Mullen Bent Cross Rods
Moderator: Shoshanah Marohn
- Erv Niehaus
- Posts: 26797
- Joined: 10 Aug 2001 12:01 am
- Location: Litchfield, MN, USA
- Chris Lang
- Posts: 292
- Joined: 10 Jan 2000 1:01 am
b0b says:
There are not two axis of rotation when using the bent crossbar..
But there are two different axis!! That's why the "bent" approach is flawed!
As Erv points out:
HOWEVER!
As brought out throughout this post:
The bent crossrods are not physically correct!
If your goal is to build the most precise guitar, using a bent crossrod is one of the last things you would want to do, as it is NOT physically correct. It is in fact a design flaw.
Sorry if that hurts, but it is the truth! You guys can say what you will, but I have yet to see anyone provide any evidence showing that the bent crossrods are physically correct! They are not!
Now, bring on the science, and leave the opinions, and faulty excuses behind!
What???. b0b are you serious??That's absolutely silly, Chris. A steel guitar can't violate the laws of physics. We don't need "scientific evidence" to prove that. Nobody is claiming magic.
Now, if I may, I'd like to address the issue of "two distinct axis of rotation". There are not two axis of rotation when using the bent crossbar. The axis is a line between the endpoints. Each puller intersects that line at a different point, so each has its own axis. That axis is above the crossbar on the E9th neck and below the crossbar on the C6th neck.
The net result is that there is slightly less vertical movement of pull rods on the E9th (since the center of rotation is above the crossbar), and slightly more vertical movement of pull rods on the C6th. I honestly don't know whether this is an advantage to the player or not. I'm just pointing out that there are not "two axis of rotation" as has been claimed. The axis is vertically different for each rod puller, depending on its distance from the end points of the crossbar. The axis are points on a diagonal line.
The double-U-joint solution would create two level axis.
There are not two axis of rotation when using the bent crossbar..
But there are two different axis!! That's why the "bent" approach is flawed!
As Erv points out:
And again:The trouble is, Bob, the ends of the shafts and the correspoding bearings are not in align with the line you drew.
Sorry b0b, your wrong on this. Pure and simple. For the life of me, I cannot understand how you cannot see this! Seriously. Did you read Richards explaination:Bob,
I'm sure Dell turns the ends of the cross shafts to the proper diameter before he bends them. Once the cross shafts are bent the ends will not be parallel with the lines you drew. The ends with have to be positioned in some sort of self aligning bearing in order not to bind up when rotated.
I can understand why some folks do not want to acknowledge the "bent" crossrod issue. Mullen has made some fantastic guitars in the past, and they are extremely nice people.In an IDEAL situation, one would prefer two distinct and PARALLEL axes of rotation. The bent rod concept does not support this. The two universal joint solution does. Erv's "pillow block" solution allows for the nonlinearity in the bent rod scheme.
HOWEVER!
As brought out throughout this post:
The bent crossrods are not physically correct!
If your goal is to build the most precise guitar, using a bent crossrod is one of the last things you would want to do, as it is NOT physically correct. It is in fact a design flaw.
Sorry if that hurts, but it is the truth! You guys can say what you will, but I have yet to see anyone provide any evidence showing that the bent crossrods are physically correct! They are not!
Now, bring on the science, and leave the opinions, and faulty excuses behind!
Last edited by Chris Lang on 30 Aug 2010 11:50 am, edited 6 times in total.
NOTE FROM ADMIN: The "Chris Lang" account was determined to be fraudulent.
Many posts made from this account were deliberate attempts to undermine the integrity of other Forum members.
Many statements made by this user were knowingly false and inflammatory, a disruptive technique known as <i>trolling.</i>
The "Chris Lang" account has been permanently deactivated.
Many posts made from this account were deliberate attempts to undermine the integrity of other Forum members.
Many statements made by this user were knowingly false and inflammatory, a disruptive technique known as <i>trolling.</i>
The "Chris Lang" account has been permanently deactivated.
