HomeHome  CalendarCalendar  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  Log in  
Share | 
 

 Engineering

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
alfredo_buscatti

avatar

Age : 62
Location : Piedmont, North Carolina
Registration date : 2007-12-17

PostSubject: Engineering   Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:36 pm

Ferndown, Dunhill, Ashton. Three respected English pipemakers. But what's with the tiny draftholes? The lack of a chamfered tenon; as I understand it that is the place where flow is most compromised. No funneled tenons?

Money?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
sisyphus

avatar

Registration date : 2012-06-11

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:38 pm

my 6 Dunhills, 1972-2011, all have pretty open draws. Ferndown pipes do have a smaller airway, which is just how Les likes it I guess.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
sisyphus

avatar

Registration date : 2012-06-11

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:40 pm

alfredo_buscatti wrote:
I've never seriously considered buying a Dunhill. Boring. Paying consistently big bucks to buy a name. Engineering is mediocre at best.

which, again, since you've never owned one why are you commenting on their engineering?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
alfredo_buscatti

avatar

Age : 62
Location : Piedmont, North Carolina
Registration date : 2007-12-17

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:57 pm

You're right, I've neither owned nor smoked a Dunhill. I know you have and like them and I'm glad they work for you. But I have examined them. The American pipe renaissance incorporates these standards, as does the pipe Todd Harris made for me which smokes as well as a cob, my debatable standard; I do believe these artisans are on to something. I much prefer Todd's pipe to the many other pipes I've smoked; you may not.

Opinions, different tastes?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
sisyphus

avatar

Registration date : 2012-06-11

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:11 pm

alfredo_buscatti wrote:
The American pipe renaissance

oh boy.

If you don't like factory pipes don't smoke factory pipes. Discussions about pipes that you don't smoke and that have never been in your rotation? What is the point? Just taking pot shots at pipes you've convinced yourself to dislike with no hands-on experience to back it up? Not productive.

FWIW, the only English pipes I've ever owned with a restricted airway were Ferndowns. I liked them for a while, you get used to their smoking qualities, but ultimately as I became more enamored of English pipes and started buying older pipes from the 50s and 60s I didn't feel the Ferndowns compared favorably, and I got rid of the several I owned. Plus they're so freaking big. I do feel that my modern Dunhills are as good smokers as any pipes from the halcyon days of English pipe making that I own.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
alfredo_buscatti

avatar

Age : 62
Location : Piedmont, North Carolina
Registration date : 2007-12-17

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:18 pm

I've owned a half-dozen Ferndown REOs and two Ashtons, and it irritates me that they haven't smoked better. I particularly like REOs and have a pot and:

1. tiny draft
2. stem isn't comfortable, angles up from the button, no place to clench.
3. no chamfer
4. no funnel
5. heavy
6. big/clumsy

1-4 in my book shouldn't be. 5&6 can be good or bad. These pipes are sturdy.

I had another REO Dublin, a shape I've seen him make again, a group 5. It came fitted with the clunkiest bit I've ever seen. Sometimes I see a pipe with an unwieldy stem which seems nothing more than aesthetics. But you can't put aesthetics in your mouth; what art can save a stem fit for something other than a human? The Pease/DiPiazza pipes are like this, and although I admit they have a designer flash, I'd have to resort to a rubber bit. Now I've bought a pipe or two knowing I'd have to use a rubber bit.

But wait, pipes come with stems that are supposed to enable them to be held them in one's mouth. Isn't this circuitous?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sasquatch

avatar

Location : The Garage
Registration date : 2008-12-14

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:23 pm

Let's go back to basics here, and talk about theoretical ideals, and then move to whys and why-nots.

There are two basically accepted notions for engineering a pipe. One is the idea that the airway should be smooth and uniform, with basically no changes of volume (cross-sectional area if you prefer). The idea is that you reduce/minimize condensation by not offering any turbulence inducing zones, no restrictions. Get the smoke in one smooth tube from bowl to button.

This works. And pipes with ragged tenons or obstructive designs generally will gurgle and fuss.

You can up the anti on this idea a bit, and add a nice touch: as a gas moves faster, it exerts less pressure on the side walls of a tube containing it (this is why planes can fly). So you might build a pipe that has an airway that gets smaller and smaller with the idea being that as the smoke cools on its way out of the pipe (and is therefore more likely to condense) it should be moved faster and faster. So a tapering airway seems to work too.


Now, a funneled tenon on one hand is a condensation cause - it's not going to offer as smooth a tube as a perfectly fitting non-funneled unit. But very many pipes do not and cannot have perfect fitting tenon/mortise joints (bent pipes for example) in terms of smoke-hole lining up. So the funnel is a concession in that direction - and it does not seem to do any harm at all.


