Hi Everybody,

in the responses of my last topic; scooped tip baffle I beleive MartinMods made the remark that; "More mouthpiece air pressure efficiency means the reed makes positional changes easier and  faster.  Faster and shorter (compared to the overall cycle duration) reed motions mean more high frequencies."

is it worth researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look if there are any advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc. like the "neck-enhancer" ? I'm allways quite sceptic about such things. But I cant prove if they work, or dont.

So are the aerodynamic researches about this? how are the pressure levels inside the mouthpiece, are there any other aerodynamic phenomena`s going on. I could imagine there`s a coanda effect on the reed an side walls. And probably some turbulant air at the tip and where does it get laminar?

keen to hear your thought and/or experiences.

regards,

I responded in the MouthpieceWork2 group and uploaded a couple of aerodynamics related PDF's in the files section:




aero-acoustics clarinet.pdf








clarinet reed.pdf





--- On Wed, 6/6/12, Koen <koenbidlot@...m> wrote:

From: Koen <koenbidlot@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2012, 6:20 PM
















 



  


    
      
      
      Hi Everybody,



in the responses of my last topic; scooped tip baffle I beleive MartinMods made the remark that; "More mouthpiece air pressure efficiency means the reed makes positional changes easier and  faster.  Faster and shorter (compared to the overall cycle duration) reed motions mean more high frequencies."



is it worth researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look if there are any advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc. like the "neck-enhancer" ? I'm allways quite sceptic about such things. But I cant prove if they work, or dont.



So are the aerodynamic researches about this? how are the pressure levels inside the mouthpiece, are there any other aerodynamic phenomena`s going on. I could imagine there`s a coanda effect on the reed an side walls. And probably some turbulant air at the tip and where does it get laminar?



keen to hear your thought and/or experiences.



regards,





    
     

    
    






  

Look in the MouthpieceWork2_Acoustics files section:

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork2_Acoustics/files/


--- On Thu, 6/7/12, kenlphotos@... <kenlphotos@...> wrote:

From: kenlphotos@verizon.net <kenlphotos@...>
Subject: Re: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics
To: lancelotburt@...
Date: Thursday, June 7, 2012, 1:29 AM

 The link looks interesting but doesn't get me there. KenL  On 06/06/12, MartinMods<lancelotburt@...> wrote:   I responded in the MouthpieceWork2 group and uploaded a couple of aerodynamics related PDF's in the files section:

aero-acoustics clarinet.pdf 

clarinet reed.pdf 



--- On Wed, 6/6/12, Koen <koenbidlot@...> wrote:

From: Koen <koenbidlot@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork]
 MPC aerodynamics
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2012, 6:20 PM

  Hi Everybody,

in the responses of my last topic; scooped tip baffle I beleive MartinMods made the remark that; "More mouthpiece air pressure efficiency means the reed makes positional changes easier and faster. Faster and shorter (compared to the overall cycle duration) reed motions mean more high frequencies."

is it worth researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look if there are any advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc. like the "neck-enhancer" ? I'm allways quite sceptic about such things. But I cant prove if they work, or dont.

So are the aerodynamic
 researches about this? how are the pressure levels inside the mouthpiece, are there any other aerodynamic phenomena`s going on. I could imagine there`s a coanda effect on the reed an side walls. And probably some turbulant air at the tip and where does it get laminar?

keen to hear your thought and/or experiences.

regards,

Thank you there`s much information in the pdf`s.. for the group I'll have to
subscribe.

 

Van: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
Namens MartinMods
Verzonden: donderdag 7 juni 2012 4:21
Aan: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Onderwerp: Re: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics

 

  


 

 


Look in the MouthpieceWork2_Acoustics files section:

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork2_Acoustics/files/




 



--- On Thu, 6/7/12, kenlphotos@... <kenlphotos@...> wrote:


From: kenlphotos@... <kenlphotos@...>
Subject: Re: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics
To: lancelotburt@...
Date: Thursday, June 7, 2012, 1:29 AM

 The link looks interesting but doesn't get me there.

 

KenL

 

 

On 06/06/12, MartinMods<lancelotburt@...> wrote:

 

  


I responded in the MouthpieceWork2 group and uploaded a couple of
aerodynamics related PDF's in the files section:

aero-acoustics clarinet.pdf
<http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/8ODPT4L875Wzg9BWje0RSewE7mshe0PjdYdSEY4zylV3VI
vsXxgX7H43d5d6fTvI2s9g0V6QZazIVAX94aTeGqdXSg-hKWHUiD3_/aero-acoustics%20clar
inet.pdf>  

clarinet reed.pdf
<http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/8ODPT5igoi2zg9BWCGgjRXohAOXy_wLm5QhZcPTIXoKOLu
Fu3hXr80eBMzoF5bFLJwPZZmGvsjxKO9_Bs72yMHqSqH3BSPz1ZYd2/clarinet%20reed.pdf>




--- On Wed, 6/6/12, Koen <koenbidlot@...> wrote:


From: Koen <koenbidlot@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2012, 6:20 PM

  

Hi Everybody,

in the responses of my last topic; scooped tip baffle I beleive MartinMods
made the remark that; "More mouthpiece air pressure efficiency means the
reed makes positional changes easier and faster. Faster and shorter
(compared to the overall cycle duration) reed motions mean more high
frequencies."

is it worth researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look if
there are any advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc. like the
"neck-enhancer" ? I'm allways quite sceptic about such things. But I cant
prove if they work, or dont.

So are the aerodynamic researches about this? how are the pressure levels
inside the mouthpiece, are there any other aerodynamic phenomena`s going on.
I could imagine there`s a coanda effect on the reed an side walls. And
probably some turbulant air at the tip and where does it get laminar?

keen to hear your thought and/or experiences.

regards,

One of the most obvious aerodynamic effects is that of adding a baffle
insert. This create a nozzle-like narrowing that increases air velocity
under the reed - and the increase in mouthpiece efficiency is very obvious
to the player: the mpcs play louder and easier.  Brighter as well (which
isn't always desirable, depending on one's taste.)

Position of the baffle has some effect on this; closer to the mpc tip gives
a brighter sound. A baffle insert that is flat, but with a sloped front, has
more aural attack than a wedge with a gradual front-to-back slope.

Strathan made mouthpieces with moveable baffles. Ponzol used to make one
also.  I shouldn't omit Runyons - with removable baffle inserts that also
have the "spoiler".  BTW, I have experimented with baffles with and without
a spoiler, and didn't find a significant difference; although others here
feel it does make a difference.

If you have a mpc with a nice even response, but which doesn't project well,
you may be very pleased by the effect of a baffle insert. More bang for the
buck, more cojones.

