Re: Re: [Harp-L] RE: Fatigue and Reed Life: An Objective Test?

["john" <jjthaden@xxxxxxxxx>]

Joe wrote
>> Why would I find it difficult to believe. What I was trying to say  was 
>> that I felt that making the reed narrower but thicker might  produce the 
>> same tone as the amount of unsprung weight would be the  same. But since 
>> the metal was now in thickness (instead of width),  the reed would be 
>> strong enough to handle the strain better.

Vern replied
>It depends on what part of the reed you make thicker.  We know from tuning 
>that making the reed thicker at the tip lowers the pitch and that making it 
>thicker near the rivet raises pitch.  You could add thickness near the rivet 
>which would raise pitch.  Then you could add thickness at the tip to bring 
>pitch back down to the starting point.  That would result in a thicker reed 
>overall.  However you would not like the result because you would have to 
>blow a lot harder.  The reed would be very unresponsive.
>
>Actually, a thinner reed where it bends near the rivet would be "stronger" 
>in the sense that the stresses in the metal would be lower for a given tip 
>deflection. If you made the reed thin near the rivet it would lower the 
>pitch.  Then you would have to make the tip thinner to return the pitch to 
>the starting point.  You would have an overall thinner reed that would 
>probably last longer.  However, you would not like that either because it 
>would sound weak and choke  & squeal easily.

It would sound weak because less air is moving through the slot for a given
deflection amount.  I think a human factor would mitigate against it lasting
longer -- a tendency to deflect it further to get the desired strong tone.