Jump to content


Photo

Just Another Megalomaniac Hobbyist Home Constructor


  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#37 Richard Morse

Richard Morse

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western Massachusetts, USA

Posted 15 June 2008 - 01:27 PM

1. Would it make a appreciable difference using cardboard that is thicker than 1,5 mm or if cardboard with this dimension is so stable, that thicker one would not make any difference (exept for beeing thicker)?

Thicker is not necessarily better. Bellows board usually has to be skived on the outer edges or else the outer hinges and leather topruns will deform into the joints. The thicker the card the more pronounced the skive has to be. Another issue is that thicker card will make the bellows appreciably wider when closed (can be a problem fitting it in cases).

2. Is there any appreciable difference in using wood pulp cardboard compared to using (pure) cotton cardboard?

Your question doesn't really address the issue. There are many grades and types of card. What you want is something stiff, durable, fairly thin, easy to cut and glue to, readily available and reasonably priced. Wood pulp has natural lignins which are acidic and cause the board to deteriorate quickly. OTOH, "good" quality wood pulp boards are treated to neutralize the acidity (then called acid-free).

Ragboard is, as far as i know, another word for pure cotton cardboard

Not necessarily so. Better quality ragboard has linen content in it (linen is twice as strong as cotton and lint free) and/or hemp (hemp is eight times as strong as cotton as four times as durable).

(like rag paper ... in german it is "Hadernpapier").

Quarrel paper? Paper in dispute? To have a fight over?

-- Rich --

#38 Miasmamann

Miasmamann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Leipzig, Germany

Posted 15 June 2008 - 03:03 PM

I know it should be acid free (i mentionend it in a previous post)... it is all museum quality and all a little bit alkaline and they achieve the requirement for the norm DIN ISO 9706, what guarantee highest possible endurence concerning aging.
What i asked is, if these demands: "stiff, durable, fairly thin, easy to cut and glue to" are better achieved with cotton based or with wood pulp bases cardboeard or if there is no noticable difference that has to do with the basic material. (is ther a reason why not using Plexiglas... or is it too stiff?)
I know that the basic material is not the only criterion but maybe it could be one ... hope now it is clear what i meant.

Hadern:
http://dict.leo.org/...=...n&relink=on

#39 Anglo-Irishman

Anglo-Irishman

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Stuttgart, Germany

Posted 16 June 2008 - 04:31 AM

And if this doesn't matter, why not make tryangular or spheroidal concertina?


Micha,
I think it was you who wrote that an anglo is a Bandoneon, only minimalistic. In a way, you're right, because both of them enhance the traditional German central 20k layout.
However, the timbre is quite different. They sound like diferent instruments.
Then there's the fact that a Bandoneon is often played mainly on the draw, which the button arrangement facilitates.

I play both Anglo and Bandoneon, and for me the big difference is the mass of the instruments. The bandoneon is heavy, the Anglo is light - even with my relatively small Bandoneon and relatively heavy Anglo, this is a factor in playability. The fact is that you can't reverse the bellows movement on a Bandoneon as quickly as on an Anglo. That's why Bandoneonistas prefer to play whole phrases - expecially fast ones - on the draw.

Here's where the shape comes in.
The hexagon and octogon are approximations to the circle. And the circle is the plane figure with the lowest ratio of circumference to area.
Area is necessary to accommodate the reeds.
Circumference on a concertina means solid wood and stout leather, which in turn have a certain mass.

So, if you need a certain area to accommodate all the reeds you want, but as little mass in the ends as possible, a round concertina would be optimal. The simpler-to-build polygon is a good compromise.

German concertina makers obviously realised this, for after they had seen the English-built Angol-German concertinas, they started building hexagonal German-fingered 20k concertinas, too. The rectangular form was retained only for the Bandoneons and multi-row Konzertinas, which have more alternate fingerings and thus require less changes of bellows direction.

So much for geometry.