Barry

>  
> Hi Everybody,
> 
> in the responses of my last topic; scooped tip baffle I beleive MartinMods
> made the remark that; "More mouthpiece air pressure efficiency means the reed
> makes positional changes easier and  faster.  Faster and shorter (compared to
> the overall cycle duration) reed motions mean more high frequencies."
> 
> is it worth researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look if
> there are any advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc. like the
> "neck-enhancer" ? I'm allways quite sceptic about such things. But I cant
> prove if they work, or dont.
> 
> So are the aerodynamic researches about this? how are the pressure levels
> inside the mouthpiece, are there any other aerodynamic phenomena`s going on. I
> could imagine there`s a coanda effect on the reed an side walls. And probably
> some turbulant air at the tip and where does it get laminar?
> 
> keen to hear your thought and/or experiences.
> 
> regards,
> 
> 
> 
> 

This one is very interesting - http://www.music.mcgill.ca/caml/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=publications:phd_dasilva_2008.pdf

--- On Thu, 6/7/12, Koen Bidlot <koenbidlot@...> wrote:

From: Koen Bidlot <koenbidlot@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, June 7, 2012, 1:43 PM








 



  


    
      
      
      Thank you there`s much information in the pdf`s.. for the group I’ll have to subscribe.  Van: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] Namens MartinMods
Verzonden: donderdag 7 juni 2012 4:21
Aan: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Onderwerp: Re: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics        Look in the MouthpieceWork2_Acoustics files section:

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork2_Acoustics/files/

  
--- On Thu, 6/7/12, kenlphotos@... <kenlphotos@...> wrote:
From: kenlphotos@... <kenlphotos@...>
Subject: Re: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics
To: lancelotburt@...
Date: Thursday, June 7, 2012, 1:29 AM The link looks interesting but doesn't get me there. KenL  On 06/06/12, MartinMods<lancelotburt@...> wrote:   I responded in the MouthpieceWork2 group and uploaded a couple of aerodynamics related PDF's in the files section:

aero-acoustics clarinet.pdf 

clarinet reed.pdf 



--- On Wed, 6/6/12, Koen <koenbidlot@...> wrote:
From: Koen <koenbidlot@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2012, 6:20 PM  Hi Everybody,

in the responses of my last topic; scooped tip baffle I beleive MartinMods made the remark that; "More mouthpiece air pressure efficiency means the reed makes positional changes easier and faster. Faster and shorter (compared to the overall cycle duration) reed motions mean more high frequencies."

is it worth researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look if there are any advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc. like the "neck-enhancer" ? I'm allways quite sceptic about such things. But I cant prove if they work, or dont.

So are the aerodynamic researches about this? how are the pressure levels inside the mouthpiece, are there any other aerodynamic phenomena`s going on. I could imagine there`s a coanda effect on the reed an side walls. And probably some turbulant air at the tip and where does it get laminar?

keen to hear your thought and/or experiences.

regards, 

    
     

    
    






  

"is it worth researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look 
if there are any advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc."

IMO,  I think aerodynamic considerations are applicable in the first 3/8" to 1/2" of the mouthpiece.  After that, the blown air has finished doing it's job.  Realize that the sound wave is a product of the air column (initiated by the first pulse of air pressure).  It is the reed's job, as the slave of those air column, air pressure fluctuations, to shape the inblown air pressure puffs to match.  Then, just like pushing someone on a swing, one brief shove by the reed is all that is needed to keep things going.  The sound wave travels at 345m/sec, as does the reed tip.  The air jet is going ca. 20 - 60m/sec only (flute air jet, and I imaging the reed jet is similar), so I think of that inblown air as "exhaust" actually.  It's not that a baffle speeds up the inblown air, rather, a baffle decreases the amount of space between the mouthpiece and the reed which allows the internal pressure fluctuations to enslave the reed more efficiently.  

--- On Wed, 6/6/12, Koen <koenbidlot@...> wrote:

From: Koen <koenbidlot@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2012, 6:20 PM
















 



  


    
      
      
      Hi Everybody,



in the responses of my last topic; scooped tip baffle I beleive MartinMods made the remark that; "More mouthpiece air pressure efficiency means the reed makes positional changes easier and  faster.  Faster and shorter (compared to the overall cycle duration) reed motions mean more high frequencies."



is it worth researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look if there are any advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc. like the "neck-enhancer" ? I'm allways quite sceptic about such things. But I cant prove if they work, or dont.



So are the aerodynamic researches about this? how are the pressure levels inside the mouthpiece, are there any other aerodynamic phenomena`s going on. I could imagine there`s a coanda effect on the reed an side walls. And probably some turbulant air at the tip and where does it get laminar?



keen to hear your thought and/or experiences.



regards,





    
     

    
    






  

Very intresting stuff here, also the link to the thesis, very intresting but i’ll have to work through that in a couple of weeks when I have time. But thank you very much!

 

But I think the air jet would be dependant on several factors; the player for one, the mpc design(baflle/throat)3/, reed thickness ( thick reed and large tip = airy sound = a lot of air blown through) and pitch, you can sustain a high note much longer as for example the low Bb. You would be able to measure the air flow by measuring your lung capacity and time how long it takes for when you’re out of breath, and to calculate the error several measurements would be required.

 

I think it would be intresting to measure the different pressure levels along the axis of the mouthpiece. So you can enhance the pressure level at some places ( like a baffle does if I read you last sentence correct) or decrease at some point. Maybe both? I designed a mouthpice suitable for 3d printing, so I would be able to adjust the model so it can house some pressure sensors at the desired places. Only what those places are requires some more research on my behalf.

 

But I would say (think) the aerodynamics matter up to the throat, so you’ll get a pressure build up in let’s say a square chamber, or am I mistaken and is the throat only there for accoustic purposes?

 

I’m finding this more and more intresting, please everyone, share as much knowledge as you can/like/want.

 

Regards,

 

Koen

 

Van: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] Namens MartinMods
Verzonden: zaterdag 9 juni 2012 22:39
Aan: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Onderwerp: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics

 

  


"is it worth researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look if there are any advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc."

IMO,  I think aerodynamic considerations are applicable in the first 3/8" to 1/2" of the mouthpiece.  After that, the blown air has finished doing it's job.  Realize that the sound wave is a product of the air column (initiated by the first pulse of air pressure).  It is the reed's job, as the slave of those air column, air pressure fluctuations, to shape the inblown air pressure puffs to match.  Then, just like pushing someone on a swing, one brief shove by the reed is all that is needed to keep things going.  The sound wave travels at 345m/sec, as does the reed tip.  The air jet is going ca. 20 - 60m/sec only (flute air jet, and I imaging the reed jet is similar), so I think of that inblown air as "exhaust" actually.  It's not that a baffle speeds up the inblown air, rather, a baffle decreases the amount of space between the mouthpiece and the reed which allows the internal pressure fluctuations to enslave the reed more efficiently.  

--- On Wed, 6/6/12, Koen <koenbidlot@...> wrote:


From: Koen <koenbidlot@hotmail.com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2012, 6:20 PM

  

Hi Everybody,

in the responses of my last topic; scooped tip baffle I beleive MartinMods made the remark that; "More mouthpiece air pressure efficiency means the reed makes positional changes easier and faster. Faster and shorter (compared to the overall cycle duration) reed motions mean more high frequencies."

is it worth researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look if there are any advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc. like the "neck-enhancer" ? I'm allways quite sceptic about such things. But I cant prove if they work, or dont.

