Mullen Bent Cross Rods

[Chris Lang]

Ross says:

for anyone who's interested I modeled this up in Solidworks. Mating the bent rod at each end to the two different bores concentrically will not allow the bent rod to rotate. The only way it can rotate is for some misalignment of the two rod ends within their respective bores to take place.

Wow!

That was sweet!

Also, your description sums it to a "T"

Great work, Ross..............

[Chris Lang]

Bent again

sure the axis is different... by a quarter inch. But that is ok and also sound engineering, because it is not like you say that the ends have to "squirm" as you scientifically put it. Instead it is like Mike said: That this is built to tolerances of .002 inches. That is a very good, sound tolerance and certainly no "squirming"
Chris it is not a design flaw if it works as intended, and that it does. It is just a flaw in the eye of the beholder who can't stand to see something new and innovative. I refer again to the old lady and the train

No reason to get Bent out of shape. Just watch the computer animation if you are not able to grasp the elementary physics.

That was some sweet animation.

I love it!

[Bent Romnes]

Ross, You know I respect your opinions and ideas.
In this case we have to ask the question: does it work for intended task? A resounding YES, and with good measure.
If it works it is NOT a design flaw like some people want it to be. It is merely a visual flaw in the eye of the observer who doesn't like the bend.

[Chris Lang]

Bent to the point of breaking:

It is merely a visual flaw in the eye of the observer who doesn't like the bend.

Uh...... No. It is in fact a design flaw by physical definition!

Several have tried to explain to you in great detail.

Even with a great computer animation!

Still, you do not want to see the light.

Very well, enjoy the darkness.........



Speaking of darkness.

Goodnight to all.

[Tony Glassman]

Chris is not going to shut-up, until everyone involved in this thread concedes that Del Mullen has made a horrible design mistake and the G-2 cannot possibly work.

So let's just leave it at that and get on with our lives!.......

[Jack Goodson]

i remember a quote that said (never argue with a fool because bystanders cannot determine which is which) not aimed at anyone in particular just thought it was appropriate. thanks jack

[Mickey Adams]

Hey Chris...Where you playing?...I wanna come hear you...Im in Minden regularly...

[Danny Bates]

I thought a design flaw was something that doesn't work right. If it works fine, then how can it be a design flaw?

Also, how can anybody possibly think those shafts are ugly?

If I was Del Mullen, I don't think I'd be too insulted. Anybody that can build a guitar with an undercarriage like that is a true artist. Hopefully Del has a good sense of humor because he may have to tell this joke over and over again.

[Chris Lang]

Danny says:

I thought a design flaw was something that doesn't work right. If it works fine, then how can it be a design flaw?

Also, how can anybody possibly think those shafts are ugly?

If I was Del Mullen, I don't think I'd be too insulted. Anybody that can build a guitar with an undercarriage like that is a true artist. Hopefully Del has a good sense of humor because he may have to tell this joke over and over again.

No Danny, a design flaw could be many things. Most generally it is a design that, while may work, although not as effeciently as another, more precise design.

As far as the Mullen "bent" rods go, yes, they may work ok, but the design itself is obviously not physically correct, and therefore not as effecient as it could be if the straight rods were used instead of the "bent" ones.

All of you Mullen players that are pleased with your purchase, I say, more power to you. My purpose in this thread was to simply bring to light the error in engineering that I observed in the "bends". I realise that to some of you this is not something that you want to acknowledge, but nevertheless, it is still factual.

Also, how can anybody possibly think those shafts are ugly?

Hopefully Del has a good sense of humor because he may have to tell this joke over and over again.

Well, I wouldn't call it a joke.


Tony says:

Chris is not going to shut-up, until everyone involved in this thread concedes that Del Mullen has made a horrible design mistake and the G-2 cannot possibly work.

I do not believe it is a horrible design, just not the physically correct, most effecient design. However, it is his company, so he can make guitars with circle crossrods if he wants.

Does not make it right though.................

[Brandon Wright]

I think ya'll are big time nerds.

Hey Chris...what pedal steel is perfect in your opinion. It's not a loaded question. I'm just curious. What do you play on?

[Bent Romnes]

Bent to the point of breaking:

It is merely a visual flaw in the eye of the observer who doesn't like the bend.

Uh...... No. It is in fact a design flaw by physical definition!

Several have tried to explain to you in great detail.

Even with a great computer animation!

Still, you do not want to see the light.

Very well, enjoy the darkness.........



Speaking of darkness.

Goodnight to all.