-
- Posts: 2207
- Joined: 6 Jan 2003 1:01 am
- Location: Virginia, USA
Re: Wow
Bill, I was wondering about multi. pulls on both necks. I thought if there were ever to be a problem the multi. pulls would be it. You answered my question !! I really didn't have a question but that did run through my mind.Bill Stroud wrote:Let me tell you, I've got one of the most Pulls on a Steel that you would ever want, 10 Floor pedals 7 Knees that raises and lower strings on both the E9th & C6th neck at the same time.
Bill
- Lee Baucum
- Posts: 10326
- Joined: 11 Apr 1999 12:01 am
- Location: McAllen, Texas (Extreme South) The Final Frontier
- Earnest Bovine
- Posts: 8318
- Joined: 4 Aug 1998 11:00 pm
- Location: Los Angeles CA USA
Right, b0b, of course there can be only one axis of rotation.b0b wrote:Now, if I may, I'd like to address the issue of "two distinct axis of rotation". There are not two axis of rotation when using the bent crossbar.
The red lines that you added to the photo show where it is.
I think Chris's confusion is about the meaning of the term "axis of rotation." He was talking about lines that run thru the middle of the shafts, not its axis of rotation.
-
- Posts: 1723
- Joined: 5 Jan 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Fresno, CA. USA
-
- Posts: 209
- Joined: 29 Mar 2010 12:19 pm
- Location: Nashville TN, USA
- Tony Glassman
- Posts: 4470
- Joined: 18 Jan 2005 1:01 am
- Location: The Great Northwest
- Chris Lang
- Posts: 292
- Joined: 10 Jan 2000 1:01 am
Tony:
However it should be quite obvious the meaning of that statement is: The laws of physics are still in play, but not in the case of the Mullen "bent" crossrod.
Mullen crossrods are not physically sound!
Keyword in the quote: except
Well, Tony, at least you are reading the posts, before responding.Chris Lang wrote:
That's all well and fine, but the laws of physics are still around, being applied today! (except in the case of the mysterious bent rods)
Chris, It sure seems you are stating that the "laws of physics" don't apply to the "bent" cross-shafts in this response .
However it should be quite obvious the meaning of that statement is: The laws of physics are still in play, but not in the case of the Mullen "bent" crossrod.
Mullen crossrods are not physically sound!
Keyword in the quote: except
Last edited by Chris Lang on 30 Aug 2010 12:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
NOTE FROM ADMIN: The "Chris Lang" account was determined to be fraudulent.
Many posts made from this account were deliberate attempts to undermine the integrity of other Forum members.
Many statements made by this user were knowingly false and inflammatory, a disruptive technique known as <i>trolling.</i>
The "Chris Lang" account has been permanently deactivated.
Many posts made from this account were deliberate attempts to undermine the integrity of other Forum members.
Many statements made by this user were knowingly false and inflammatory, a disruptive technique known as <i>trolling.</i>
The "Chris Lang" account has been permanently deactivated.
- Chris Lang
- Posts: 292
- Joined: 10 Jan 2000 1:01 am
b0b, you still there?
Have you tried the "hanger" experiment?
Have you tried the "hanger" experiment?
NOTE FROM ADMIN: The "Chris Lang" account was determined to be fraudulent.
Many posts made from this account were deliberate attempts to undermine the integrity of other Forum members.
Many statements made by this user were knowingly false and inflammatory, a disruptive technique known as <i>trolling.</i>
The "Chris Lang" account has been permanently deactivated.
Many posts made from this account were deliberate attempts to undermine the integrity of other Forum members.
Many statements made by this user were knowingly false and inflammatory, a disruptive technique known as <i>trolling.</i>
The "Chris Lang" account has been permanently deactivated.