So are the aerodynamic researches about this? how are the pressure levels inside the mouthpiece, are there any other aerodynamic phenomena`s going on. I could imagine there`s a coanda effect on the reed an side walls. And probably some turbulant air at the tip and where does it get laminar?

keen to hear your thought and/or experiences.

regards,

I'm new to this, but have been doing a fair amount of experimentation (mostly with Otto Link STM's and NY STM's…) over the last couple years.  I find this topic fascinating and I think that it could lead to a greater understanding of what we empirically know to be true.  (I also have been a pilot and student of aerodynamics for many years… still feel free to ignore me if I am off base and excuse me if this is redundant for some of you pro's…)

Any of the mouthpiece modifications that I have made with a negative impression (no matter how small) have been horribly stuffy.  (Maybe not the whole range of the horn, but definitely in the bottom stack.)  Flattening this area, polishing and/or adding a small round over baffle always improves the playability of the MPC, so from my own observations the first 1/4" or so must create laminar flow and positive pressure.  Any deviation creates drag.  Drag = resistance.  That isn't to say that you couldn't add tiny indentations throughout this area.  On aircraft wings and golf balls this can actually reduce drag by adding a small layer of "air ball bearings".  I believe that this is why you can still get a reasonably good sounding MPC with a rough looking baffle… as long as the overall shape is smooth. 

On a couple of the Links there is this indentation beyond the baffle.  Filling this area in keeps the air laminar for a longer period of time and allows the air to spread into the mouthpiece and reduce pressure at a more constant rate.  Again, drag = resistance = not free-blowing.  I had become accustomed to the whole Link resistance thing and thought that maybe it was a good thing… until I filled in the pond.   I then added a small amount of material to another link in this area and as many have found it created more projection with basically the same tone.  The length and angle of the baffle relates to a mouthpieces ability to be pushed as well as its tone.  If you look at a standard Lind STM it has a very short baffle that dives off into a pretty big chamber.  It sounds pretty good in a small room or when playing at low levels, but when it is pushed really hard the air is more likely to stall behind this short and steep area.  Stall = Drag = resistance = sorry you just are not going to be heard over the brass section…

From an aerodynamic perspective it appears that what all of this comes down to is 2 basic concepts.  1.  laminar flow.  As far as I can see the more round over baffle, the longer the baffle and the more gentle the transition, the more free blowing a piece is.  (Although, sometimes this may remove some of the dark character and make a mouthpiece too generic or lifeless…)  2.  The length and angle of the baffle.  From Bernoulli's perspective I suppose what we are doing is sucking the reed in towards the baffle first, then the positive pressure in the mouthpiece and the flex of the reed creates a harmonic fluctuation of a certain length along the reed.  The shorter and higher baffle would affect more of the tip of the reed instead of the full length.  Where I would guess that this would favor higher frequencies.  A longer and lower baffle would probably work on a greater length of the reed and a broader range of frequencies.  This would also make sense as to why some reed combinations do not work.  The length of the baffle and angle of the baffle would have to match the flexible area of the reed. 


Now the final part of the puzzle.  How much MPC does the player take in?  Those that practically swallow the MPC (and I wish I were one of those people, because their tone can be incredible…) may be both causing the airflow to hit the baffle at a slightly different angle and for the reed to vibrate more freely.  A friend and I played the same mouthpiece and I found it to be fairly bright and a bit resistant.  He on the other hand takes in a lot of mouthpiece and his tone was very different.  He just seemed to be accessing a different portion of the baffle and reed that I was not.  

-Sunny



On Jun 9, 2012, at 5:15 PM, Koen Bidlot wrote:

> 
> Very intresting stuff here, also the link to the thesis, very intresting but i’ll have to work through that in a couple of weeks when I have time. But thank you very much!
> 
>  
> 
> But I think the air jet would be dependant on several factors; the player for one, the mpc design(baflle/throat)3/, reed thickness ( thick reed and large tip = airy sound = a lot of air blown through) and pitch, you can sustain a high note much longer as for example the low Bb. You would be able to measure the air flow by measuring your lung capacity and time how long it takes for when you’re out of breath, and to calculate the error several measurements would be required.
> 
>  
> 
> I think it would be intresting to measure the different pressure levels along the axis of the mouthpiece. So you can enhance the pressure level at some places ( like a baffle does if I read you last sentence correct) or decrease at some point. Maybe both? I designed a mouthpice suitable for 3d printing, so I would be able to adjust the model so it can house some pressure sensors at the desired places. Only what those places are requires some more research on my behalf.
> 
>  
> 
> But I would say (think) the aerodynamics matter up to the throat, so you’ll get a pressure build up in let’s say a square chamber, or am I mistaken and is the throat only there for accoustic purposes?
> 
>  
> 
> I’m finding this more and more intresting, please everyone, share as much knowledge as you can/like/want.
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Koen
> 
>  
> 
> Van: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] Namens MartinMods
> Verzonden: zaterdag 9 juni 2012 22:39
> Aan: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Onderwerp: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> "is it worth researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look if there are any advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc."
> 
> IMO,  I think aerodynamic considerations are applicable in the first 3/8" to 1/2" of the mouthpiece.  After that, the blown air has finished doing it's job.  Realize that the sound wave is a product of the air column (initiated by the first pulse of air pressure).  It is the reed's job, as the slave of those air column, air pressure fluctuations, to shape the inblown air pressure puffs to match.  Then, just like pushing someone on a swing, one brief shove by the reed is all that is needed to keep things going.  The sound wave travels at 345m/sec, as does the reed tip.  The air jet is going ca. 20 - 60m/sec only (flute air jet, and I imaging the reed jet is similar), so I think of that inblown air as "exhaust" actually.  It's not that a baffle speeds up the inblown air, rather, a baffle decreases the amount of space between the mouthpiece and the reed which allows the internal pressure fluctuations to enslave the reed more efficiently.  
> 
> --- On Wed, 6/6/12, Koen <koenbidlot@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: Koen <koenbidlot@...>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2012, 6:20 PM
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Everybody,
> 
> in the responses of my last topic; scooped tip baffle I beleive MartinMods made the remark that; "More mouthpiece air pressure efficiency means the reed makes positional changes easier and faster. Faster and shorter (compared to the overall cycle duration) reed motions mean more high frequencies."
> 
> is it worth researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look if there are any advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc. like the "neck-enhancer" ? I'm allways quite sceptic about such things. But I cant prove if they work, or dont.
> 
> So are the aerodynamic researches about this? how are the pressure levels inside the mouthpiece, are there any other aerodynamic phenomena`s going on. I could imagine there`s a coanda effect on the reed an side walls. And probably some turbulant air at the tip and where does it get laminar?
> 
> keen to hear your thought and/or experiences.
> 
> regards,
> 
> 
> 
> 

Sunny,

Very  interesting.  I suggest you join the MouthpieceWork2_Acoustics group - http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork2_Acoustics/ - which was started specifically for acoustical mouthpiece discussions.  I'll respond there.

