TubeNet

..... the wave of the future or just another gimmick ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dGo7mLJs6M" target="_blank

I really do not know if it will stick or not. Probably will depend on the quality of the material being used. Having said that it opens up a plethora of possibilities. I no longer have to be able to run a lathe and practice metal finishing, or just deal with a two or three piece combinations. I can literally just experiment and try new shapes etc.
Recently, my kid and I read through 'Rocket Boys' (the book that led to October Sky). Anyway, there is a lengthy discussion about nozzle design. I have always wondered if there is a better way or more efficient way mathematically to design a mouthpiece. I know I know that it is all about the individual embouchure, the horn etc. IIRC Helleberg had a unique mouthpiece for each horn. This technology may give us the ability to do something similar.

On a unrelated question, Why does he not use the 4th valve, he clearly is tagging the 1+3 combinations but is that not what his 4th is set up for? just curious. Both Euph's that I have owned the 4th was a 1+3? Just curious.

My guess (given his age and the little excerpt he played) is that he may not be accustomed to using the 4th valve. Or is accustomed to using it only for the low range. He could well be a converted trumpet player who was handed a 4-valve non-comp euph.

I find using the 4th valve in a top-action horn to be quite uncomfortable and would no longer consider having a 4-inline horn of that sort. If I were stuck with one, I most likely would use my left hand on the 4th valve in the manner of a 3+1 horn.

The cheapest machine I can find online is $1250. It prints in plastic only. The cartridges are $50 each and will do about 10 mouthpieces. I can't find a price on the scanning machine to supply the copy dimensions. In any event, I don't think Joe's operation is in jeopardy. Maybe someday we will all own one and be able to copy our buddy's mouthpiece that we fell in love with, but surely not in my or Joe's lifetime.

On a unrelated question, Why does he not use the 4th valve, he clearly is tagging the 1+3 combinations but is that not what his 4th is set up for? just curious. Both Euph's that I have owned the 4th was a 1+3? Just curious.[/quote]


The 4th valve can be used as a 1+3 replacement so long as it is in tune on the needed note. There are many notes where I will have my 4th valve slide pulled to keep the 3rd partial C in tune (when using the 4th valve), but I do not use it for a low F as it is too flat, and will use a 1+3 combination.

Pretty amazing to see what the future holds with 3-D printing...

Gerry? U of A?

tbn.al wrote:Gerry? U of A?

That would be me. Kenneth Sloan <sloan@uab.edu>. I run a 3D Print Lab in the CIS department at UAB. We print in ABS and PLA, and also provide scanning services.

Scanning is *not* the way to approach mouthpiece production. Defining the shape is really quite easy. All you need is a single polygon. If you can draw a polygon (or otherwise specify it - say, a few key points which are then interpolated), then it's trivial to build the model. As a rough guess, I'd say that measuring 20 points is more than sufficient. But that's if you are *copying* (which doesn't interest me, much). If you are *designing* then there's no need to scan or measure.

3D Printing is appropriate for experimentation or prototyping - but not particularly cost effective for mass production. If anyone has ideas on things they's like to try (NOT "please make a cheap knockoff copy of the XXX mouthpiece"), feel free to contact me about the required input and the likely cost. The leading term in the cost is likely to be "$20 per cubic inch"...and shipping. Upper size limit is 8"x8"x12". Minimum "feature size" is 1mm.

Joe has a copy I made of a Bach mouthpiece (dimensions provided in their product brochure - no scanning required!) Perhaps he can comment on the differences between ABS and metal. I sound exactly like me on both.

tbn.al wrote:The cheapest machine I can find online is $1250. It prints in plastic only. The cartridges are $50 each and will do about 10 mouthpieces. I can't find a price on the scanning machine to supply the copy dimensions. In any event, I don't think Joe's operation is in jeopardy. Maybe someday we will all own one and be able to copy our buddy's mouthpiece that we fell in love with, but surely not in my or Joe's lifetime.

I wouldn't recommend $1250 printers for producing a workable mouthpiece. I also would not bother 3D printing a scanned mouthpiece - it's almost certainly cheaper to buy one from the manufacturer. 3D Printing is best used for prototyping or customization (providing features that you can't find in a production model).