Another potential for improvement of playability in an Anglo would be in the choice of lighter materials to replace the wood of the ends and the leather of the belows, the brass and steel of the action and buttons, etc., etc.

What about a round Anglo with carbon fibre levers and buttons, for a start?

Cheers,
John

#40 Miasmamann

Miasmamann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Leipzig, Germany

Posted 16 June 2008 - 07:29 AM

I recieved an answer from the reed manufacturer and they will send me a catalog-cd with all information i need. :)

#41 Stephen Chambers

Stephen Chambers

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4402 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 June 2008 - 07:49 AM

Another potential for improvement of playability in an Anglo would be in the choice of lighter materials to replace the wood of the ends and the leather of the belows, the brass and steel of the action and buttons, etc., etc.

John,

Lightness may suit some people, but I know others who feel that one reason a Jeffries is so easy to play is in the relative heaviness of its ends! :huh:

What about a round Anglo with carbon fibre levers and buttons, for a start?

Well the Chemnitz maker C.F. Reichel was building round German concertinas in the 1850s, though I guess the actions would have been wooden:

Posted Image



#42 Richard Morse

Richard Morse

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western Massachusetts, USA

Posted 16 June 2008 - 08:23 AM

What i asked is, if these demands: "stiff, durable, fairly thin, easy to cut and glue to" are better achieved with cotton based or with wood pulp bases cardboeard

My answer was (and is/remains) that it depends upon the grade and type of card. Both types can be had soft, pliable, friable, etc. or hard, stiff, infrangible.... So either could work - or not - depending upon the grade and type.

or if there is no noticable difference that has to do with the basic material.

If there is no noticeable performance difference then I don't think it would matter.

It sounds like we may be having a communication problem here. If one were to compare comparable qualities of cotton and woodpulp card product:

Cotton board is often laminated (easier to separate), can get softer with multiple bending (has shorter fibers), lints (some glues wont adhere as well), and is extremely hazardous to grow (if you're concerned about the environment - consider that cotton crops use almost 50% of all farmland pesticides) . :o Beware of cotton boards used for framing and "museum" work as they're almost always laminated and are designed to bulk for thickness - NOT strength.

Wood pulp card is usually stiffer per comparable thickness (good) but quite friable when repeatedly bent (bad), and dulls cutters more readily that cotton board.

In either case it's a good idea to use virgin material as the recycled ones have shorter fibers which make them less durable.

is ther a reason why not using Plexiglas... or is it too stiff?

Plexiglass is too stiff, more difficult to glue to, more difficult to cut, more expensive....

-- Rich --

#43 Miasmamann

Miasmamann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Leipzig, Germany

Posted 16 June 2008 - 09:29 AM

It sounds like we may be having a communication problem here. If one were to compare comparable qualities of cotton and woodpulp card product:


:) That is what i meant. (It is not easy for me to phrasing precise in english (e.g. i often have the feeling that what i am saying sounds uncouth und uncivil but it is not supposed to do so) so communication problems are inescapable, but i try my best, and problems are there to be solved ;)

Cotton board is often laminated (easier to separate), can get softer with multiple bending (has shorter fibers), lints (some glues wont adhere as well), and is extremely hazardous to grow (if you're concerned about the environment - consider that cotton crops use almost 50% of all farmland pesticides) . :o Beware of cotton boards used for framing and "museum" work as they're almost always laminated and are designed to bulk for thickness - NOT strength.

Wood pulp card is usually stiffer per comparable thickness (good) but quite friable when repeatedly bent (bad), and dulls cutters more readily that cotton board.

In either case it's a good idea to use virgin material as the recycled ones have shorter fibers which make them less durable.
-- Rich --


That answers my question perfectly, thank you.