Lance




--- On Sun, 6/10/12, Sunny Stutzman <sunnystutzman@...> wrote:

From: Sunny Stutzman <sunnystutzman@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, June 10, 2012, 4:17 AM
















 



  


    
      
      
      I'm new to this, but have been doing a fair amount of experimentation (mostly with Otto Link STM's and NY STM's…) over the last couple years.  I find this topic fascinating and I think that it could lead to a greater understanding of what we empirically know to be true.  (I also have been a pilot and student of aerodynamics for many years… still feel free to ignore me if I am off base and excuse me if this is redundant for some of you pro's…)
Any of the mouthpiece modifications that I have made with a negative impression (no matter how small) have been horribly stuffy.  (Maybe not the whole range of the horn, but definitely in the bottom stack.)  Flattening this area, polishing and/or adding a small round over baffle always improves the playability of the MPC, so from my own observations the first 1/4" or so must create laminar flow and positive pressure.  Any deviation creates drag.  Drag = resistance.  That isn't to say that you couldn't add tiny indentations throughout this area.  On aircraft wings and golf balls this can actually reduce drag by adding a small layer of "air ball bearings".  I believe that this is why you can still get a reasonably good sounding MPC with a rough looking baffle… as long as the overall shape is smooth. 
On a couple of the Links there is this indentation beyond the baffle.  Filling this area in keeps the air laminar for a longer period of time and allows the air to spread into the mouthpiece and reduce pressure at a more constant rate.  Again, drag = resistance = not free-blowing.  I had become accustomed to the whole Link resistance thing and thought that maybe it was a good thing… until I filled in the pond.   I then added a small amount of material to another link in this area and as many have found it created more projection with basically the same tone.  The length and angle of the baffle relates to a mouthpieces ability to be pushed as well as its tone.  If you look at a standard Lind STM it has a very short baffle that dives off into a pretty big chamber.  It sounds pretty good in a small room or when playing at low levels, but when it is pushed really hard the air is more likely to stall behind this short and steep area.  Stall = Drag =
 resistance = sorry you just are not going to be heard over the brass section…
From an aerodynamic perspective it appears that what all of this comes down to is 2 basic concepts.  1.  laminar flow.  As far as I can see the more round over baffle, the longer the baffle and the more gentle the transition, the more free blowing a piece is.  (Although, sometimes this may remove some of the dark character and make a mouthpiece too generic or lifeless…)  2.  The length and angle of the baffle.  From Bernoulli's perspective I suppose what we are doing is sucking the reed in towards the baffle first, then the positive pressure in the mouthpiece and the flex of the reed creates a harmonic fluctuation of a certain length along the reed.  The shorter and higher baffle would affect more of the tip of the reed instead of the full length.  Where I would guess that this would favor higher frequencies.  A longer and lower baffle would probably work on a greater length of the reed and a broader range of frequencies.  This would also
 make sense as to why some reed combinations do not work.  The length of the baffle and angle of the baffle would have to match the flexible area of the reed. 

Now the final part of the puzzle.  How much MPC does the player take in?  Those that practically swallow the MPC (and I wish I were one of those people, because their tone can be incredible…) may be both causing the airflow to hit the baffle at a slightly different angle and for the reed to vibrate more freely.  A friend and I played the same mouthpiece and I found it to be fairly bright and a bit resistant.  He on the other hand takes in a lot of mouthpiece and his tone was very different.  He just seemed to be accessing a different portion of the baffle and reed that I was not.  
-Sunny




On Jun 9, 2012, at 5:15 PM, Koen Bidlot wrote:















 



    
Very intresting stuff here, also the link to the thesis, very intresting but i’ll have to work through that in a couple of weeks when I have time. But thank you very much!  But I think the air jet would be dependant on several factors; the player for one, the mpc design(baflle/throat)3/, reed thickness ( thick reed and large tip = airy sound = a lot of air blown through) and pitch, you can sustain a high note much longer as for example the low Bb. You would be able to measure the air flow by measuring your lung capacity and time how long it takes for when you’re out of breath, and to calculate the error several measurements would be required.   I think it would be intresting to measure the different pressure levels along the axis of the mouthpiece. So you can enhance the pressure level at some places ( like a baffle does if I read you last sentence correct) or decrease at some point. Maybe both? I designed a mouthpice suitable for 3d printing, so I
 would be able to adjust the model so it can house some pressure sensors at the desired places. Only what those places are requires some more research on my behalf.  But I would say (think) the aerodynamics matter up to the throat, so you’ll get a pressure build up in let’s say a square chamber, or am I mistaken and is the throat only there for accoustic purposes?  I’m finding this more and more intresting, please everyone, share as much knowledge as you can/like/want.  Regards,  Koen  Van: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] Namens MartinMods
Verzonden: zaterdag 9 juni 2012 22:39
Aan: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Onderwerp: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics    "is it worth researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look if there are any advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc."

IMO,  I think aerodynamic considerations are applicable in the first 3/8" to 1/2" of the mouthpiece.  After that, the blown air has finished doing it's job.  Realize that the sound wave is a product of the air column (initiated by the first pulse of air pressure).  It is the reed's job, as the slave of those air column, air pressure fluctuations, to shape the inblown air pressure puffs to match.  Then, just like pushing someone on a swing, one brief shove by the reed is all that is needed to keep things going.  The sound wave travels at 345m/sec, as does the reed tip.  The air jet is going ca. 20 - 60m/sec only (flute air jet, and I imaging the reed jet is similar), so I think of that inblown air as "exhaust" actually.  It's not that a baffle speeds up the inblown air, rather, a baffle decreases the amount of space between the mouthpiece and the reed which allows the internal pressure fluctuations to enslave the reed more efficiently.  

--- On Wed, 6/6/12, Koen <koenbidlot@...> wrote:
From: Koen <koenbidlot@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2012, 6:20 PM  Hi Everybody,

in the responses of my last topic; scooped tip baffle I beleive MartinMods made the remark that; "More mouthpiece air pressure efficiency means the reed makes positional changes easier and faster. Faster and shorter (compared to the overall cycle duration) reed motions mean more high frequencies."

is it worth researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look if there are any advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc. like the "neck-enhancer" ? I'm allways quite sceptic about such things. But I cant prove if they work, or dont.

So are the aerodynamic researches about this? how are the pressure levels inside the mouthpiece, are there any other aerodynamic phenomena`s going on. I could imagine there`s a coanda effect on the reed an side walls. And probably some turbulant air at the tip and where does it get laminar?

keen to hear your thought and/or experiences.

regards,


    
     

    










    
     

    
    






  

See the following tip baffle: 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/LAWTON-7-STAR-RBB-Tenor-Sax-Mouthpiece-Extremely-rare-/180905383101 pt=AU_Instrument_Accessories&hash=item2a1ecd14bd#ht_555wt_1156