- Richard Damron
- Posts: 1251
- Joined: 23 Jul 2007 2:51 pm
- Location: Gallatin, Tennessee, USA (deceased)
- J D Sauser
- Moderator
- Posts: 2808
- Joined: 4 Aug 1998 11:00 pm
- Location: Wellington, Florida
- Contact:
There is only ONE way this can work:
If you please go back to Bob's (b0b) post on page 5 where he outlined in RED a common axis, THEN the bearings or collars/bushings holding MUST be inserted into the rails at a 90Deg. angle to THAT (average inclined) RED line (IN Axis with that line)... in other words NOT "flat" relative to the rails. BUT, BOTH tips which insert into the bearings or collars/bushings would have to be bent IN LINE with that (Bob's) RED average axis!
If the bearings holding these bent cross shafts are inserted "flat" (axis at 90Deg) into the rails, TWO parallel axis will result. IF one or the other would "win" the result would be that the other section would NOT ROTATE but MOVE back and forth following a RADIUS which center is the axis which would "win". Obviously, both axis seek to win which, if there is not a substantial (mechanically inappropriate) amount of play in between the cross bar's shaft and the bearings or bushings/collars it is logged logged in would result in them being locked (or only able to turn as far as "play" would allow).
Another option would be -if we assume that the level difference between the two decks may be around 1/4"- to drill the rods off-center by an 1/8" so that both meet at a common horizontal axis and used pins to connect the shafts to the rails.
Physics is physics. There is no such thing as "bad" physics, you can't prove physics wrong or disregard it just because it's a steel guitar. Physics lead to mechanical results or, if not followed to bad mechanics.
Given the fact that I hope that I may assume that the good folks at Mullen Steel Guitars are dedicated to produce a mechanically sound instrument, I am inclined to suspect that they have indeed aligned their cross shaft's bearings or bushings IN LINE with the average slanted axis as suggested by Bob (b0b).
Self aligning bearings as suggested by Erv on page 5 too, MAY be able to meet that average axis. However, let me tell you this: In mechanics, self aligning bearings, just like universal joints (cardan) are not regarded as an adequate tool to transpose the axis of rotations at different angles, but merely meant to help adapt/compensate for minor, usually tolerance induced misalignment of an axis to be at 90Deg to the bearing's radius.
I find the Mullen approach "interesting" as long as it does not thrive on excessive "play" or on the premises that the shaft needs not to be able to fully rotate freely (which evidently would be "bungle").
... J-D.
If you please go back to Bob's (b0b) post on page 5 where he outlined in RED a common axis, THEN the bearings or collars/bushings holding MUST be inserted into the rails at a 90Deg. angle to THAT (average inclined) RED line (IN Axis with that line)... in other words NOT "flat" relative to the rails. BUT, BOTH tips which insert into the bearings or collars/bushings would have to be bent IN LINE with that (Bob's) RED average axis!
If the bearings holding these bent cross shafts are inserted "flat" (axis at 90Deg) into the rails, TWO parallel axis will result. IF one or the other would "win" the result would be that the other section would NOT ROTATE but MOVE back and forth following a RADIUS which center is the axis which would "win". Obviously, both axis seek to win which, if there is not a substantial (mechanically inappropriate) amount of play in between the cross bar's shaft and the bearings or bushings/collars it is logged logged in would result in them being locked (or only able to turn as far as "play" would allow).
Another option would be -if we assume that the level difference between the two decks may be around 1/4"- to drill the rods off-center by an 1/8" so that both meet at a common horizontal axis and used pins to connect the shafts to the rails.
Physics is physics. There is no such thing as "bad" physics, you can't prove physics wrong or disregard it just because it's a steel guitar. Physics lead to mechanical results or, if not followed to bad mechanics.
Given the fact that I hope that I may assume that the good folks at Mullen Steel Guitars are dedicated to produce a mechanically sound instrument, I am inclined to suspect that they have indeed aligned their cross shaft's bearings or bushings IN LINE with the average slanted axis as suggested by Bob (b0b).
