Double changer idea

If it has Pedals...
Bent
Posts: 1397
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:10 pm
Location: Ontario Canada
Contact:

Re: Double changer idea

Post by Bent »

Richard,
Of course we both know that you are asking for the impossible. Show you the paper you say. We both know that this is impossible since my friend just told me what he did as we talked about this subject. I would think that his word should be good enough for both of us. His point was that the ideal resting point for the string was for it to touch at a minuscule point on each side of the groove but not in the bottom (for example a round-bottomed groove would kill the sustain)
I believe that this point has been researched enough, without the need for further proof.

I have these gauged rollers on the guitar that Dave Seddon owns and I have received several positive remarks about the amount of sustain in it. However unscientific this may be, it still adds to my assertion that grooves do enhance sustain. I believe that a string vibrating mostly back and forth will benefit from the contact point on each side of it.

I find it tough to believe that the builders who chose to use gauged rollers thru the ages, were collectively wrong in their assumption.

Richard nobody is making blanket statements about one being better than the other, nor did I make that implication. As a matter of fact, please re-read my post where I merely said "FYI - IF you want to try it". Nor did I say that this grove plays a MAJOR role in the overall picture of a fine sounding steel. But as you assert, that the issue of this roller maybe contributes 1% to the overall picture, and the sum is 100 say, then leaving it out of the equation allows us to arrive at 99, not quite the sum... If that is so, then we can look at other things as well and say "it hardly contributes"...before we know it we'll land on 90 and so on.
The max transfer of energy (to where?) is the vibration throughout the body and back thru the strings and enhancing the overall tone picture. The Emmons PP builders strived for this sound transfer partly with the finger contacting the body of the guitar. It has nothing to do with steels merrily hopping across the floor ;)

I can agree that we might be making too much out of gauged rollers and such...sure we maybe are, but then I'll throw right back at ya "we are making too much out of knife edges". We all have our pet hangups and beliefs. Rollers is obviously mine, knife edges might be yours :-)

Sure, maybe no-one knows what makes a PSG tick. Ron Lashley Sr. came awfully close though, with his un-researched work.

We will just have to agree to disagree then I guess. No biggie. I enjoy these discussions as well, so let's discuss :-)
There comes a time, however, where one has to call a halt to the research and the discussions if one is aiming to get that guitar off of the paper and onto the floor.
Movin' on, my friend!
http://benrom.com/
21 BenRom pedal steel guitars, a Nash 112 and a 1967 TOS Milling machine with many cutters making one hell of a mess on the floor.
richard37066
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:44 am
Location: Gallatin, Tennessee, USA

Re: Double changer idea

Post by richard37066 »

Bent -

My background in a research laboratory tends to demand proof of a claim. I'm accustomed to having access to the published results of an experiment. It's therefore somewhat frustrating to learn of claims born of an experiment and not be able to verify it for myself. That is the basis for my insistance on references. I'm convinced of many myths surrounding the acoustical mechanisms within the PSG but am at a loss to find any supporting documentation. This is just the "egghead" in me and probably gets in the way at times.

Your last statement is one which I sort of lamented in another post - when does one stop thinking and pick up a tool and start working? I'm VERY guilty of this, my friend, and am working to curb my tendencies in this direction. I'm cognizant of the notion that I may just be bringing a degree of frustration upon myself - much to the detriment of realizing a finished product.

Perhaps an overriding feeling is that I'm not a young man anymore and I may just have one shot at this guitar building thing thus it must be "right" the first time around. But, then, what is "right"? I don't know - hence, my frustrations. I need an "attitude" adjustment!

Our conversations concerning the "knife edge" changer have me leaning towards short radius bearing points instead of a set of scalpels in the changer. This is, most likely, a step in the right direction. Gotta ponder it a little more. Right now I'm taking pencil to paper on other, more fundamental, ideas.

Time to put in a couple of hours at "work" on my PC for my boss-man. Will talk at y'all later.

Richard
Bent
Posts: 1397
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:10 pm
Location: Ontario Canada
Contact:

Re: Double changer idea

Post by Bent »

Richard, I am glad that you didn't take my post the wrong way - it could have been, considering the somewhat sharp-and-to-the-point reply.
I am also glad that we can overcome these little hurdles with good, fun discussion.
You obviously accept the amateur in me, as well as I accept the egghead in you. In the process we learn from each other and observe the value in our friendship.
Neither of us are exactly spring chickens, Richard. I think the main thing for us both is to keep those gray cells as active as possible. It will benefit us both in a very good way...and keep discussing like we always have been.
It boils down to one point: I respect and appreciate your comments and ideas.