--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Sunny,
> 
> Very  interesting.  I suggest you join the MouthpieceWork2_Acoustics group - http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork2_Acoustics/ - which was started specifically for acoustical mouthpiece discussions.  I'll respond there.
> 
> Lance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Sun, 6/10/12, Sunny Stutzman <sunnystutzman@...> wrote:
> 
> From: Sunny Stutzman <sunnystutzman@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, June 10, 2012, 4:17 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>     
>       
>       
>       I'm new to this, but have been doing a fair amount of experimentation (mostly with Otto Link STM's and NY STM's…) over the last couple years.  I find this topic fascinating and I think that it could lead to a greater understanding of what we empirically know to be true.  (I also have been a pilot and student of aerodynamics for many years… still feel free to ignore me if I am off base and excuse me if this is redundant for some of you pro's…)
> Any of the mouthpiece modifications that I have made with a negative impression (no matter how small) have been horribly stuffy.  (Maybe not the whole range of the horn, but definitely in the bottom stack.)  Flattening this area, polishing and/or adding a small round over baffle always improves the playability of the MPC, so from my own observations the first 1/4" or so must create laminar flow and positive pressure.  Any deviation creates drag.  Drag = resistance.  That isn't to say that you couldn't add tiny indentations throughout this area.  On aircraft wings and golf balls this can actually reduce drag by adding a small layer of "air ball bearings".  I believe that this is why you can still get a reasonably good sounding MPC with a rough looking baffle… as long as the overall shape is smooth. 
> On a couple of the Links there is this indentation beyond the baffle.  Filling this area in keeps the air laminar for a longer period of time and allows the air to spread into the mouthpiece and reduce pressure at a more constant rate.  Again, drag = resistance = not free-blowing.  I had become accustomed to the whole Link resistance thing and thought that maybe it was a good thing… until I filled in the pond.   I then added a small amount of material to another link in this area and as many have found it created more projection with basically the same tone.  The length and angle of the baffle relates to a mouthpieces ability to be pushed as well as its tone.  If you look at a standard Lind STM it has a very short baffle that dives off into a pretty big chamber.  It sounds pretty good in a small room or when playing at low levels, but when it is pushed really hard the air is more likely to stall behind this short and steep area.  Stall = Drag =
>  resistance = sorry you just are not going to be heard over the brass section…
> From an aerodynamic perspective it appears that what all of this comes down to is 2 basic concepts.  1.  laminar flow.  As far as I can see the more round over baffle, the longer the baffle and the more gentle the transition, the more free blowing a piece is.  (Although, sometimes this may remove some of the dark character and make a mouthpiece too generic or lifeless…)  2.  The length and angle of the baffle.  From Bernoulli's perspective I suppose what we are doing is sucking the reed in towards the baffle first, then the positive pressure in the mouthpiece and the flex of the reed creates a harmonic fluctuation of a certain length along the reed.  The shorter and higher baffle would affect more of the tip of the reed instead of the full length.  Where I would guess that this would favor higher frequencies.  A longer and lower baffle would probably work on a greater length of the reed and a broader range of frequencies.  This would also
>  make sense as to why some reed combinations do not work.  The length of the baffle and angle of the baffle would have to match the flexible area of the reed. 
> 
> Now the final part of the puzzle.  How much MPC does the player take in?  Those that practically swallow the MPC (and I wish I were one of those people, because their tone can be incredible…) may be both causing the airflow to hit the baffle at a slightly different angle and for the reed to vibrate more freely.  A friend and I played the same mouthpiece and I found it to be fairly bright and a bit resistant.  He on the other hand takes in a lot of mouthpiece and his tone was very different.  He just seemed to be accessing a different portion of the baffle and reed that I was not.  
> -Sunny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 9, 2012, at 5:15 PM, Koen Bidlot wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
>     
> Very intresting stuff here, also the link to the thesis, very intresting but i’ll have to work through that in a couple of weeks when I have time. But thank you very much!  But I think the air jet would be dependant on several factors; the player for one, the mpc design(baflle/throat)3/, reed thickness ( thick reed and large tip = airy sound = a lot of air blown through) and pitch, you can sustain a high note much longer as for example the low Bb. You would be able to measure the air flow by measuring your lung capacity and time how long it takes for when you’re out of breath, and to calculate the error several measurements would be required.   I think it would be intresting to measure the different pressure levels along the axis of the mouthpiece. So you can enhance the pressure level at some places ( like a baffle does if I read you last sentence correct) or decrease at some point. Maybe both? I designed a mouthpice suitable for 3d printing, so I
>  would be able to adjust the model so it can house some pressure sensors at the desired places. Only what those places are requires some more research on my behalf.  But I would say (think) the aerodynamics matter up to the throat, so you’ll get a pressure build up in let’s say a square chamber, or am I mistaken and is the throat only there for accoustic purposes?  I’m finding this more and more intresting, please everyone, share as much knowledge as you can/like/want.  Regards,  Koen  Van: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] Namens MartinMods
> Verzonden: zaterdag 9 juni 2012 22:39
> Aan: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Onderwerp: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics    "is it worth researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look if there are any advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc."
> 
> IMO,  I think aerodynamic considerations are applicable in the first 3/8" to 1/2" of the mouthpiece.  After that, the blown air has finished doing it's job.  Realize that the sound wave is a product of the air column (initiated by the first pulse of air pressure).  It is the reed's job, as the slave of those air column, air pressure fluctuations, to shape the inblown air pressure puffs to match.  Then, just like pushing someone on a swing, one brief shove by the reed is all that is needed to keep things going.  The sound wave travels at 345m/sec, as does the reed tip.  The air jet is going ca. 20 - 60m/sec only (flute air jet, and I imaging the reed jet is similar), so I think of that inblown air as "exhaust" actually.  It's not that a baffle speeds up the inblown air, rather, a baffle decreases the amount of space between the mouthpiece and the reed which allows the internal pressure fluctuations to enslave the reed more efficiently.  
> 
> --- On Wed, 6/6/12, Koen <koenbidlot@...> wrote:
> From: Koen <koenbidlot@...>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2012, 6:20 PM  Hi Everybody,
> 
> in the responses of my last topic; scooped tip baffle I beleive MartinMods made the remark that; "More mouthpiece air pressure efficiency means the reed makes positional changes easier and faster. Faster and shorter (compared to the overall cycle duration) reed motions mean more high frequencies."
> 
> is it worth researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look if there are any advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc. like the "neck-enhancer" ? I'm allways quite sceptic about such things. But I cant prove if they work, or dont.
> 
> So are the aerodynamic researches about this? how are the pressure levels inside the mouthpiece, are there any other aerodynamic phenomena`s going on. I could imagine there`s a coanda effect on the reed an side walls. And probably some turbulant air at the tip and where does it get laminar?
> 
> keen to hear your thought and/or experiences.
> 
> regards,
>

From: mdc5220 
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 11:33 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MPC aerodynamics

  
See the following tip baffle: 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/LAWTON-7-STAR-RBB-Tenor-Sax-Mouthpiece-Extremely-rare-/180905383101 pt=AU_Instrument_Accessories&hash=item2a1ecd14bd#ht_555wt_1156