Chris,I told you I didn't mind the Bent jokes attached to my name. That was then, This is now:
I have you figured out...when you are starting to feel backed against a wall you start upping the joke level with what you wrote. Not funny. Show respect. That is the first commandment of healthy debating.

I killed your theory about the shaft ends being angled in the bearing holes. You sidestepped that and turned up the heat in another area. This is typical of a bad debater.

Chris, a person is entitled to his own opinion when those opinions are based in reality, sound research and normal, everyday thinking.
When opinions are pushed without much proof or basis in fact it ceases to become an opinion and instead becomes what can be called adolescent whining. I have no idea how old you are but I must say you don't speak like a man with too many years on your back. Not only here...when one reads your previous posts, one sees the light pretty quickly. Remember I wrote about respect? Show some respect on this Forum. If you don't, you will rapidly lose what little respect you yourself has left.


Now to the debate at hand:
Chris,it is not in fact a 'design flaw by physical definition.' How can you say that when the part works for the intended purpose? So what if the bell crank swings in a wee different arc as long as pulls the rod that pulls the changer finger sufficiently to make the change intended, and with good measure? I will repeat, to no avail maybe, that the only flaw here is visual ie based on the observers taste. I might add that said observer seems very resistant to change of any kind. What then when this same observer observes a horizontal changer with tuners and changer in the same end of the guitar?

Chris, I am a hobby builder of pedal steels. I know the difficulties involved with getting the height from the shaft to the top raise hole to line up, because of the 1/4" step on the deck. These bent shafts solve this problem beautifully! I would certainly incorporate this idea in my guitars if it hadn't been for my respect for Del Mullen and his work involved in this. I would be stepping on his toes and I have too much respect for another person. There we have that word again, Chris.

As you see, not much here really, about the issue at hand, other than that I enlightened my argument once again ( about this design flaw theory of yours)
But a whole bunch about respect. I hope you take it to heart my friend.

Again: the shafts work as intended, with much to spare. That they look weird or different is simply a personal taste thing. A visual issue, Chris, with no basis in poor engineering.
with respect
Bent

[Lee Baucum]

Click Here

[Dave Grothusen]

This has been an intereting thread. Sometimes looking at how something works is only limited by what the knowledge a person has. Off topic but this is the way I can relate to this bent rod situation. I bought a new tractor in 1973 that only had three cylinders. My dad, born in 1905, looked under the hood and counted three spark plugs. He said "where is the other cylinder"? When I told him there were only three he allowed as how he did not know how it could run. He had never seen anything but even numbers of cylinders on any engine. It did run and the Mullen does work. Neat concept.

[Chris Lang]

Bent:

Chris,I told you I didn't mind the Bent jokes attached to my name. That was then, This is now:
I have you figured out...when you are starting to feel backed against a wall you start upping the joke level with what you wrote. Not funny. Show respect. That is the first commandment of healthy debating.

I killed your theory about the shaft ends being angled in the bearing holes. You sidestepped that and turned up the heat in another area. This is typical of a bad debater.

Chris, a person is entitled to his own opinion when those opinions are based in reality, sound research and normal, everyday thinking.
When opinions are pushed without much proof or basis in fact it ceases to become an opinion and instead becomes what can be called adolescent whining. I have no idea how old you are but I must say you don't speak like a man with too many years on your back. Not only here...when one reads your previous posts, one sees the light pretty quickly. Remember I wrote about respect? Show some respect on this Forum. If you don't, you will rapidly lose what little respect you yourself has left.


Now to the debate at hand:
Chris,it is not in fact a 'design flaw by physical definition.' How can you say that when the part works for the intended purpose? So what if the bell crank swings in a wee different arc as long as pulls the rod that pulls the changer finger sufficiently to make the change intended, and with good measure? I will repeat, to no avail maybe, that the only flaw here is visual ie based on the observers taste. I might add that said observer seems very resistant to change of any kind. What then when this same observer observes a horizontal changer with tuners and changer in the same end of the guitar?

Chris, I am a hobby builder of pedal steels. I know the difficulties involved with getting the height from the shaft to the top raise hole to line up, because of the 1/4" step on the deck. These bent shafts solve this problem beautifully! I would certainly incorporate this idea in my guitars if it hadn't been for my respect for Del Mullen and his work involved in this. I would be stepping on his toes and I have too much respect for another person. There we have that word again, Chris.

As you see, not much here really, about the issue at hand, other than that I enlightened my argument once again ( about this design flaw theory of yours)
But a whole bunch about respect. I hope you take it to heart my friend.

