Stainless steel tuba

[Erik_Sweden]

Hi all,

Just as a stainless steel mouthpiece can be made thinner then a brass mouthpiece should it not be possible to make a tuba out of stainless steel ?

Brass and stainless steel have approximately same density (8g/cm3) and stainless steel is approximately twice as strong (yield strength: 290 vs. 135 MPa).
This should mean it would be possible to make a stainless steel tuba from thinner material and still be stronger. Also a stainless steel tuba can be welded while a brass tuba is soldered.

Any one out there knowing if this have been done, or if there is a reason why not ?

/Erik Dybeus

[Dan Schultz]

Forming stainless is a heck of a lot tougher than forming brass. Also... the annealing characteristics are different. While As a repairman, I'm glad the industry chose brass!

[The Big Ben]

Forming stainless is a heck of a lot tougher than forming brass. Also... the annealing characteristics are different. While As a repairman, I'm glad the industry chose brass!

I have to agree with TT. As witnessed by many pictures on these pages, brass can basically be tied into knots and untied again. I'm not sure what possible advantages SS might have but its use could be experimented with on parts which seem to have an immediate affect on the sound. I'm thinking of leadpipes. Changing the size, length and taper of a lead pipe and the material it is made of seems to make a great deal of difference in the way an instrument plays. If it could have a positive influence on the sound, it might be worth it to make a leadpipe out of SS.

[Erik_Sweden]

I did use the search function, but since I'm not native English speaker or writer that narrows my search possibility's (due to lack of proper wording). Sorry for this

[Mark]

I did use the search function, but since I'm not native English speaker or writer that narrows my search possibility's (due to lack of proper wording). Sorry for this

You don't need to apologize to people who don't deserve an apology. You did nothing wrong.

[Donn]

The search function is terrible. Don't worry about it, KiltieTuba is young and hasn't yet been exposed to the range of sufferings in the world to put this matter into perspective. But if you want to look something up, you can use more selective search terms at http://www.google.com, with site:chisham.com as a search term. The drawback is that it finds everything on the page, including "signatures" in which some people inventory their equipment. So if you happen to be searching for info on something that matches a very frequent poster's equipment list, the search function may do a better job.

[The Big Ben]

The search function is terrible. Don't worry about it, KiltieTuba is young and hasn't yet been exposed to the range of sufferings in the world to put this matter into perspective. But if you want to look something up, you can use more selective search terms at http://www.google.com" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank, with site:chisham.com as a search term.

+1

Using Google to search TubeNet works well. It is possible to add search terms past site:chisham.com

I put in site:chisham.com Miraphone 186 linkages mouth pipes into Google and got 388 hits I added garland and got 5 hits. So the search can be tuned.

I put in site:chisham.com stainless steel mouthpipes and got 386 hits. Some of them were about the use of stainless steel for making mouth pipes and other tubes in brass instruments while others talks about mouth pipes in general and also about the stainless steel pistons used in the instruments.

Getting in tune with the Google search can be a Good Thing.

[Donn]

" target="_blank" target="_blank

Sweet, eh? When it's a URL but not a link, you have to check "do not automatically parse URLs", but everyone who quotes it must do so also. If it is a link, you can avoid automatic parsing with an explicit URL tag. Far as I know, whenever this software "automatically parses" a URL, it produces the above garbage.