--- In mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Sunny,
> 
> Very  interesting.  I suggest you join the MouthpieceWork2_Acoustics group - http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork2_Acoustics/ - which was started specifically for acoustical mouthpiece discussions.  I'll respond there.
> 
> Lance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Sun, 6/10/12, Sunny Stutzman <sunnystutzman@...> wrote:
> 
> From: Sunny Stutzman <sunnystutzman@...>
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics
> To: mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, June 10, 2012, 4:17 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Â 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm new to this, but have been doing a fair amount of experimentation (mostly with Otto Link STM's and NY STM's…) over the last couple years.  I find this topic fascinating and I think that it could lead to a greater understanding of what we empirically know to be true.  (I also have been a pilot and student of aerodynamics for many years… still feel free to ignore me if I am off base and excuse me if this is redundant for some of you pro's…)
> Any of the mouthpiece modifications that I have made with a negative impression (no matter how small) have been horribly stuffy.  (Maybe not the whole range of the horn, but definitely in the bottom stack.)  Flattening this area, polishing and/or adding a small round over baffle always improves the playability of the MPC, so from my own observations the first 1/4" or so must create laminar flow and positive pressure.  Any deviation creates drag.  Drag = resistance.  That isn't to say that you couldn't add tiny indentations throughout this area.  On aircraft wings and golf balls this can actually reduce drag by adding a small layer of "air ball bearings".  I believe that this is why you can still get a reasonably good sounding MPC with a rough looking baffle… as long as the overall shape is smooth. 
> On a couple of the Links there is this indentation beyond the baffle.  Filling this area in keeps the air laminar for a longer period of time and allows the air to spread into the mouthpiece and reduce pressure at a more constant rate.  Again, drag = resistance = not free-blowing.  I had become accustomed to the whole Link resistance thing and thought that maybe it was a good thing… until I filled in the pond.   I then added a small amount of material to another link in this area and as many have found it created more projection with basically the same tone.  The length and angle of the baffle relates to a mouthpieces ability to be pushed as well as its tone.  If you look at a standard Lind STM it has a very short baffle that dives off into a pretty big chamber.  It sounds pretty good in a small room or when playing at low levels, but when it is pushed really hard the air is more likely to stall behind this short and steep area.  Stall = Drag =
> resistance = sorry you just are not going to be heard over the brass section…
> From an aerodynamic perspective it appears that what all of this comes down to is 2 basic concepts.  1.  laminar flow.  As far as I can see the more round over baffle, the longer the baffle and the more gentle the transition, the more free blowing a piece is.  (Although, sometimes this may remove some of the dark character and make a mouthpiece too generic or lifeless…)  2.  The length and angle of the baffle.  From Bernoulli's perspective I suppose what we are doing is sucking the reed in towards the baffle first, then the positive pressure in the mouthpiece and the flex of the reed creates a harmonic fluctuation of a certain length along the reed.  The shorter and higher baffle would affect more of the tip of the reed instead of the full length.  Where I would guess that this would favor higher frequencies.  A longer and lower baffle would probably work on a greater length of the reed and a broader range of frequencies.  This would also
> make sense as to why some reed combinations do not work.  The length of the baffle and angle of the baffle would have to match the flexible area of the reed. 
> 
> Now the final part of the puzzle.  How much MPC does the player take in?  Those that practically swallow the MPC (and I wish I were one of those people, because their tone can be incredible…) may be both causing the airflow to hit the baffle at a slightly different angle and for the reed to vibrate more freely.  A friend and I played the same mouthpiece and I found it to be fairly bright and a bit resistant.  He on the other hand takes in a lot of mouthpiece and his tone was very different.  He just seemed to be accessing a different portion of the baffle and reed that I was not.  
> -Sunny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 9, 2012, at 5:15 PM, Koen Bidlot wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Â 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very intresting stuff here, also the link to the thesis, very intresting but i’ll have to work through that in a couple of weeks when I have time. But thank you very much!  But I think the air jet would be dependant on several factors; the player for one, the mpc design(baflle/throat)3/, reed thickness ( thick reed and large tip = airy sound = a lot of air blown through) and pitch, you can sustain a high note much longer as for example the low Bb. You would be able to measure the air flow by measuring your lung capacity and time how long it takes for when you’re out of breath, and to calculate the error several measurements would be required.   I think it would be intresting to measure the different pressure levels along the axis of the mouthpiece. So you can enhance the pressure level at some places ( like a baffle does if I read you last sentence correct) or decrease at some point. Maybe both? I designed a mouthpice suitable for 3d printing, so I
> would be able to adjust the model so it can house some pressure sensors at the desired places. Only what those places are requires some more research on my behalf.  But I would say (think) the aerodynamics matter up to the throat, so you’ll get a pressure build up in let’s say a square chamber, or am I mistaken and is the throat only there for accoustic purposes?  I’m finding this more and more intresting, please everyone, share as much knowledge as you can/like/want.  Regards,  Koen  Van: mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com] Namens MartinMods
> Verzonden: zaterdag 9 juni 2012 22:39
> Aan: mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com
> Onderwerp: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics    "is it worth researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look if there are any advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc."
> 
> IMO,  I think aerodynamic considerations are applicable in the first 3/8" to 1/2" of the mouthpiece.  After that, the blown air has finished doing it's job.  Realize that the sound wave is a product of the air column (initiated by the first pulse of air pressure).  It is the reed's job, as the slave of those air column, air pressure fluctuations, to shape the inblown air pressure puffs to match.  Then, just like pushing someone on a swing, one brief shove by the reed is all that is needed to keep things going.  The sound wave travels at 345m/sec, as does the reed tip.  The air jet is going ca. 20 - 60m/sec only (flute air jet, and I imaging the reed jet is similar), so I think of that inblown air as "exhaust" actually.  It's not that a baffle speeds up the inblown air, rather, a baffle decreases the amount of space between the mouthpiece and the reed which allows the internal pressure fluctuations to enslave the reed more efficiently.  
> 
> --- On Wed, 6/6/12, Koen <koenbidlot@...> wrote:
> From: Koen <koenbidlot@...>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics
> To: mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2012, 6:20 PMÂ  Hi Everybody,
> 
> in the responses of my last topic; scooped tip baffle I beleive MartinMods made the remark that; "More mouthpiece air pressure efficiency means the reed makes positional changes easier and faster. Faster and shorter (compared to the overall cycle duration) reed motions mean more high frequencies."
> 
> is it worth researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look if there are any advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc. like the "neck-enhancer" ? I'm allways quite sceptic about such things. But I cant prove if they work, or dont.
> 
> So are the aerodynamic researches about this? how are the pressure levels inside the mouthpiece, are there any other aerodynamic phenomena`s going on. I could imagine there`s a coanda effect on the reed an side walls. And probably some turbulant air at the tip and where does it get laminar?
> 
> keen to hear your thought and/or experiences.
> 
> regards,
>

I don't think many mature players go for this "scooped" design.  It is too limiting. 



--- On Fri, 6/15/12, Michael D. Collins <michaeldcollins@...> wrote:

From: Michael D. Collins <michaeldcollins@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MPC aerodynamics
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, June 15, 2012, 9:38 PM
















 



  


    
      
      
      



 


 

From: mdc5220 
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 11:33 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 

Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MPC aerodynamics
 
  

See the following tip baffle: 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/LAWTON-7-STAR-RBB-Tenor-Sax-Mouthpiece-Extremely-rare-/180905383101 
pt=AU_Instrument_Accessories&hash=item2a1ecd14bd#ht_555wt_1156

--- In 
mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com, 
MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> Sunny,
> 

> Very  interesting.  I suggest you join the 
MouthpieceWork2_Acoustics group - http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork2_Acoustics/ 
- which was started specifically for acoustical mouthpiece discussions.  
I'll respond there.
> 
> Lance
> 
> 
> 
> 

> --- On Sun, 6/10/12, Sunny Stutzman <sunnystutzman@...> 
wrote:
> 
> From: Sunny Stutzman <sunnystutzman@...>
> 
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics
> To: mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com
> 
Date: Sunday, June 10, 2012, 4:17 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