Again: the shafts work as intended, with much to spare. That they look weird or different is simply a personal taste thing. A visual issue, Chris, with no basis in poor engineering.
with respect
Bent

We'll take this one first:

I killed your theory about the shaft ends being angled in the bearing holes. You sidestepped that and turned up the heat in another area. This is typical of a bad debater.

No Bent you did no such thing. The "bent" crossrods go into the side aprons at a 90 angle, as other guitars. That is true.
However, and watch here: The "bent" crossrod has TWO different axis. Why can you not see this? Looking down on the underside of the G2, you will note that each end of the crossrod is at TWO different heights! Two different axis! That is not physically correct in anyones book. Simple. If you were to rotate the bent rod a complete rotation, it would bind. Why is that hard for you to see? (although, I doubt that the bent rod would even roate a full turn)

Next:

I might add that said observer seems very resistant to change of any kind. What then when this same observer observes a horizontal changer with tuners and changer in the same end of the guitar?

On the contrary, I embrace change, as long as it is a positive, physically correct, advancement. "Bent" crossrods are not! It is elementary....

Next:

Chris, I am a hobby builder of pedal steels. I know the difficulties involved with getting the height from the shaft to the top raise hole to line up, because of the 1/4" step on the deck. These bent shafts solve this problem beautifully! I would certainly incorporate this idea in my guitars if it hadn't been for my respect for Del Mullen and his work involved in this. I would be stepping on his toes and I have too much respect for another person. There we have that word again, Chris.

Please.........
If this "bent" design is so good and cutting edge, why are not others builders using it? It is not patented. I'll tell you why. It is physically wrong! Simple.

"Calling all buiders using "bent" crossrods to the front desk please"!........

silence....

Next:

So what if the bell crank swings in a wee different arc as long as pulls the rod that pulls the changer finger sufficiently to make the change intended, and with good measure?

Key phrases here: sufficiently and wee different arc...
These are not terms I would associate with precision.


Next:

I have you figured out...when you are starting to feel backed against a wall you start upping the joke level with what you wrote. Not funny. Show respect. That is the first commandment of healthy debating.

No, I have physical science on my side. You have terms like "wee different arc" and "sufficiently".
I am not backed up against any wall! I have supporting evidence backing my point. Where is your supporting evidence?
Tell you what. Take your "bent" bar that you fashioned and hold it in your hand with each end of the rod at 90 degrees to your hands. Now rotate it either direction. You can see the bend rise and fall. Simple!

Next:

Chris,I told you I didn't mind the Bent jokes attached to my name. That was then, This is now:

Ok, fair enough, I'm sorry for adding humor, I had no idea that you were sensitive to that. Until now. Now that you have run out of excuses why basic, elementary, physical laws do not apply to the Mullen "bent" rods.

Then this!:

Chris, a person is entitled to his own opinion when those opinions are based in reality, sound research and normal, everyday thinking.

So, you have created a law concerning when a person can have an opinion, yet you ignore established, physical laws??

Huh??


And finally:

I have no idea how old you are but I must say you don't speak like a man with too many years on your back. Not only here...when one reads your previous posts, one sees the light pretty quickly.

Well Bent, that could be considered a personal attack, however, I and not offended, as I realize your frustration........

I guess you are taking your ball and going home........

I enjoy a healthy debate, and I think this is a good one!



BTW, if anyone has any scientific supporting evidence that will show that the "bent" crossrods do not violate basic physical laws, then by all means, please come forward!

[Bent Romnes]

Chris, I have said what needed to be said. You still ignore the fact that the bent rods work as intended, with good measure.

This has turned into a silly quarrel in which one party has to win at all costs to save face. At that point, the other party uses his wisdom and leaves.
Exit.

[Chris Lang]

Bent:

You still ignore the fact that the bent rods work as intended, with good measure.

Never said they didn't work. Only pointed out they are not as effecient as they should be, and a design flaw, as for as engineering and precision go.

Sorry to see you go.

Maybe will have a chance at another topic.

[Stephen Silver]

Chris,

Does anyone ever actually hire you to play?

SS

[Roger Crawford]

So, some of us are OK with bent cross shafts, some are not. It's a matter of personal preference. It wouldn't hurt my feelings to see b0b close this.

[Richard Damron]

Bent Romnes -

If you will read my posts on this subject then you must acknowledge that I concede that BOTH parties have "won" - if that is a necessary ingredient to the topic.

I restate: In a technical sense ONLY, the bent rod contains a design flaw. Your bent rod does nothing to dispel that fact. You still have two different axes which are not concentric and, thus, necessary for true rotation.