What you said about a slight radius as opposed to a scalpel's edge - I couldn't agree more! Maybe something as big as a 1/16" radius would be very workable.
Both for more ease of construction and better against wear.
http://benrom.com/
21 BenRom pedal steel guitars, a Nash 112 and a 1967 TOS Milling machine with many cutters making one hell of a mess on the floor.
Farmer
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:04 pm
Location: Auburn, Indiana

Re: Double changer idea

Post by Farmer »

Bent, Richard, I still think when Sho-Bud used the string ball ends was to go from the nut they started with, which had no roller at all. Check out these pictures of an old permanent. Check out the key head end. No rollers. Using string rollers may not be guaged, but they are small enough probably not to matter, talk about 1/16 inch........Mike
http://www.planet.eon.net/~gsimmons/shobud/month.html
LushPyle
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:17 am

Re: Double changer idea

Post by LushPyle »

Mac - the one concern I have after digesting your design for a few days is the amount of movement in the tuning screw on the lower end as it goes through the motions from changing a string to the "neutral" position with the string tuned to pitch and then to the full lower position. The end of the screw will travel along the lower finger and gouge it a bit. If you have taken all this into consideration then I apologize for the post. My idea here was to pivot the tuning screw at the both ends and here is a quick and dirty CAD drawing showing what I mean. The first shows the string changing position, then the neutral, then a full lower. You could have the top pivot as a threaded pass through and catch the screw end in the bottom pivot if it had a "cup" to receive the rounder end of the screw or do it probably a couple of others. That question is not addressed in my drawing - just the overall concept. Again, if you have this all scoped out already just ignore!
Gary
Attachments
Lower Finger With Pivots (800x292).jpg
Lower Finger With Pivots (800x292).jpg (67.75 KiB) Viewed 1608 times
mac639
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:06 pm
Location: Carleton Place, ON
Contact:

Re: Double changer idea

Post by mac639 »

Hi Gary....thanks for the drawing. I too wondered about the tuning screw sliding along the finger. I just played around with the test bed pieces to see if there was a problem with that.
There is none. I have right now an "E" string on there (4th). I can lower it a whole tone to a "D" and the finger end only rotates less than 1/8". Think of it this way. The finger is is moving CCW and the lowering arm is moving CW. But there's quite a difference in the radius of the finger vs. the lowering arm. I guess that's why there's only miniscule movement along the finger by the tuning screw. In your drawing the two axles are not on the same plane. Mine are, and I think that's why there is so little movement. I will actually drill a small hole in the finger for the tuning screw to go into, and I'll grind the end of the screw to a small diameter kind of "pin" end to fit in the hole. Thanks again for your input,
Mac
Last edited by mac639 on Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:09 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Dave-M
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Northern Ontario, Canada

Re: Double changer idea

Post by Dave-M »

Hi Mac: I like your design. To keep the string centered at the LOWER end, instead of a screw, consider a threaded stem with a hole in it, using a nut and washer to secure the string.

Regarding splits, if I have the theory right (never done it myself), assuming a raise with a pedal, and a lower with a lever, the raise is tuned with pedal down by the raise end nut. The split is done with both pedal and lever activated using the lower end nut . At this time the lower lever alone goes too low, so compensate with a raise rod on the lowering bellcrank tuned at the raise end. This may involve a reverser.
Conceive, believe, achieve!
richard37066
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:44 am
Location: Gallatin, Tennessee, USA

Re: Double changer idea

Post by richard37066 »

Mac -

Gary's post expanded upon my feeling that there would be some gouging at an acute angle of the tuner finger. Minor problem. You'll get it worked out. Great concept!

Gary -

What software do you use to get your super drawings? Is there a steep learning curve? Gotta try to get away from the drawing board and move into the modern world! My GFI uses the "barrel" concept at the lower end of the tuning screws. Neat idea.

Richard
richard37066
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:44 am
Location: Gallatin, Tennessee, USA

Re: Double changer idea

Post by richard37066 »

Bent -

Of course there's no conflict! A little controversy just gets the mental juices going and, more often than not, some good comes from it.

To wit: - Our conversations concerning the "knife edge" concept. I guess that I was bound and determined to beat that thing over the head until I asked you a couple of questions about the practical aspect of machining the thing. Remember that old saw about theory and practice? I think that practice wins out in this case without sacrificing too much of the idealism. I thank you.

Richard
Farmer
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 10:04 pm
Location: Auburn, Indiana

Re: Double changer idea

Post by Farmer »

Richard, I think this is the crossover when Sho-Bud built for Fender. It is on a knife edge, but is on the order of a regular sissors type. Go down to the second page on this one.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=ddl9AA ... &q&f=false


This is a Fender. http://www.google.com/patents?id=v_VRAA ... &q&f=false
Post Reply