> 
> 
> Â 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm new to this, but have been 
doing a fair amount of experimentation (mostly with Otto Link STM's and NY 
STM'sâ¦) over the last couple years.  I find this topic fascinating and I 
think that it could lead to a greater understanding of what we empirically know 
to be true. Â (I also have been a pilot and student of aerodynamics for many 
years⦠still feel free to ignore me if I am off base and excuse me if this is 
redundant for some of you pro'sâ¦)
> Any of the mouthpiece modifications 
that I have made with a negative impression (no matter how small) have been 
horribly stuffy. Â (Maybe not the whole range of the horn, but definitely in the 
bottom stack.) Â Flattening this area, polishing and/or adding a small round 
over baffle always improves the playability of the MPC, so from my own 
observations the first 1/4" or so must create laminar flow and positive 
pressure. Â Any deviation creates drag. Â Drag = resistance. Â That isn't to say 
that you couldn't add tiny indentations throughout this area. Â On aircraft 
wings and golf balls this can actually reduce drag by adding a small layer of 
"air ball bearings". Â I believe that this is why you can still get a reasonably 
good sounding MPC with a rough looking baffle⦠as long as the overall shape is 
smooth. 
> On a couple of the Links there is this indentation beyond the 
baffle. Â Filling this area in keeps the air laminar for a longer period of time 
and allows the air to spread into the mouthpiece and reduce pressure at a more 
constant rate. Â Again, drag = resistance = not free-blowing. Â I had become 
accustomed to the whole Link resistance thing and thought that maybe it was a 
good thing⦠until I filled in the pond.   I then added a small amount of 
material to another link in this area and as many have found it created more 
projection with basically the same tone. Â The length and angle of the baffle 
relates to a mouthpieces ability to be pushed as well as its tone. Â If you look 
at a standard Lind STM it has a very short baffle that dives off into a pretty 
big chamber. Â It sounds pretty good in a small room or when playing at low 
levels, but when it is pushed really hard the air is more likely to stall behind 
this short and steep area. Â Stall = Drag =
> resistance = sorry you just 
are not going to be heard over the brass sectionâ¦
> From an aerodynamic 
perspective it appears that what all of this comes down to is 2 basic concepts. 
 1.  laminar flow.  As far as I can see the more round over baffle, the 
longer the baffle and the more gentle the transition, the more free blowing a 
piece is. Â (Although, sometimes this may remove some of the dark character and 
make a mouthpiece too generic or lifelessâ¦)  2.  The length and angle of the 
baffle. Â From Bernoulli's perspective I suppose what we are doing is sucking 
the reed in towards the baffle first, then the positive pressure in the 
mouthpiece and the flex of the reed creates a harmonic fluctuation of a certain 
length along the reed. Â The shorter and higher baffle would affect more of the 
tip of the reed instead of the full length. Â Where I would guess that this 
would favor higher frequencies. Â A longer and lower baffle would probably work 
on a greater length of the reed and a broader range of frequencies. Â This would 
also
> make sense as to why some reed combinations do not work. Â The 
length of the baffle and angle of the baffle would have to match the flexible 
area of the reed. 
> 
> Now the final part of the puzzle. Â How 
much MPC does the player take in? Â Those that practically swallow the MPC (and 
I wish I were one of those people, because their tone can be incredibleâ¦) may 
be both causing the airflow to hit the baffle at a slightly different angle and 
for the reed to vibrate more freely. Â A friend and I played the same mouthpiece 
and I found it to be fairly bright and a bit resistant. Â He on the other hand 
takes in a lot of mouthpiece and his tone was very different. Â He just seemed 
to be accessing a different portion of the baffle and reed that I was not. Â 

> -Sunny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 9, 2012, at 
5:15 PM, Koen Bidlot wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

> Â 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very intresting stuff 
here, also the link to the thesis, very intresting but iâll have to work 
through that in a couple of weeks when I have time. But thank you very much! Â 
But I think the air jet would be dependant on several factors; the player for 
one, the mpc design(baflle/throat)3/, reed thickness ( thick reed and large tip 
= airy sound = a lot of air blown through) and pitch, you can sustain a high 
note much longer as for example the low Bb. You would be able to measure the air 
flow by measuring your lung capacity and time how long it takes for when 
youâre out of breath, and to calculate the error several measurements would be 
required.   I think it would be intresting to measure the different 
pressure levels along the axis of the mouthpiece. So you can enhance the 
pressure level at some places ( like a baffle does if I read you last sentence 
correct) or decrease at some point. Maybe both? I designed a mouthpice suitable 
for 3d printing, so I
> would be able to adjust the model so it can house 
some pressure sensors at the desired places. Only what those places are requires 
some more research on my behalf. Â But I would say (think) the aerodynamics 
matter up to the throat, so youâll get a pressure build up in letâs say a 
square chamber, or am I mistaken and is the throat only there for accoustic 
purposes? Â Iâm finding this more and more intresting, please everyone, share 
as much knowledge as you can/like/want.  Regards,  Koen  Van: mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com] 
Namens MartinMods
> Verzonden: zaterdag 9 juni 2012 22:39
> Aan: mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com
> 
Onderwerp: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics    "is it worth 
researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look if there are any 
advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc."
> 
> IMO,  I 
think aerodynamic considerations are applicable in the first 3/8" to 1/2" of the 
mouthpiece.  After that, the blown air has finished doing it's job.  
Realize that the sound wave is a product of the air column (initiated by the 
first pulse of air pressure).  It is the reed's job, as the slave of those 
air column, air pressure fluctuations, to shape the inblown air pressure puffs 
to match.  Then, just like pushing someone on a swing, one brief shove by 
the reed is all that is needed to keep things going.  The sound wave 
travels at 345m/sec, as does the reed tip.  The air jet is going ca. 20 - 
60m/sec only (flute air jet, and I imaging the reed jet is similar), so I think 
of that inblown air as "exhaust" actually.  It's not that a baffle speeds 
up the inblown air, rather, a baffle decreases the amount of space between the 
mouthpiece and the reed which allows the internal pressure fluctuations to 
enslave the reed more efficiently.  
> 
> --- On Wed, 6/6/12, 
Koen <koenbidlot@...> wrote:
> From: Koen 
<koenbidlot@...>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] MPC 
aerodynamics
> To: mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com
> 
Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2012, 6:20 PM  Hi Everybody,
> 
> in 
the responses of my last topic; scooped tip baffle I beleive MartinMods made the 
remark that; "More mouthpiece air pressure efficiency means the reed makes 
positional changes easier and faster. Faster and shorter (compared to the 
overall cycle duration) reed motions mean more high frequencies."
> 

> is it worth researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look 
if there are any advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc. like the 
"neck-enhancer" ? I'm allways quite sceptic about such things. But I cant prove 
if they work, or dont.
> 
> So are the aerodynamic researches about 
this? how are the pressure levels inside the mouthpiece, are there any other 
aerodynamic phenomena`s going on. I could imagine there`s a coanda effect on the 
reed an side walls. And probably some turbulant air at the tip and where does it 
get laminar?
> 
> keen to hear your thought and/or 
experiences.
> 
> regards,
>




    
     

    
    






  

I hard to believe it plays

Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless

-----Original message-----
From: MartinMods 
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, Jun 15, 2012 23:39:25 GMT+00:00
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MPC aerodynamics

I don't think many mature players go for this "scooped" design.  It is too limiting. 



