TromboneChat

What are the main difference here? From what I understand, all 3 pretty much function the same.

Trubores and Hagmanns work on a similar principle, but have different construction (and obviously orientation). I actually haven't seen Trubore internals, despite having owned a pair (and can't find any pictures!). That said, they are in the same family. Here's a Hagmann core.



CLs are totally different in all ways.

The guts all work the same...consistent bore through the valve!

Externals are the difference!

The CL valve is an exception thought. The internal passage is in a "Y" shape...

CL valves are not at all similar to Hagmann or Trubore valves. The Hagmann and Trubore are indeed similar, except for being 90 degrees offset. Patent number US7112735B2 shows the design of the Trubore, although being quite non-visual. Basically, tube 1 when in Bb, tube 2 and 3 when in F.

CL is patent number US5965833A and shows its flat path way better. Basically one tube has an extra exit blocked by the casing, so tube 1 entry 1 in Bb, in F tube 2 then the second exit of tube 1 and the Bb exit is blocked by the casing.

I'll also leave some other interesting patent numbers
Thayer valves:
US4469002A - Most modern rendition IMO
US4299156A - Assembled circular with 90 degree F side entry
US4112806A - Assembled circular with straight F side entry

Holton monster:
US5361668A - 2 straight tubes for F, and an S bend for Bb.

Yamaha V valve:
US6255571B1 - There is no straight tube through, it always goes through a tube, just the F side is way way longer. I'd wager to say that this is a different way of making the Shires Twin-valve, though they aren't too similar except for having a bridge between two holes.

K-valve:
US5396825A - Hot damn, now I now why it's called a K. Inventors name is Kirts. Just a Hagmann with a different formfactor. Less complexity in manufacturing the casing I suspect, and similar complexity in the core itself.

Miller valve:
US5798471A - Similar to the K-valve but still different. Instead of having the straight bath go "below" the F tubing it goes between. I'd call it a more compact monster valve due to the routing.

CL:
US5965833A - Basically one tube has an extra exit blocked by the casing, so tube 1 entry 1 in Bb, in F tube 2 then the second exit of tube 1 and the Bb exit is blocked by the casing.

Trubore:
US7112735B2 - Basically, tube 1 when in Bb, tube 2 and 3 when in F. Tube 1 is straight and tapered like a gooseneck.

Hagmann:
Tru-bore but assembled and tube 1 is curved and has a consistent bore.

Twin-valve:
US10380979B2 - Hard to explain but it's one path in each rotor, and they rotate opposite ways. Look at the patent and you will probably understand.

Earliest three port valve?:
US5919A (this is from 1848) - Three port rotor. This is in essence the Yamaha 682B rotor.

???:
US20150075353A1 - Axial flow valve with a rounder curve. I think this might be the most even blowing valve possible, even though it doesn't look feasible to manufacture due to it's rounded sides. I think this would be easier to manufacture as a cylinder, instead of an uneven ball.

By the way this took way longer than I expected. Digging through pages of google patents is annoying when the pictures are missing.

Eric could confirm but I'm pretty sure the core is machined from a solid piece of brass. The center port is completely straight, and the orientation of the other ports require part of the wrap to protrude past the neckpipe.

Hagmanns have the ports in 3D, as it uses not just the curved face but also the back of the valve. Core is a hollow inner casing with ports made of brass tubing. Center port is not straight (it curves very gently). The other ports going out of the back of the casing combined with the valve being rotated 90 degrees from normal means the wrap doesn't need to protrude past the neckpipe. The spindle is very different than on standard valves.

EDIT: Ah no of course the Tru-bore has the ports on the back, I was thinking about the Meinlschmidt OpenFlow

LeTromboniste wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:22 pm Tru-bores have all ports on the same plane like a standard valve.

No, tru-bores have the valve ports on the back of the valve like a hagmann. The difference, other than orientation, is that the hagmann is made like a piston valves, with passages brazed into the body of the valve.

According to the patents the Tru-bore has a screw underneath the valve cover that the core spins on. Inside the screw is a spring loaded ball bearing, according to the patent. This may improve the seal according to the patent.

Also, I suspect that the Tru-bore is indeed machined due to this section: (No need reading this, summarized below.)
"As with other conventional valves, the rotor of the Hagmann valve is constructed by manufacturing and assembling numerous individual components, including the frame and individual tubing sections 16, 24 and 32, which define the passages through the valve and subsequent assembly thereof. As discussed hereinabove, this leads to undesirable complexity and variability in the manufacturing process and ultimately to variability in the performance of the valve and instrument in which it is installed. Additionally, the rotor of the Hagmann valve has a shaft coupled to only one side of the housing, which introduces the possibility of the rotor “wobbling,” or experiencing eccentricity, as it rotates about the shaft. Such deviation, whether occurring initially or over time, because of wear or other mechanical or material deterioration of the rotor, can cause misalignment and unneeded restrictions in the flow path as, for example, the flow path transitions between a section of tubing (e.g., 16, 24 or 32) to an associated inlet, outlet or return tube.