Self aligning bearings as suggested by Erv on page 5 too, MAY be able to meet that average axis. However, let me tell you this: In mechanics, self aligning bearings, just like universal joints (cardan) are not regarded as an adequate tool to transpose the axis of rotations at different angles, but merely meant to help adapt/compensate for minor, usually tolerance induced misalignment of an axis to be at 90Deg to the bearing's radius.
I find the Mullen approach "interesting" as long as it does not thrive on excessive "play" or on the premises that the shaft needs not to be able to fully rotate freely (which evidently would be "bungle").
... J-D.
Last edited by J D Sauser on 30 Aug 2010 1:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
__________________________________________________________
A Little Mental Health Warning:
Tablature KILLS SKILLS.
The uses of Tablature is addictive and has been linked to reduced musical fertility.
Those who produce Tablature did never use it.
I say it humorously, but I mean it.
A Little Mental Health Warning:
Tablature KILLS SKILLS.
The uses of Tablature is addictive and has been linked to reduced musical fertility.
Those who produce Tablature did never use it.
I say it humorously, but I mean it.
- Earnest Bovine
- Posts: 8318
- Joined: 4 Aug 1998 11:00 pm
- Location: Los Angeles CA USA
I thought Chris didn't mean to say that before, because there was no response to my question about which laws of physics are being broken in this case.Chris Lang wrote: The laws of physics are still in play, but not in the case of the Mullen "bent" crossrod.
As someone else already posted, when an observation of reality disagrees with a law of physics, then one of them is wrong.
If Chris's logic is correct, then I hope we get a response soon, because kids are going back to school soon, and we have to rewrite all those textbooks!
- Earnest Bovine
- Posts: 8318
- Joined: 4 Aug 1998 11:00 pm
- Location: Los Angeles CA USA
- Chris Lang
- Posts: 292
- Joined: 10 Jan 2000 1:01 am
Earnest says:
Earnest, that means Mullen is trying to make their "bent" rods work, without regard to physics.I thought Chris didn't mean to say that before, because there was no response to my question about which laws of physics are being broken in this case.
NOTE FROM ADMIN: The "Chris Lang" account was determined to be fraudulent.
Many posts made from this account were deliberate attempts to undermine the integrity of other Forum members.
Many statements made by this user were knowingly false and inflammatory, a disruptive technique known as <i>trolling.</i>
The "Chris Lang" account has been permanently deactivated.
Many posts made from this account were deliberate attempts to undermine the integrity of other Forum members.
Many statements made by this user were knowingly false and inflammatory, a disruptive technique known as <i>trolling.</i>
The "Chris Lang" account has been permanently deactivated.
- Chris Lang
- Posts: 292
- Joined: 10 Jan 2000 1:01 am
J-D shows:
I like the use of your word, "interesting"
Why not just use the physically correct "straight" crossrods, like every other builder???
Most excellent explaination, J-D!There is only ONE way this can work:
If you please go back to Bob's (b0b) post on page 5 where he outlined in RED a common axis, THEN the bearings or collars/bushings holding MUST be inserted into the rails at a 90Deg. angle to THAT (average inclined) RED line (IN Axis with that line)... in other words NOT "flat" relative to the rails. BUT, BOTH tips which insert into the bearings or collars/bushings would have to be bent IN LINE with that (Bob's) RED average axis!
If the bearings holding these bent cross shafts are inserted "flat" (axis at 90Deg) into the rails, TWO parallel axis will result. IF one or the other would "win" the result would be that the other section would NOT ROTATE but MOVE back and forth following a RADIUS which center is the axis which would "win". Obviously, both axis seek to win which, if there is not a substantial (mechanically inappropriate) amount of play in between the cross bar's shaft and the bearings or bushings/collars it is logged logged in would result in them being locked (or only able to turn as far as "play" would allow).
Another option would be -if we assume that the level difference between the two decks may be around 1/4"- to drill the rods off-center by an 1/8" so that both meet at a common horizontal axis and used pins to connect the shafts to the rails.
Physics is physics. There is no such thing as "bad" physics, you can't prove physics wrong or disregard it just because it's a steel guitar. Physics lead to mechanical results or, if not followed to bad mechanics.