#44 Anglo-Irishman

Anglo-Irishman

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1473 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Near Stuttgart, Germany

Posted 16 June 2008 - 10:35 AM

Lightness may suit some people, but I know others who feel that one reason a Jeffries is so easy to play is in the relative heaviness of its ends! :huh:


I suppose it's a question of playing technique. I can't imagine how heavier ends would facilitate fast scale passages along the rows of a 20k concertina, for instance. With a lot of press-only or draw-only phrases on a larger concertina, I could imagine that the inertia would make the air-pressure more stable - small variations of hand pressure would be damped.

Well the Chemnitz maker C.F. Reichel was building round German concertinas in the 1850s, though I guess the actions would have been wooden:


Well, well! The story of my life! Whenever I think I've invented something, I see it the following week in a museum!
(I once thought of replacing the chain and sprockets on a bicycle with two crown wheels and a prop-shaft with pinions - then I saw a Belgian bike in a museum with the same thing - dated 1912!)

I suppose there aren't many of those Reichel round concertinas left - they would all have rolled off tables and got smashed :o

Cheers,
John

Edited by Anglo-Irishman, 16 June 2008 - 10:37 AM.


#45 Stephen Chambers

Stephen Chambers

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4402 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 June 2008 - 11:22 AM

Lightness may suit some people, but I know others who feel that one reason a Jeffries is so easy to play is in the relative heaviness of its ends! :huh:

I suppose it's a question of playing technique. I can't imagine how heavier ends would facilitate fast scale passages along the rows of a 20k concertina, for instance. With a lot of press-only or draw-only phrases on a larger concertina, I could imagine that the inertia would make the air-pressure more stable - small variations of hand pressure would be damped.

I think the feeling is that with heavier ends, you only have to nudge them in the right direction and the weight does the rest, but with lightweight ends you actually have to apply more force to them to make the reed sound. If that makes sense... :unsure:

Well the Chemnitz maker C.F. Reichel was building round German concertinas in the 1850s, though I guess the actions would have been wooden:

Well, well! The story of my life! Whenever I think I've invented something, I see it the following week in a museum!
(I once thought of replacing the chain and sprockets on a bicycle with two crown wheels and a prop-shaft with pinions - then I saw a Belgian bike in a museum with the same thing - dated 1912!)

:lol: There ain't nothin' new!

I suppose there aren't many of those Reichel round concertinas left - they would all have rolled off tables and got smashed :o

I've only ever seen one round German concertina, but that one was a bit different in that it had some fretwork and octagonal bellows. Of course there's always my dreaded "Waschica German concertina". :rolleyes:

#46 m3838

m3838

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2629 posts

Posted 16 June 2008 - 12:52 PM

I think it was you who wrote that an anglo is a Bandoneon, only minimalistic.

It was me, but only half serious.

However, the timbre is quite different. They sound like diferent instruments.


Not exactly true. You happily compare english construction Anglo with traditional reeds to German construction Bandoneon with broad square reeds on single plate. How about comparing German construction 20 button Anglo with broad square reeds on single plate to a modern construction Bandoneon with single reeds on individual alluminium plates?

Then there's the fact that a Bandoneon is often played mainly on the draw, which the button arrangement facilitates.


As I remember from my Anglo days, it too, fasilitates playing on the draw.


Here's where the shape comes in.
The hexagon and octogon are approximations to the circle. And the circle is the plane figure with the lowest ratio of circumference to area.
Area is necessary to accommodate the reeds.


It's only a theory of geometry. It has no importance in this case, because the reeds are rectangular. You can feel rectangular cabinet with rectangular reedplates up to brim, but you'll have plenty of unused space in cyllindrical body with less reeds inside.
Just look at some small 50 button Englishes. Often they don't even have space for pads, and they cut into the wall. All this would have been unnecessary in even smaller instrument of rectangular shape.

German concertina makers obviously realised this, for after they had seen the English-built Angol-German concertinas, they started building hexagonal German-fingered 20k concertinas, too.


Oh no, they simply realized that public will pay for imitation of Very popular English made English concertina.

The rectangular form was retained only for the Bandoneons and multi-row Konzertinas, which have more alternate fingerings and thus require less changes of bellows direction.