It is, therefore, desirous to provide an improved valve for musical instruments that provides at least one flow path that does not introduce substantial resistance to air transmitted therethrough, which is simple and economical to manufacture. It is also desirable to provide an improved valve for musical instruments that is able to be reproduced without substantial variation from one product to the next."

Key words being "simple and economical to manufacture" as opposed to being "constructed by manufacturing and assembling numerous individual components".

Additionally the Tru-bore has an internal bumper assembly according to the patent and the pictures I have found.

TL;DR: Tru-bore is an improved Hagmann made to need lees maintenance.

LeTromboniste wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:22 pm Eric could confirm but I'm pretty sure the core is machined from a solid piece of brass. The center port is completely straight, and the orientation of the other ports require part of the wrap to protrude past the neckpipe.

I'm 99% sure the CL valve is made in two matching pieces and brazed together prior to the oxide coating being applied.
It would be pretty difficult to bore out the passages in a solid piece.

And contrary to what's stated on web, the CL valve was first conceived my the great Larry Minick!!


Eric

Bonearzt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:15 pm And contrary to what's stated on web, the CL valve was first conceived my the great Larry Minick!!
Eric

You mean the valve design didn't really come to Christian Lindberg in a dream?

I presume that Larry Minick never patented any of his ideas? Some were certainly worth protecting!

Posaunus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:22 pm

Bonearzt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:15 pm And contrary to what's stated on web, the CL valve was first conceived my the great Larry Minick!!
Eric

You mean the valve design didn't really come to Christian Lindberg in a dream?

I presume that Larry Minick never patented any of his ideas? Some were certainly worth protecting!

I don't think this is true. The Minick valve is superficially similar to the Lindberg valve, but the internals are different. If anyone can produce picture of a valve stamped "minick" with the Y branch inside, that would prove it. Otherwise I think a machinist must've looked at the Minick valve and thought up the Y branch as a separate idea.

There are examples of the Minick valve, and they have a straight tube through the middle. Honestly looks like a better design to me.

Lindberg was the one who had to put a lock around the CL2000 prototype to keep Conn from stealing the idea.

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:25 pm

Posaunus wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:22 pm

You mean the valve design didn't really come to Christian Lindberg in a dream?
I presume that Larry Minick never patented any of his ideas? Some were certainly worth protecting!

I don't think this is true. The Minick valve is superficially similar to the Lindberg valve, but the internals are different. If anyone can produce picture of a valve stamped "minick" with the Y branch inside, that would prove it. Otherwise I think a machinist must've looked at the Minick valve and thought up the Y branch as a separate idea.
There are examples of the Minick valve, and they have a straight tube through the middle. Honestly looks like a better design to me.

Lindberg was the one who had to put a lock around the CL2000 prototype to keep Conn from stealing the idea.

Nope, well documented somewhere that Larry Minicks wife had a lawsuit going against C-S at one time, but didn't have the $$.

Harrison, it's the other way around! The CL valve is similar to the Minick valve which is WAY older that any CL valve in existence.

Bonearzt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:49 pm

harrisonreed wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 6:25 pm
I don't think this is true. The Minick valve is superficially similar to the Lindberg valve, but the internals are different. If anyone can produce picture of a valve stamped "minick" with the Y branch inside, that would prove it. Otherwise I think a machinist must've looked at the Minick valve and thought up the Y branch as a separate idea.
There are examples of the Minick valve, and they have a straight tube through the middle. Honestly looks like a better design to me.

Lindberg was the one who had to put a lock around the CL2000 prototype to keep Conn from stealing the idea.

Nope, well documented somewhere that Larry Minicks wife had a lawsuit going against C-S at one time, but didn't have the $$.

Harrison, it's the other way around! The CL valve is similar to the Minick valve which is WAY older that any CL valve in existence.

No, I too think the Minick valve is older - why would I say that the machinist looked at it and came up with the Y branch if it didn't exist first... ?

From the outside it looks the same. But inside, the core is completely different. Where are these Minick valves with Y branches inside? You find me a picture of a Minick valve with a Y branch, and I'll buy that Conn/Lindberg stole his idea. Otherwise, no.