I restate: From a PRACTICAL point of view, the design apparently works very well. Given the fact that the displacement of the two rod ends is minimal, it is apparent that the design tolerance is sufficient so as to allow the rod ends to misalign themselves within the bearings.

Worthy of note is the fact that, should the two axes be much further apart then the rod would definitely bind up within the first few degrees of rotation. This is the crux of this whole argument. In the extreme, the rod would not rotate at all.

I restate: I am not arguing with SUCCESS. Del Mullen builds a truly fine instrument. If the bent rod concept works well i.e., the pulls are made effortlessly and the returns are on the money then who am I to argue that it should be discarded on a TECHNICALITY? I don't, and haven't.

I have made my case as best I can and this has been supported, at least to my mind, quite sufficiently. Ross Shafer has become my prime ally with his computer simulation. That, in itself, should convince one and all that there is a design "flaw" inherent in the bent rod concept. It is a DESIGN flaw which, in practice, doesn't amount to a hill 'o beans! Why the recognition of these two facts - in conflict - doesn't satisfy all minds is beyond me.

I'm gonna give this whole thing a permanent rest. Two cases have been made - and proved - thus all parties should be satisfied. One would think.

Respectfully,

Richard

[Tony Glassman]

Now that you have run out of excuses why basic, elementary, physical laws do not apply to the Mullen "bent" rods.

Sorry Chris........the basic laws of basic physics (mechanics) do apply to Mullen bent rods. They violate none of them.

The off-center axis of each shaft just mean that there is a crank-shaft action, in addition to pure shaft rotation. The greater rise & fall of the bell crank is still translated into linear pull-rod motion. Any additional friction caused at the shaft ends is offset by bushings etc. That is built into the design of the system.

You may consider that a design-flaw or inefficient but it violates no known laws of physics. Every aspect of the "bent" cross-shaft movement can easily be explained by physics.

but, best of all-------------IT WORKS

[richard burton]

A miniature double-universal joint should make everyone happy, as the cost of one with a 5/16 bore is not too exorbitant, and a centre brace can then be incorporated

http://www.motionco.co.uk/universal-joi ... p-213.html

[Chris Lang]

Tony:

Sorry Chris........the basic laws of basic physics (mechanics) do apply to Mullen bent rods. They violate none of them.

The off-center axis of each shaft just mean that there is a crank-shaft action, in addition to pure shaft rotation. The greater rise & fall of the bell crank is still translated into linear pull-rod motion. Any additional friction caused at the shaft ends is offset by bushings etc. That is built into the design of the system.

You may consider that a design-flaw or inefficient but it violates no known laws of physics. Every aspect of the "bent" cross-shaft movement can easily be explained by physics.

but, best of all-------------IT WORKS

Please read the posts before you reply.

I said:

BTW, if anyone has any scientific supporting evidence that will show that the "bent" crossrods do not violate basic physical laws, then by all means, please come forward!

Watch the keyword here: scientific!....

You have presented no scientific evidence to support your thought.

Sorry.

Your point is not proven........

For review: http://www.edrawingsviewer.com/

[Chris Lang]

Richard shows:

A miniature double-universal joint should make everyone happy, as the cost of one with a 5/16 bore is not too exorbitant, and a centre brace can then be incorporated

Excellent Richard!

This is the kind of brainstorming that I can appreciate! This would allow the use of, what I believe to be a very important feature, the center brace! There would be no unwanted flexing of the rods, and it would probably reduce any "sponginess" or "non-positive stop" feel that can occur in double wide steels.! Obviously Mullen would have to have additional mounted bearings on each side of the bend, but it would still be a whole lot better than just putting "bent" rods in!

Great point Richard.............

This should be a serious consideration for Mullen.

[Erv Niehaus]

You don't have to get this elaborate. There are "self-aligning" bushings available that will accomplish the task at hand. The shaft can be eccentric and the self-aligning bushing will allow for it.
BTW: The Fulawka pedal steel incorporates such bushings in their design.

[Pete Burak]

Pete:

I can't find a link outside of this Forum showing a guy named Chris Lang who plays Pedal Steel.
Anyone here know Chris???
'Just Curious,
pete b.
cell: 503-621-8209

Hey Pete, I'm right here! You can find me at www.steelguitarforum.com !

I'm currently on the Mullen bent crossrods thread.

Give me a shout!

We'll hash out the details of the "bent" rods on the G2 !

Chris,
'Just wondering what band you play with and what your Steel playing is like.
Can you give us a tidbit?
Pete B.