Bellows direction has nothing to do with the shape.

Another potential for improvement of playability in an Anglo would be in the choice of lighter materials


Concertina is so small, no increase/decrease in weight will have any noticeable effect on playability. Castagnari Tommy is bigger and heavier than big and heavy Anglo, yet, is fast and easy to push/pull.
Small and light Chinese 20 reeder is slow and hard to play.

For single kitchen style builder the main issue is to lessen the number of sizes, simplifying the construction, and come up with an idea of not having to deal with fine tuning of assembly. A Lego style. Bandoneon construction seems to be better suited for such a task.
Unless a builder is planning to have dovetale reedshoes, radially placed, there is no need for any approximation to a cicrle.
And a guy is going to build bellows as well? :blink:
Hmm, it IS going to be a long project.

#47 Miasmamann

Miasmamann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Leipzig, Germany

Posted 16 June 2008 - 01:54 PM

And a guy is going to build bellows as well? :blink:
Hmm, it IS going to be a long project.


I have no reason to make haste :) (but i plan to finish it this year).

#48 Henrik Müller

Henrik Müller

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 704 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Skċne (Scania), Southern Sweden

Posted 16 June 2008 - 03:43 PM

...but i plan to finish it this year...

I am all ears :D

On a serious note: do you have access to machinery of any sort?

/Henrik

#49 Miasmamann

Miasmamann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Leipzig, Germany

Posted 16 June 2008 - 04:11 PM

...but i plan to finish it this year...

I am all ears :D

On a serious note: do you have access to machinery of any sort?

/Henrik


I have a band saw, a drill press a decent helping of insanity and that all concentrated in my 26m² studio apartment. :lol:

#50 m3838

m3838

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2629 posts

Posted 16 June 2008 - 04:41 PM

my 26m² studio apartment. :lol:


That's a big studio!
Back in Oregon they used to have machine shops. So one signs up, goes through one hour introduction, pays a small fee, and can use the shop's tools and materials to make whatever. Here in California I'm feeling naked without those. Can't even make a stool without buying everything.

#51 Miasmamann

Miasmamann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Leipzig, Germany

Posted 16 June 2008 - 04:54 PM

my 26m² studio apartment. :lol:


That's a big studio!
Back in Oregon they used to have machine shops. So one signs up, goes through one hour introduction, pays a small fee, and can use the shop's tools and materials to make whatever. Here in California I'm feeling naked without those. Can't even make a stool without buying everything.


Maybe i translated it wrong... studio appartment is suppoest to be a "one-room-flat"/"single appartment", i do not know the right english word (all in one, kitchen, bedroom, livingroom, a small seperated toilette and shower, workingroom and workshop, 26m² ... thats how i live at the moment).

I wish this sort of "rent a workshop" would be available here, too. Sounds great and i would spend much time there. I hope i will own a fully equipped workshop somedays *dream*.

Edited by Miasmamann, 16 June 2008 - 04:59 PM.


#52 wntrmute

wntrmute

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 16 June 2008 - 05:04 PM

26m^2 is about 85.3 square feet. So about 8.5ft x 10ft or so. Unless that was supposed to be a total area with 85ft on each side. Which would be a goodly size.

#53 Miasmamann

Miasmamann

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Leipzig, Germany

Posted 16 June 2008 - 05:28 PM

26m^2 is about 85.3 square feet. So about 8.5ft x 10ft or so. Unless that was supposed to be a total area with 85ft on each side. Which would be a goodly size.


My apartment is 5 x 5m what is ca. 16,5 x 16,5 feet.
So you made a mistake... 26m² are not 85 square feet (but 26m are 85 feet).
26m² are ca. 272 square feet (hope that was right).

Edited by Miasmamann, 16 June 2008 - 05:35 PM.


#54 wntrmute

wntrmute

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Location:Maryland

Posted 16 June 2008 - 10:29 PM

Sure 'nuff, you reckoned it out better than I did.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users