Hi All,

The Minick valve is a 3 port rotary valve. Minick absolutely got the idea from.19th century Tonschweschel? (Tone changer). The Alexander 103 french horn has a "6 port rotor" but the internal core only has two milled out passages on the exterior. Minick 3 port rotors were copied by Yamaha for the Bousfield model 682B. Meinlschmidt currently makes a 3 port rotor for sale if anyone is interested. 3 ports are not optomized for super smooth bends. The straight through Bb side is great but the sharp bends in the wrap could be improved. There is a reason why Hagmann and Axials took off rather than the 3 port rotors. Both Trubores and Hagmann rotor cores have brazed in bent tube in a machined casing. Many convential and improved rotor had brazed in tubes in them, such as the King Symphony, and Kanstul CR valves. Kanstul CR rotor cores were made of two pieces and soldered together around the bent tube ports.

Thanks for the clarification Benn!!

I will though in a another note of variations. The mass and the size.

The size becomes an issue taking space near your neck, sometimes offsetting the horn from your face.

The additional mass will dampen the horn. I guess a lighter bell can offset that. But I have found that more valve is more efforts to get the sound to respond.

Play them all. But do not just look for power, look for finesse.

octavposaune wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:43 pm Both Trubores and Hagmann rotor cores have brazed in bent tube in a machined casing. Many convential and improved rotor had brazed in tubes in them, such as the King Symphony, and Kanstul CR valves. Kanstul CR rotor cores were made of two pieces and soldered together around the bent tube ports.

I have the prototype Shires rotary valve mounted on my Shires. The core is made of Bach 42 F-attachment tuning slide tubing brazed into a vented valve core. Steve made the valve based on things he had seen working in the shop at Osmun. This valve was the inspiration for the Greenhoe valve and the later Shires rotary valve (and hence, most of the "improved" rotary valves). Gary got a patent he probably shouldn't have received because every aspect of the valve was prior art. Rotary valves have been around since the mid-19th C. King (and probably others, too) had been brazing tubing into rotary valve casings since the 1930s (for their tubas and the Symphony). Paxman had been venting the valve core since the 1950s. The problem is that patent inspectors don't necessarily understand musical instrument valves too well and particularly not the unpatented prior art.

The first Thayer valve prototypes were cylindrical. I've seen one of them, and I wouldn't care to play a horn equipped with it: it would really intrude on the player's neck.

Peacemate wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:05 pm According to the patents the Tru-bore has a screw underneath the valve cover that the core spins on. Inside the screw is a spring loaded ball bearing, according to the patent. This may improve the seal according to the patent.

Also, I suspect that the Tru-bore is indeed machined due to this section: (No need reading this, summarized below.)
"As with other conventional valves, the rotor of the Hagmann valve is constructed by manufacturing and assembling numerous individual components, including the frame and individual tubing sections 16, 24 and 32, which define the passages through the valve and subsequent assembly thereof. As discussed hereinabove, this leads to undesirable complexity and variability in the manufacturing process and ultimately to variability in the performance of the valve and instrument in which it is installed. Additionally, the rotor of the Hagmann valve has a shaft coupled to only one side of the housing, which introduces the possibility of the rotor “wobbling,” or experiencing eccentricity, as it rotates about the shaft. Such deviation, whether occurring initially or over time, because of wear or other mechanical or material deterioration of the rotor, can cause misalignment and unneeded restrictions in the flow path as, for example, the flow path transitions between a section of tubing (e.g., 16, 24 or 32) to an associated inlet, outlet or return tube.

It is, therefore, desirous to provide an improved valve for musical instruments that provides at least one flow path that does not introduce substantial resistance to air transmitted therethrough, which is simple and economical to manufacture. It is also desirable to provide an improved valve for musical instruments that is able to be reproduced without substantial variation from one product to the next."

Key words being "simple and economical to manufacture" as opposed to being "constructed by manufacturing and assembling numerous individual components".

Additionally the Tru-bore has an internal bumper assembly according to the patent and the pictures I have found.

TL;DR: Tru-bore is an improved Hagmann made to need lees maintenance.

I think there are certain things about the tru-bore that changed between the patent and the actual production model. there is no screw or ball bearing under the cover, but there is a bearing plate there. The spring in the tru-bore is in the lever. What is under the cover on the tru-bore is the stopper. Instead of a stop arm external to the valve, the tru-bore has a stud threaded into the body of the valve that meets stoppers in a cut-out in the bearing plate. The original tru-bore valves had an o-ring on the stud which met up with a precision groove in the bearing plate. Later tru-bore valves had an all metal stud which worked against rubber bumpers which are placed into round cut-outs at the end of the groove.

This is different than the hagmann which has only the spindle on one side and no bearing on the other side. The hagmann also has the spring external, but there are two springs -- one in the lever and one on the end of the spindle. The stoppers for the hagmann are integrated into a disk-shaped "stop arm" that is at the end of the spindle.

bbocaner wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:40 am I think there are certain things about the tru-bore that changed between the patent and the actual production model. there is no screw or ball bearing under the cover, but there is a bearing plate there. The spring in the tru-bore is in the lever. What is under the cover on the tru-bore is the stopper. Instead of a stop arm external to the valve, the tru-bore has a stud threaded into the body of the valve that meets stoppers in a cut-out in the bearing plate. The original tru-bore valves had an o-ring on the stud which met up with a precision groove in the bearing plate. Later tru-bore valves had an all metal stud which worked against rubber bumpers which are placed into round cut-outs at the end of the groove.