Personally, I build big airways that taper a lot. But as long as things are at open enough and built well enough, even a fairly small draught hole will work - I have an excellent smoking old Sasieni that is drilled just under 1/8".
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:44 pm

For an extreme example,

http://www.apassionforpipes.com/neills-blog/2013/3/23/neatpipes-aerobilliard-takes-flight.html

Both NR (above) and George Dibos have gone on record as being blown away by how well pipes of this design perform and taste -- two guys whose experience & perceptual acuity rate 10 out of a possible 10 in Yakspace. And in most otherspaces as well.

FWIW

What a Face


Last edited by Yak on Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:45 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : the usual :)
Back to top Go down
alfredo_buscatti

avatar

Age : 62
Location : Piedmont, North Carolina
Registration date : 2007-12-17

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:50 pm

Thanks Sas, I'll cogitate upon this a bit.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Growley

avatar

Age : 42
Location : Fairhope, Al
Registration date : 2012-04-10

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:20 pm

I too have fallen into the "wide open" category for making my pipes. I've learned from some outstanding pipe makers, and that's what they do, and it works. I'm sure there's a point where you could be too wide and it would ruin things, but there are some standards that work well.

I can't really add to what Sas said. I think he summed it up well.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://GrowleyPipes.com
Harlock999

avatar

Location : Los Angeles
Registration date : 2010-10-22

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:59 am

I have two Dunhills, an '03, and an '06. When puffed on, both have just a hint of resistance in the draw, which actually feels just right.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
alfredo_buscatti

avatar

Age : 62
Location : Piedmont, North Carolina
Registration date : 2007-12-17

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:49 am

The blog entry states that the chamber is in the shank but then goes on to give its dimensions, as if this were a traditionally chambered pipe housed in the bowl. Which is it? The article is very exciting but doesn't say just what a reverse calabash designed pipe is.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
riff raff

avatar

Location : Western Maryland
Registration date : 2011-05-24

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Fri Apr 05, 2013 7:23 am

I don't prefer a wide open draft hole (ala new Castello's), but they smoke well enough otherwise, I put up with it. But, I much prefer the draft on my Upshalls and Ashtons, which by my taste and packing method are just right. You can make almost any draft hole work, packing to the pipe is the secret. I spend more time packing the Castello's very tightly than I do my Uphsalls or Ashtons. I have two Ferndowns and have to be careful not to pack too tightly. Packed correctly, both are excellent smoking pipes. I suppose their style wins me over some as well as the smoking experience. I've only owned one Dunhll (2002) and would put that draft hole on par with my Upshalls. That one was sold because I didn't like a straight pipe, not because of the way it smoked.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ED_X

avatar

Age : 60
Location : Tallahassee, FL
Registration date : 2013-01-20

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:24 am

Sasquatch wrote:
Let's go back to basics here, and talk about theoretical ideals, and then move to whys and why-nots.

There are two basically accepted notions for engineering a pipe. One is the idea that the airway should be smooth and uniform, with basically no changes of volume (cross-sectional area if you prefer). The idea is that you reduce/minimize condensation by not offering any turbulence inducing zones, no restrictions. Get the smoke in one smooth tube from bowl to button.

This works. And pipes with ragged tenons or obstructive designs generally will gurgle and fuss.

You can up the anti on this idea a bit, and add a nice touch: as a gas moves faster, it exerts less pressure on the side walls of a tube containing it (this is why planes can fly). So you might build a pipe that has an airway that gets smaller and smaller with the idea being that as the smoke cools on its way out of the pipe (and is therefore more likely to condense) it should be moved faster and faster. So a tapering airway seems to work too.


Now, a funneled tenon on one hand is a condensation cause - it's not going to offer as smooth a tube as a perfectly fitting non-funneled unit. But very many pipes do not and cannot have perfect fitting tenon/mortise joints (bent pipes for example) in terms of smoke-hole lining up. So the funnel is a concession in that direction - and it does not seem to do any harm at all.


Personally, I build big airways that taper a lot. But as long as things are at open enough and built well enough, even a fairly small draught hole will work - I have an excellent smoking old Sasieni that is drilled just under 1/8".

Thank you for such a succinct explanation. Ed
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sasquatch

avatar

Location : The Garage
Registration date : 2008-12-14

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:18 am

The reverse calabash is like a Peterson system pipe in a way - there's a large chamber in the shank of the pipe where the smoke can sit and cool and swirl around. It's taken to an extreme, and the chamber sizes range up near 50cc on some of these things. Almost everyone who has smoked one has been surprised and impressed at how they smoke.

So this, in a sense, is the opposite end of the engineering spectrum - let's design a pipe that cools the smoke, knocks condensate out, and sends more user-friendly stuff out the stem. This is the Peterson system idea, and it works too. The trouble is that sometimes it works so good you get moisture sitting around on the end of the tenon and it gurgles.

The reverse calabash offers so much space that there isn't a focused condensing point, I suppose.


