A.D. Homan

Well, I've seen the same pics and description before. This is an easy one for me to remember because that concertina was born the same day and year as I was! (I'd like to play happy birthday with this one.) Mannings Musical bought it, then, if I recall, re-sold it months later. I suppose it's possible that the buyer might re-use the same pics and description, but then wouldn't s/he have some feedback from the previous purchase? So I'm with you, this is likely a scam. Plus, "sporting goods"? What do they think you do with it?

He he. I also wondered what was up with the "View all comments (2)". Bizarre, since they clearly have three. Unless perhaps they don't count John's because it was submitted with the nomination?

Yet, no more so than other attempts at defining something: Concertina

Regarding "piffle," in the current Oxford listings, this is the definition I'm getting: "piffle n., foolish or formal nonsense; twaddle; trash; also used as a derisive retort" Is this incorrect?

No you're probably right - I'd be expecting either a donut covered in icing or a lovely fruit scone with strawberry jam and clotted devonshire cream mmmmmmmm A "creemee" is a cone of soft-serve ice cream. Not a recommended snack while holding a concertina. So, "teakettle" is in the Oxford English Dictionary, as a vessel for boiling water to make tea, so I'm surprised that it seemed to be the wrong word...

That's what we call it in these parts! You probably also wouldn't know what to expect if someone offered you a "creemee"?

Alas, I'm not located in Australia, so I won't bother to bid. I would have been willing to go up to at least 15,000 Aus$. Seriously, the poor guy appears to have re-listed, after the first auction was spoiled by the questions/comments on the auction page. (Is that an option now on eBay, that your Q&A get posted on the page?). Based on the answers he gave the first time around, it looks like he is seriously hoping to get a buyer. With zero feedback combined with the ridiculous price and the buyer restricted to an Australian address, if the seller really does know what he has I don't think that his opinion of his fellow countrymen's is very high! Sorry, my mistake. The seller actually has two concertinas for sale, both at the reasonable price of 12,000 Aus$. Oddly, neither concertina has attracted a single bidder.

Sorry that it was a lot of trouble, Ken.

The first statement was my own statement, the second is a paraphrase of my friend's explanation. The first statement is just a transition, playing with Dave's statement. The second is an explanation of the observed effect, in opposition to the opinion that the Doppler effect is not involved. I feel that you are picking at secondary language rather than facing the topic at hand, which is an attempt to explain the effect. I appreciate your post on the other recent thread. Personally, I feel that we are observed multiple effects, and that we haven't parsed them enough to really get to the heart of the matter. I am also not satisfied with the explanation that it is "ONLY" Doppler. Nor am I content to accept the explanations of why it seems to effect certain instruments more than others. It's nice if the discussion would continue; it's not nice when opposing views are simply picked apart because they were quickly written, or when someone treats the topic as tiresome or "case closed." From my point of view, I've received a reasonable explanation from someone who can claim some authority on the matter, so I'm taking that explanation as being "standard"; I respect that physicists disagree on the topic. So it seems odd to me that this one explanation is so quickly discarded so uncharitably in favor of anectdotal ponderings, some of which contradict each other to begin with. (Such as the case where one poster at one time DID observe the effect -- in 2000 -- with hammer dulcimer, and at another time did NOT observe the effect -- in 2005.) I also find it unfortunate that several of your posts, Jim and Chris -- intentionally or not -- contain rhetorical attempts to belittle the source of my information. I found it appropriate to contribute to the discussion by passing on explanations that had been given to me by someone who happens to teach and research in this field, happens to have his PhD. in physics, and happens to be a fiddler who has observed this effect from the fan at a local session! Maybe I'm being overly-sensitive, but I find it belittling to refer to him as "your teacher," or to make it seem that he has contradicted the standard explanations on the matter, as Chris did so sarcastically in the other thread. Excuse me for seeking a reasonable and informed response to these threads and attempting to relay the information in what I've always assumed to be a discussion among more than just a fraternity of men who have written thousands of posts on this forum!