--- On Fri, 6/15/12, Michael D. Collins  wrote:

From: Michael D. Collins 
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MPC aerodynamics
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, June 15, 2012, 9:38 PM
















 



  


    
      
      
      



 


 

From: mdc5220 
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2012 11:33 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 

Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: MPC aerodynamics
 
  

See the following tip baffle: 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/LAWTON-7-STAR-RBB-Tenor-Sax-Mouthpiece-Extremely-rare-/180905383101 
pt=AU_Instrument_Accessories&hash=item2a1ecd14bd#ht_555wt_1156

--- In 
mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com, 
MartinMods  wrote:
>
> Sunny,
> 

> Very  interesting.  I suggest you join the 
MouthpieceWork2_Acoustics group - http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork2_Acoustics/ 
- which was started specifically for acoustical mouthpiece discussions.  
I'll respond there.
> 
> Lance
> 
> 
> 
> 

> --- On Sun, 6/10/12, Sunny Stutzman  
wrote:
> 
> From: Sunny Stutzman 
> 
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics
> To: mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com
> 
Date: Sunday, June 10, 2012, 4:17 AM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

> 
> 
> Â 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm new to this, but have been 
doing a fair amount of experimentation (mostly with Otto Link STM's and NY 
STM'sâ¦) over the last couple years.  I find this topic fascinating and I 
think that it could lead to a greater understanding of what we empirically know 
to be true. Â (I also have been a pilot and student of aerodynamics for many 
years⦠still feel free to ignore me if I am off base and excuse me if this is 
redundant for some of you pro'sâ¦)
> Any of the mouthpiece modifications 
that I have made with a negative impression (no matter how small) have been 
horribly stuffy. Â (Maybe not the whole range of the horn, but definitely in the 
bottom stack.) Â Flattening this area, polishing and/or adding a small round 
over baffle always improves the playability of the MPC, so from my own 
observations the first 1/4" or so must create laminar flow and positive 
pressure. Â Any deviation creates drag. Â Drag = resistance. Â That isn't to say 
that you couldn't add tiny indentations throughout this area. Â On aircraft 
wings and golf balls this can actually reduce drag by adding a small layer of 
"air ball bearings". Â I believe that this is why you can still get a reasonably 
good sounding MPC with a rough looking baffle⦠as long as the overall shape is 
smooth. 
> On a couple of the Links there is this indentation beyond the 
baffle. Â Filling this area in keeps the air laminar for a longer period of time 
and allows the air to spread into the mouthpiece and reduce pressure at a more 
constant rate. Â Again, drag = resistance = not free-blowing. Â I had become 
accustomed to the whole Link resistance thing and thought that maybe it was a 
good thing⦠until I filled in the pond.   I then added a small amount of 
material to another link in this area and as many have found it created more 
projection with basically the same tone. Â The length and angle of the baffle 
relates to a mouthpieces ability to be pushed as well as its tone. Â If you look 
at a standard Lind STM it has a very short baffle that dives off into a pretty 
big chamber. Â It sounds pretty good in a small room or when playing at low 
levels, but when it is pushed really hard the air is more likely to stall behind 
this short and steep area. Â Stall = Drag =
> resistance = sorry you just 
are not going to be heard over the brass sectionâ¦
> From an aerodynamic 
perspective it appears that what all of this comes down to is 2 basic concepts. 
 1.  laminar flow.  As far as I can see the more round over baffle, the 
longer the baffle and the more gentle the transition, the more free blowing a 
piece is. Â (Although, sometimes this may remove some of the dark character and 
make a mouthpiece too generic or lifelessâ¦)  2.  The length and angle of the 
baffle. Â From Bernoulli's perspective I suppose what we are doing is sucking 
the reed in towards the baffle first, then the positive pressure in the 
mouthpiece and the flex of the reed creates a harmonic fluctuation of a certain 
length along the reed. Â The shorter and higher baffle would affect more of the 
tip of the reed instead of the full length. Â Where I would guess that this 
would favor higher frequencies. Â A longer and lower baffle would probably work 
on a greater length of the reed and a broader range of frequencies. Â This would 
also
> make sense as to why some reed combinations do not work. Â The 
length of the baffle and angle of the baffle would have to match the flexible 
area of the reed. 
> 
> Now the final part of the puzzle. Â How 
much MPC does the player take in? Â Those that practically swallow the MPC (and 
I wish I were one of those people, because their tone can be incredibleâ¦) may 
be both causing the airflow to hit the baffle at a slightly different angle and 
for the reed to vibrate more freely. Â A friend and I played the same mouthpiece 
and I found it to be fairly bright and a bit resistant. Â He on the other hand 
takes in a lot of mouthpiece and his tone was very different. Â He just seemed 
to be accessing a different portion of the baffle and reed that I was not. Â 

> -Sunny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 9, 2012, at 
5:15 PM, Koen Bidlot wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

> Â 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very intresting stuff 
here, also the link to the thesis, very intresting but iâll have to work 
through that in a couple of weeks when I have time. But thank you very much! Â 
But I think the air jet would be dependant on several factors; the player for 
one, the mpc design(baflle/throat)3/, reed thickness ( thick reed and large tip 
= airy sound = a lot of air blown through) and pitch, you can sustain a high 
note much longer as for example the low Bb. You would be able to measure the air 
flow by measuring your lung capacity and time how long it takes for when 
youâre out of breath, and to calculate the error several measurements would be 
required.   I think it would be intresting to measure the different 
pressure levels along the axis of the mouthpiece. So you can enhance the 
pressure level at some places ( like a baffle does if I read you last sentence 
correct) or decrease at some point. Maybe both? I designed a mouthpice suitable 
for 3d printing, so I
> would be able to adjust the model so it can house 
some pressure sensors at the desired places. Only what those places are requires 
some more research on my behalf. Â But I would say (think) the aerodynamics 
matter up to the throat, so youâll get a pressure build up in letâs say a 
square chamber, or am I mistaken and is the throat only there for accoustic 
purposes? Â Iâm finding this more and more intresting, please everyone, share 
as much knowledge as you can/like/want.  Regards,  Koen  Van: mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com] 
Namens MartinMods
> Verzonden: zaterdag 9 juni 2012 22:39
> Aan: mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com
> 
Onderwerp: Re: [MouthpieceWork] MPC aerodynamics    "is it worth 
researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look if there are any 
advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc."
> 
> IMO,  I 
think aerodynamic considerations are applicable in the first 3/8" to 1/2" of the 
mouthpiece.  After that, the blown air has finished doing it's job.  
Realize that the sound wave is a product of the air column (initiated by the 
first pulse of air pressure).  It is the reed's job, as the slave of those 
air column, air pressure fluctuations, to shape the inblown air pressure puffs 
to match.  Then, just like pushing someone on a swing, one brief shove by 
the reed is all that is needed to keep things going.  The sound wave 
travels at 345m/sec, as does the reed tip.  The air jet is going ca. 20 - 
60m/sec only (flute air jet, and I imaging the reed jet is similar), so I think 
of that inblown air as "exhaust" actually.  It's not that a baffle speeds 
up the inblown air, rather, a baffle decreases the amount of space between the 
mouthpiece and the reed which allows the internal pressure fluctuations to 
enslave the reed more efficiently.  
> 
> --- On Wed, 6/6/12, 
Koen  wrote:
> From: Koen 

> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] MPC 
aerodynamics
> To: mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com
> 
Date: Wednesday, June 6, 2012, 6:20 PM  Hi Everybody,
> 
> in 
the responses of my last topic; scooped tip baffle I beleive MartinMods made the 
remark that; "More mouthpiece air pressure efficiency means the reed makes 
positional changes easier and faster. Faster and shorter (compared to the 
overall cycle duration) reed motions mean more high frequencies."
> 

> is it worth researching the aerodynamics this (to some level) and look 
if there are any advantages to a more aerodynamic designed mpc. like the 
"neck-enhancer" ? I'm allways quite sceptic about such things. But I cant prove 
if they work, or dont.
> 
> So are the aerodynamic researches about 
this? how are the pressure levels inside the mouthpiece, are there any other 
aerodynamic phenomena`s going on. I could imagine there`s a coanda effect on the 
reed an side walls. And probably some turbulant air at the tip and where does it 
get laminar?
> 
> keen to hear your thought and/or 
experiences.
> 
> regards,
>