If you are not prototyping or customizing 1-offs, mouthpieces are too simple to justify 3D Printing. Now, if you'd like one with a 90 degree bend in the shank, or an oval instead of circular rim, or an experimental shape for the bowl or backbore...then 3D Printing is just the ticket. Send me your design, and we'll talk... I already have the printers, and the plastic. My least expensive ABS printer cost me $14,000. My most expensive one cost $40,000. And, that's the BOTTOM of the line, if you are interested in serious day-to-day production.

If you want to do it yourself, and are happy with plastic, the cheapest printer I would recommend (this year) runs about $4000. Plan on at least another $2000 in materials and incidentals for the first year of operation.

If you like to tinker, and would rather disassemble your motorcycle than ride it on the street, there are printers now in the $800 range. But, you may find the resulting tuba mouthpiece a bit rough around the edges.

And finally, there are commercial outlets (e.g., Shapeways) that will print your models in a wide variety of materials...for a wide variety of prices.

We charge our customers $20 per cubic inch - because it's easy to meter. That probably just covers all of our costs (we're academics, not a business).

sloan wrote:

tbn.al wrote:The cheapest machine I can find online is $1250. It prints in plastic only. The cartridges are $50 each and will do about 10 mouthpieces. I can't find a price on the scanning machine to supply the copy dimensions. In any event, I don't think Joe's operation is in jeopardy. Maybe someday we will all own one and be able to copy our buddy's mouthpiece that we fell in love with, but surely not in my or Joe's lifetime.

I wouldn't recommend $1250 printers for producing a workable mouthpiece. I also would not bother 3D printing a scanned mouthpiece - it's almost certainly cheaper to buy one from the manufacturer. 3D Printing is best used for prototyping or customization (providing features that you can't find in a production model).

If you are not prototyping or customizing 1-offs, mouthpieces are too simple to justify 3D Printing. Now, if you'd like one with a 90 degree bend in the shank, or an oval instead of circular rim, or an experimental shape for the bowl or backbore...then 3D Printing is just the ticket. Send me your design, and we'll talk... I already have the printers, and the plastic. My least expensive ABS printer cost me $14,000. My most expensive one cost $40,000. And, that's the BOTTOM of the line, if you are interested in serious day-to-day production.

If you want to do it yourself, and are happy with plastic, the cheapest printer I would recommend (this year) runs about $4000. Plan on at least another $2000 in materials and incidentals for the first year of operation.

If you like to tinker, and would rather disassemble your motorcycle than ride it on the street, there are printers now in the $800 range. But, you may find the resulting tuba mouthpiece a bit rough around the edges.

And finally, there are commercial outlets (e.g., Shapeways) that will print your models in a wide variety of materials...for a wide variety of prices.

We charge our customers $20 per cubic inch - because it's easy to meter. That probably just covers all of our costs (we're academics, not a business).

Interesting possibilities. It sounds like you could make a mouthpiece for a sousie/helicon that the shank would include the length and curve of a mouthpiece and the two bits. This would eliminate the problem I seem to have of the bits working loose during a parade or doing a stand up gig with a lot of movement. Is the plastic comparable to the lexan that Kelley uses?

tofu wrote: Interesting possibilities. It sounds like you could make a mouthpiece for a sousie/helicon that the shank would include the length and curve of a mouthpiece and the two bits. This would eliminate the problem I seem to have of the bits working loose during a parade or doing a stand up gig with a lot of movement. Is the plastic comparable to the lexan that Kelley uses?

That would be a slightly more challenging design problem - but sure. Not hard.

We print in ABS (same material as used for LEGOs) - because I train CS nerds who are mostly interested in form. For other materials, our party line is: "use ABS to work out design issues, and then go to a commercial shop that provides the material you want".
They can do things like Lexan, or stainless steel, or gold...solid gold...tell them what you want, and bring money.

sloan wrote:I wouldn't recommend $1250 printers for producing a workable mouthpiece. I also would not bother 3D printing a scanned mouthpiece - it's almost certainly cheaper to buy one from the manufacturer.

Exactly my point! Maybe someday, but not while I'll be here to see it.

This is of coarse really only the beginning. 3D printing opens the door to a world of possibilities and there are so many parties interested in this technology (including the military!). I imagine that in another five years we'll see a lot more practical applications available to the brass world.