This is different than the hagmann which has only the spindle on one side and no bearing on the other side. The hagmann also has the spring external, but there are two springs -- one in the lever and one on the end of the spindle. The stoppers for the hagmann are integrated into a disk-shaped "stop arm" that is at the end of the spindle.

Oh yeah there are external springs with the Tru-bore. The patent actually doesn't show any return springs for the valve, so I just assumed that it was in the standard position. The thing I took note of was the screw-pin-detent-bearing thing in the bearing plate according to the patent. I had just totally forgotten that it was called a bearing plate, but yes, it isn't big or really under the valve cover. It is (in the patent) inside the bearing plate underneath the valve cover. None of the actual moving parts would be visible on the bearing plate side to my understanding. I haven't even seen a Tru-bore or Hagmann in the metal, but I would love a picture underneath the valve cover, to see if there is some sort of a small screw.

What I am referring to looks like this from the side:
296, 297, 294

I guess all this would create a very complicated assembly, and therefore not be easily user serviceable.

From what I remember, under the valve cap on the trubores is the visible cutout with bumpers on either side and the stud from the valve core that acts on those. Not much else. I never took mine apart.

Burgerbob wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:23 pm From what I remember, under the valve cap on the trubores is the visible cutout with bumpers on either side and the stud from the valve core that acts on those. Not much else. I never took mine apart.

Too lazy to take a picture, but this is correct. Aside from the cutout on the bearing plate for the bumpers and stop arm, it is an entirely conventional spindle sitting in the bearing plate. A little bigger diameter than a standard rotary, but nothing different. Well, there are no notches on it for alignment, but there is nothing unique there. No threaded ball and spring assembly.

Cheers,
Andy

elmsandr wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:34 pm

Burgerbob wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:23 pm From what I remember, under the valve cap on the trubores is the visible cutout with bumpers on either side and the stud from the valve core that acts on those. Not much else. I never took mine apart.

Too lazy to take a picture, but this is correct. Aside from the cutout on the bearing plate for the bumpers and stop arm, it is an entirely conventional spindle sitting in the bearing plate. A little bigger diameter than a standard rotary, but nothing different. Well, there are no notches on it for alignment, but there is nothing unique there. No threaded ball and spring assembly.

Cheers,
Andy

That was what I expected. Doesn't seem too smart to create a valve to reduce complexity and then add so many parts again for no gain. I am slightly sad that it isn't as cool as I had dreamt up, but I think I will manage.

Might have to model that Miller valve though seeing all the angles being included in the patent. That Tru-bore cutout might be a good way to simplify my axial flow design too.

Shires posted this diagram on facebook a while back. This is consistent with the second version of the valve that I used to have.

I love those diagrams that basically show nothing of import. I guess it looks neat!

Haha! Right. The bearing plate is pictured pretty well, though.

bbocaner wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:51 pm Haha! Right. The bearing plate is pictured pretty well, though.

It is. I remember taking the valve cap off and going "hmm... maybe I shouldn't take this apart."

Well, trubore ~ hagmann + - some minor details, it seems. Both 3 ports, two of them bending out of the side plate. Do they have same diameter in rotary core and bore? If yes, then the main difference is the construction of pivot, bumpers and linkage, I guess?

No, they are geometrically very similar but they play differently. The big thing about the trubore is the straight passage is a tapered bore and goes absolutely straight through, like a gooseneck. The hagmann passages are brazed in place like a piston valve so it’s much lighter and the passage has a little kink in it.

marccromme wrote: ↑Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:11 pm Well, trubore ~ hagmann + - some minor details, it seems. Both 3 ports, two of them bending out of the side plate. Do they have same diameter in rotary core and bore? If yes, then the main difference is the construction of pivot, bumpers and linkage, I guess?

Diameter of a trubore is larger. Allows the Bb passage to be straight while there is a little bump out in the Bb passage of the Hagmann. Also, the bearing plate of the trubore is more like a traditional rotor. Some pretty significant manufacturing differences for something that shares the same overall concept.

Cheers,
Andy

Thanks for the explanation.

I would also include the Greenhoe valve in this discussion. I've been playing on them for a couple of years now and I think they are a great option for those who don't care for axials.

fwbassbone wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:37 pm I would also include the Greenhoe valve in this discussion. I've been playing on them for a couple of years now and I think they are a great option for those who don't care for axials.

They're good valves, but not really why this topic was started.