Re: Cryogenics Bat

[Sam Sampere <sampere@SUHEP.PHY.SYR.EDU>]

I used to treat instruments the way you described.  I've done saxes, flutes trumpets,
etc. I was skeptical when I first heard about this also, so I 'dipped' my sax.  I found
that my sax played much better in the altissimo than before, and it was very obvious.  I
found an article that investigated such claims.  They took a trumpet and fixed a
mechanical vibrator to the mouthpiece and indeed found differences in the sound
spectrum.  When I find the article, I'll send you the ref.  I think it was titled The
Physics of Brass Instruments.  If the material were of no importance, I think you'd see
PVC trumpets for really cheap instead of expensive Be bells on expensive pro models.

I also did some materials science on this.  I took 3 brass pieces from a trumpet and cryo
treated them.  I found that what really happens is OPPOSITE what you've heard others
claim.  The material ends up MORE stressed as determined from a diamond anvil test..
Check out a phase diagram for brass, it's pretty interesting, especially at low
temperatures.  Make sure you find the right alloy.  I've forgotten the details, for
example, the composition (80/20?), the phase diagram structure. I was interested in this
years ago when someone in Ohio was doing this.

Later,

Sam

Michael Edmiston wrote:

> I'm a "brass" player, mostly trumpet.  For a number of years it's been
> possible to have brass instruments cryo treated (to liquid nitrogen
> temperatures).  All kinds of benefits in tone quality and ease of
> playing have been advertised.
>
> I have not had this done to my trumpet, nor have I played a treated
> trumpet.  Several professional trumpet players I know have paid the
> bucks and say they notice an improvement.  As was already mentioned
> about the bats, it's hard to know if this is real or psychological.
>
> Although the sports movement clearly has been riddled with
> "techno-gimmicks," I find other areas where personal skill is important
> (i.e. music) also have the same situation.  I wish there would be some
> easy scientific way to substantiate the claimed improvements of these
> things.  Many times I don't even know what they are claiming.  For
> example, I can buy a trumpet mouthpiece (expensive) which has much more
> metal and is much heavier.  Supposedly it will "contain the sound waves
> better" and give me a "much more focused sound."  What does that mean?
>
> I understand that shape, bore, smoothness, etc. are important in a
> brass instrument.  But do the elastic properties of a trumpet really
> have much interaction on the standing waves inside such that metal
> thickness and heat treatment really make much difference?  Of course
> people will say, "No, not much... but some.  And to a professional
> player than can give them an edge."  How do you prove/refute that?
>
> Whether the baseball goes farther or the trumpet sounds better is so
> dependent upon the skill of the player... and we know some of this is
> psychological... I don't know if scientists can do much verification or
> debunking in these areas.  What do the rest of you think?
>
> Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.              Phone/voice-mail:       419-358-3270
> Professor of Chemistry & Physics        FAX:                    419-358-3323
> Chairman, Science Department            E-Mail                  edmiston@bluffton.edu
> Bluffton College
> 280 West College Avenue
> Bluffton, OH 45817



--
Sam Sampere
Syracuse University
Department of Physics
Syracuse, NY 13244
315-443-5999