Don't keep us in suspense! Why did your physics teacher say that Jim was not right? Jim's statement certainly accords with my understanding of the Doppler effect. It seems your physics teacher knows better than NASA:- I don't know who wrote the excellent article in Wikipedia, but maybe your physics teacher would care to correct it since he/she clearly knows better. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not at all -- he confirmed just that definition. He -- a physics _professor_ -- also stated that it was exactly what was happening with the ceiling fan -- it's just that we have to consider the various distances of the fan blades as multiple sound "sources," even though we know they are not sources, but rather, points from which the sound is reflected. He said that Jim's explanation was incorrect because Jim incorrectly stated that effect observed with the instrument and fan was not related to the Doppler effect. So my friend was not attemping to re-write physics -- rather, it is Jim who is contradicting standard knowledge of the phenomenon. For those who are slow on the uptake or prone to uncharitable readings of posts made by those of us who have written fewer than 500 posts on concertina.net: The definition of the Doppler effect is correct; the application of the definition, to prove that it is not at play in the fan phenomenon, is not correct. The warbling itself is cause by the interference of multiple pitches, in an oscillating rhythm. The shifting of the pitch is caused by Doppler. (Rather than being so hostile to my answer, I suggest looking at the hostility with which Jim has approached this topic, which is apparently no longer open to discussion.) I've included below a quotation from a previous discussion on "rec.music.makers.squeezebox": As a reminder, Dave had explained that it had to do with differences in air pressure. Here is Dave's explanation from that forum:

That's what I did. He said that you are not right.

But it might make it many, rather than one. "Might" isn't the same as "does". It is not clear why you would pick at this language, Jim, other that to demonstrate the j*ck*$$ effect, which isn't the topic here. I chose to say "might" because I'm relating someone else's explanation as a possibility, rather than asserting it as a fact that I have concluded on my own. I do believe that it is the correct explanation, and I respect the source from which it came (a physicist whose research field is physics of sound). I look forward to your extended analysis since I find amateur science amusing -- I've been wrong often enough about these matters to have concluded that I should always check first with someone who is more than an armchair scientist! Who knows, you "might" be correct. Edited to insert the correct code for "end quote." Edited to add mild self-deprecation.

But it might make it many, rather than one. I've discussed this again with a friend who is a physicist. I brought up the argument against it being the Doppler effect. Here's a summary of his explanation: He said that it's true that the basic description of the phenomenon is that the pitch seems to drop as the source moves away from the listener. In the case of the musical instrument playing near a fan, we have to think about the fan blades as "sources" of _many_ reflections of the sound. The distance to the listener constantly oscillates. These pitches in turn interfere with the pitches originating from the instrument. So no, it is not one doppler effect, but MANY. And on top of that, there is certainly also interference (hence the "wet tuning" effect). The physicist, by the way, is a fiddler, and he reported experiencing it while playing the fiddle. I've also noticed it -- faintly -- this last week while playing an openback banjo in a room with a ceiling fan. With cooler weather on the way, I expect the topic will go away until next summer...

Now I am thinking that the whole presentation -- website AND powerpoint presentation -- is perhaps not aimed at the potential players at all! (Not Hayden-players, not c.net readers, not potential pop-stars who dream of world domination and hordes of groupies.) Maybe the presentation is aimed at potential _investors_? (They are the ones who would want to hear superlative claims and confidence.)

Well, that's an opinion that I trust. My reaction is to the presentation (or lack thereof) and marketing hype, not the product itself -- due to the fact that no substantial information about the product is offered by the website or in Jim's posts to c.net. Once this thing appears to be more real, and less about things like becoming the world's greatest instrumentalist, or acquiring wealth and fame as a pop musician, I imagine that I'll also be enthusiastic about it's potential. Perhaps we could all offer Jim P. some constructive feedback about the marketing, if he wants it. For me, it's got to start with the name. "Plamondon" sounds good to me, whereas "Thummer" sounds a bit like some of the products advertised in the SPAM that my email software now filters!