Other web Sites
Harmonica Blues  Harmonica Amps
Harmonica Links Harmonica Pages
• Archives Home
• Years
 · 1992
 · 1993
 · 1994
 · 1995
 · 1996
 · 1997 		 · 1998
 · 1999
 · 2000
 · 2001
 · 2002
 · 2003
 
Web HarpL
Ebay Searches:
Amps:
Microphones:
Effects:
Harmonicas and Gear:
Harmonica Music and Instruction:

 

 

Harp-L Archives

[Previous Message] [Next Message]
[Next in Thread]
[Start of Thread] [End of Thread]

From: WVE~ol.com
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 15:50:47 EDT
Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:=20=5FReed=5Fdesign,=5Fwas=5FChromatic=5FRattl?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e=5F&=5FH=5Fohner=B4s=5F?
In a message dated 8/28/99 2:48:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jrro~mpire.net writes:

> I feel that I must point out one very good reason why brass would be
> better than steel in a harmonica reed. While steel will last longer before
it
> fails, when it fails it will break off. When brass fails it bends.

I have some questions about your basis for making these unqualified
statements.

1. The behavior of metals at fatigue failure is very complex and difficult to
predict. On what experimental data do you base these statements.

2. Most spring brass is used in a work-hardened state that makes it more
brittle than annealed brass. Are you basing your statements on your
observations of the behavior of annealed brass.

3. Microscopic cracks weaken any metal, brass included, as it approaches
fatigue failure. How do you know that SS would separate more suddenly and
with significantly less pitch-change warning than brass?

4. If you grant that SS might fail less often than brass, and I grant that
the brass might separate at failure less often than SS, will you agree that
the product of the probabilities (probability of fatigue failure times the
probability of a separation with inadequate warning) might be about equal or
less with SS?

Vern