As to bit and button-work, this is where you really start to see an improvement in what a guy might call high grade pipes - most carvers take great care with their button work, but the extra time = extra money on the price point too. A pipe that retails for 200 bucks is never going to have the same stem as a pipe that retails for 600.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sasquatch

avatar

Location : The Garage
Registration date : 2008-12-14

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:20 am

Harlock999 wrote:
I have two Dunhills, an '03, and an '06. When puffed on, both have just a hint of resistance in the draw, which actually feels just right.

Dunnies have an excellent smooth draw, don't they?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:00 am

Sas : that is where I'd imagine that a military bit would be ideal -- same as with a Peterson. Pull it out, sop up the juice, replace and continue. I wonder why they don't do that ?

What a Face
Back to top Go down
Kyle Weiss

avatar

Location : Reno, NV
Registration date : 2011-09-18

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:03 pm

alfredo_buscatti wrote:
I'll cogitate upon this a bit.

Close your curtains beforehand! Embarassed

Laughing

Cool
Back to top Go down
View user profile
alfredo_buscatti

avatar

Age : 62
Location : Piedmont, North Carolina
Registration date : 2007-12-17

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:27 pm

Would that I had the power of the great Oz!
Back to top Go down
View user profile
osci

avatar

Age : 41
Location : Carosino, Apulia region, Italy
Registration date : 2012-12-22

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Sat Apr 06, 2013 5:49 am

I own a Dunhill bent rhodesian and i can say the airway is wide open and pipe has a smooth draft.
Then i own two Ferndown, a canadian and a bulldog, the drafthole on the canadian is smaller and the draft not so smooth, the drafthole on the bulldog is surprisingly wide open and consequently, for me, it is an easier smoke.
To be honest i need to say that, if properly packed and smoked, the canadian is a great smoker too, just my personal preference is for the wide open airways, in fact my favourite smoke is a Castello 55 with a huge drafthole.



Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.facebook.com/saverio.pastore
glpease
Dark Lord
avatar

Age : 59
Location : Here, now. Somewhere else, later...
Registration date : 2007-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Sun Apr 07, 2013 5:14 pm

alfredo_buscatti wrote:
Ferndown, Dunhill, Ashton. Three respected English pipemakers. But what's with the tiny draftholes? The lack of a chamfered tenon; as I understand it that is the place where flow is most compromised. No funneled tenons?

Money?

Mike, I've owned quite a few Dunhills, and don't recall ever having one with what I'd consider a tiny draught hole. Most run very close to the "modern standard" of 4mm (5/32"), which is more than adequate. Further, I've never had a Dunhill that gurgled, or exhibited any other problem associated with airway construction. If the tenon is drilled properly, there's no need for funneling, though it is certainly helpful when the stem's airway is more constricted than that through the shank.

But, more importantly, this whole "wide-open draught" thing has really gotten out of hand. I've had many pipes with airways that would be considered "too narrow" by today's standards, which are approaching being large enough to offer spare parking for the family wagon, that despite this "shortcoming" have functioned perfectly well and tasted superb. And, I've had more than a few of the big-name "big-bore" pipes that have delivered smoke that tastes like little more than hot-air.

Further irony: I will never hold Castello pipes up for being paragons of "engineering," yet they smoke wonderfully. Interesting, no?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.glpease.com
Wet Dottle

avatar

Location : Littleton, CO
Registration date : 2008-02-27

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:44 pm

[quote="glpease"]
alfredo_buscatti wrote:
Further irony: I will never hold Castello pipes up for being paragons of "engineering," yet they smoke wonderfully. Interesting, no?
I could add Ashtons to that list.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
alfredo_buscatti

avatar

Age : 62
Location : Piedmont, North Carolina
Registration date : 2007-12-17

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Sun Apr 07, 2013 9:48 pm

mea culpa:)
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sasquatch

avatar

Location : The Garage
Registration date : 2008-12-14

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Sun Apr 07, 2013 10:36 pm

I compared the engineering of a Dunhill 120, a Castello 65, a Sav autograph, and a high grade Pete. The Castello's engineering was the best by a long shot I thought.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
glpease
Dark Lord
avatar

Age : 59
Location : Here, now. Somewhere else, later...
Registration date : 2007-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Engineering   Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:25 pm

Sasquatch wrote:
I compared the engineering of a Dunhill 120, a Castello 65, a Sav autograph, and a high grade Pete. The Castello's engineering was the best by a long shot I thought.

One point don't make no line, though. I've had Castellos that were very well constructed, and others that I had to spend hours on to make bearable. It's all in the stems. Modern pieces seem to be better, overall, than the older ones.


Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.glpease.com
 
Engineering
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next
 Similar topics
-
» Full engineering software

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Brothers of Briar :: Pipes & Tobacco :: Ye Olde Pipe Rack-
Jump to: