made by Nicholas Alberti in 1914.

He devised a flute with a rotating inner tube whereby the instrument could transpose itself from a C to a D# instrument or any pitch between the two.

Without this invention, flutists were obliged to carry multiple instruments or even to transpose because pitch varied as much as a semitone.

The Alberti flute was made of two telescoping silver tubes, the inner containing helical slots, the outer having the full Boehm mechanism.

The instrument won the Gold Medal at the San Francisco Exhibition of 1915."

Nancy Toff, The Development of the Modern Flute.

Obviously the patent has expired and this would be far easier to do on a whistle than on a Boehm flute.

This method works, as was proven.

Cyberknight wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 10:17 pm I could be totally off-base here, but my immediate thought is that this would be a solution in search of a problem. Or, at any rate, an expensive and complicated solution to a problem minor enough that it doesn't warrant the solution.

Well, it's actually about getting rid of expensive metal components and needing a seal that doesn't leak, while also minimising air flow disruption in the bore when an instrument is lengthened to flatten it. I don't want to put a conventional tuning slide in any of my instruments, so I was looking for an alternative.

But a tube within a tube? Now you've got to worry about building two tubes instead of one, making sure they're exactly the right size to slide between each other without sticking, etc. ... The owner has the trouble of needing to grease it to make sure it doesn't stick. It will likely become stuck easily given how much the two bodies will have to mesh together and how tight they'll have to be.

It doesn't need as much precision as a normal tuning slide, and no grease. To clean, just pull the inner tube out, clean that, and the inside of the main tube, then reinsert. Incidentally, I now plan to use magnets to hold it in and allow rotation (using friction to stop it turning when you don't want it to): the inner tube ends with a fatter ring that sticks out beyond the end of the outer tube, and the magnets are in that ring, sticking to a metal band on the end of the outer tube, so it's mechanically simple and easy to make, not involving clicking it in past a ridge which would wear over time.

Finally, there are at least two disadvantages with it: First, as you say, volume is negatively affected.

It's a relatively small difference, just as it is when using smaller holes for some notes, like the tiny one underneath on chromatic instruments - on my test chromatic instrument in C there is only a small volume difference between G and G# even though their holes are 9mm and 3.5mm across.

Second, it seems like it might make undercutting (which is used on some of the better whistles out there) basically impossible. Are these disadvantages minor? Perhaps, but the benefit seems equally minor.

You could still do undercutting just fine on the holes of the inner tube, and it will work at any tuning setting.

pancelticpiper wrote: ↑Mon Mar 04, 2024 3:52 am It's a great idea, but you're 110 years late. It's been done and patented: US Patent no. 1,103,462 (1914)

That's good to hear - I knew someone here would know if it had been done before. And thanks for all that information on it.

Obviously the patent has expired and this would be far easier to do on a whistle than on a Boehm flute.

Yes; I suspect it could be done on cheap mass-produced whistles too. A single little magnet would be all that's needed to hold the inner tube in place - maybe using fridge magnet technology; the flat type with bands of alternating field alignment.

This method works, as was proven.

I'm certainly going to try it then.

David Cooper wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2024 1:41 pm I've had an idea which may or may not be new, . . .

Very creative, novel, and innovative idea !

In my own experience with new ideas, the real work is always in the making the first prototype.

I always find many "lessons learned" along the way.

I hope it all works out !

trill

I tried to look up the Patent but evidently it's quite a process.

When I googled 'nicholas alberti flute" what came up was a Piccolo he made with his Patent double-tube system, from the Dayton Miller Collection in the Library of Congress.

I wonder what happened to the flute??

https://www.loc.gov/item/dcmflute.0126/

pancelticpiper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 3:52 am I tried to look up the Patent but evidently it's quite a process.

https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-publi ... df/1103462

Should be a direct link to the patent's PDF.

Here's some pics showing how it works (not the best images, I found these online prior to seeing Wanderer's post)

Wanderer wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 8:39 am

https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-publi ... df/1103462

Should be a direct link to the patent's PDF.

Thanks! I couldn't get anywhere.

I earned 3 patents, long ago. I had to learn to navigate the site in order to show off to friends, family, acquaintances

So it lengthens the flute to lower the pitch and must also revolve the inner tube to correct the pitch further downwards for the lower notes. That lengthening of the flute should enable the holes to vary less in size than if there was only a revolution of the tube to drive the pitch change with no tube lengthening. That's why it's so much more complex than my idea. My plan was for a rotation alone to reduce the circumferential width of all the oblong holes.

I was also considering lengthening the tube on some instruments though and then to adjust the pitch of the lower holes with a rotating inner tube which makes progressively bigger adjustments to lower holes by having different width to length ratios for the holes so that the same amount of circumferential closing has a bigger impact on some holes than others. What the patented invention does is combine both things into a single adjustment, whereas with my system you'd change the length first to get the top note in tune, and then you'd turn the inner tube to get the bottom note into tune as well, with all the rest automatically being corrected too.

There are other options to consider though, with the potential to adjust individual holes to tune a flute to different keys while markings on the inner ring would be visible through the hole, allowing quick changes to standard settings.