Can you hear the buzz?.........February 10, 2025; Dr. Sloan introduces the very first 3D printed Chicago York!
To order in red brass, stealth version or inflatable.

Dr. Sloan, what software do you recommend for creating a design?

jacobg wrote:Dr. Sloan, what software do you recommend for creating a design?

I use OpenSCAD, netfabb, and custom written Java code. Note - that's what *I* use, not necessarily what I recommend. Note that the "custom written Java code" is not an option for most designers. [all you youngsters out there: LEARN TO CODE!]

Local Engineering students are trained in CREO.

Many students have already picked up Blender.

No one was ever fired for specifying AutoCAD.

An up and comer is Rhinoceros, esp. when paired with Grasshopper.

Essentially, there are two design methods - you can design the surface, or you can design the solid. I think working with solids (basic objects such as spheres and cylinders plus "constructive solid geometry" operations (set theoretic ops on 3D point sets) is easiest, for me. Others prefer to directly model the surface.

Commercial grade printers now seem to uniformly want a surface definition - and that surface must be closed, watertight, and manifold. It must enclose a well-defined solid. Software which comes with the printer will slice this surface model and plan tool paths for the printer. My printers all work by Fused Deposition (stuff comes out a nozzle and stays where you put it). Other printers (esp. those that do metal) work by laying down layers of powder and selectively bonding the powder. It amounts to the same thing in the end. The difference is that some material is easier to melt and other material is easier to make into a fine powder.

When selecting software for 3D Print design, ask if it can easily produce "STL" files. This is the common "assembler language" used today. Hobbyists still work with "G-Code" which allows you to directly drive the printer assembly. Fun to play with, but not where you want to go if you are just starting out.

I personaly use GODZILLA. The "footprint" is larger than the Rhinocerus or grasshopper, and even larger than ELEPHANT. By the way, I have no idea what I'm talking about. I just got done teaching beligerant, obstinate 5th grade woodwinds and this is a good stress reliever.

At my college one of the Industrial tech professors has been making some for our Tuba/Euph studio. But mostly just as cut away mouthpieces and rims. And our cost for these are reasonable.

This is way out of my area of expertise; but since most mouthpieces are symmetrical around an axis running through the center of the shank, could you just use a 2D design and then spin it around the that axis to generate a 3D design?

This is way out of my area of expertise; but since most mouthpieces are symmetrical around an axis running through the center of the shank, could you just use a 2D design and then spin it around the that axis to generate a 3D design?

Mark, yes that is one method. I printed a tuba mouthpiece of my own design using that exact method. Unfortunately the end product was not refined enough to determine how effective the design was. The printer was set to layer in .010" increments which produces a fairly rough surface.

J.Harris wrote:

This is way out of my area of expertise; but since most mouthpieces are symmetrical around an axis running through the center of the shank, could you just use a 2D design and then spin it around the that axis to generate a 3D design?

Mark, yes that is one method. I printed a tuba mouthpiece of my own design using that exact method. Unfortunately the end product was not refined enough to determine how effective the design was. The printer was set to layer in .010" increments which produces a fairly rough surface.

I alluded to this above. To make a radially symmetric mouthpiece, all you need is a single polygon (think about slicing your mouthpiece down the middle - the cross-section will consist of two polygons which are mirror images of each other). It is then simple to spin that polygon around the central axis to form the solid model.

A *good* printer can produce quite reasonable models with 0.01" layers. And, ABS can easily be post-processed to smooth out the jaggies. One popular technique is to dip in a weak Acetone solution. Acetone dissolves the plastic, and then evaporates. When the Acetone disappears, the plastic re-forms. It's also possible to sand (polish) the surface.

Cheap printers may advertise 0.01" layers, but not really deliver. For a little bit extra, my best printer will do 0.007" layers. But, if you think you need a mirror finish, then some post-processing is required. I have produced mouthpieces that play just fine right off the printer - but if I were to use one for an extended period of time I'd probably want to polish the rim. TANSTAAFL.

Sloan .....
right now these printers use plastic and some sort of binder or glue to produce whatever it is you want made. Do you think this technology will someday progress and do the same thing with metal? I suppose that instead of cutting big pieces of metal down to smaller formed pieces of metal like in a lathe it would use some form of metal shavings or powder and melt it together. Do you see this happening ?