Given the fact that I hope that I may assume that the good folks at Mullen Steel Guitars are dedicated to produce a mechanically sound instrument, I am inclined to suspect that they have indeed aligned their cross shaft's bearings or bushings IN LINE with the average slanted axis as suggested by Bob (b0b).
Self aligning bearings as suggested by Erv on page 5 too, MAY be able to meet that average axis. However, let me tell you this: In mechanics, self aligning bearings, just like universal joints (cardan) are not regarded as an adequate tool to transpose the axis of rotations at different angles, but merely meant to help adapt/compensate for minor, usually tolerance induced misalignment of an axis to be at 90Deg to the bearing's radius.
I find the Mullen approach "interesting" as long as it does not thrive on excessive "play" or on the premises that the shaft needs not to be able to fully rotate freely (which evidently would be "bungle").
... J-D
I like the use of your word, "interesting"
Why not just use the physically correct "straight" crossrods, like every other builder???
Last edited by Chris Lang on 30 Aug 2010 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NOTE FROM ADMIN: The "Chris Lang" account was determined to be fraudulent.
Many posts made from this account were deliberate attempts to undermine the integrity of other Forum members.
Many statements made by this user were knowingly false and inflammatory, a disruptive technique known as <i>trolling.</i>
The "Chris Lang" account has been permanently deactivated.
Many posts made from this account were deliberate attempts to undermine the integrity of other Forum members.
Many statements made by this user were knowingly false and inflammatory, a disruptive technique known as <i>trolling.</i>
The "Chris Lang" account has been permanently deactivated.
- Bent Romnes
- Posts: 5985
- Joined: 28 Feb 2007 2:35 pm
- Location: London,Ontario, Canada
- Contact:
Richard Damron,
Thanks for your response to my remarks, inquiries earlier. Your well thought-out remarks and facts are just that, and I agree with your statements.
As you, I have a great amount of respect for the Mullen people and their obvious innovative designs.
As I follow this thread without too many more posts of my own, I arrive at the one fact that I stated at the outset: The design is innovative, and pleasing to the eye. It works - that's obvious. Something that works as intended, repeatedly, is a good design. Therefor, if something works as intended, it is not flawed.
with respect
Bent
Thanks for your response to my remarks, inquiries earlier. Your well thought-out remarks and facts are just that, and I agree with your statements.
As you, I have a great amount of respect for the Mullen people and their obvious innovative designs.
As I follow this thread without too many more posts of my own, I arrive at the one fact that I stated at the outset: The design is innovative, and pleasing to the eye. It works - that's obvious. Something that works as intended, repeatedly, is a good design. Therefor, if something works as intended, it is not flawed.
with respect
Bent
BenRom Pedal Steel Guitars
https://www.facebook.com/groups/212050572323614/
https://www.facebook.com/groups/212050572323614/
- richard burton
- Posts: 3846
- Joined: 23 Jan 2001 1:01 am
- Location: Britain
A simpler device than a double-universal joint would be an Oldham Coupling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldham_coupling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldham_coupling
- Chris Lang
- Posts: 292
- Joined: 10 Jan 2000 1:01 am
NOTE FROM ADMIN: The "Chris Lang" account was determined to be fraudulent.
Many posts made from this account were deliberate attempts to undermine the integrity of other Forum members.
Many statements made by this user were knowingly false and inflammatory, a disruptive technique known as <i>trolling.</i>
The "Chris Lang" account has been permanently deactivated.
Many posts made from this account were deliberate attempts to undermine the integrity of other Forum members.
Many statements made by this user were knowingly false and inflammatory, a disruptive technique known as <i>trolling.</i>
The "Chris Lang" account has been permanently deactivated.
- Earnest Bovine
- Posts: 8318
- Joined: 4 Aug 1998 11:00 pm
- Location: Los Angeles CA USA
I have no idea what that statement means, but I think you mean that Mullen is only "trying" to violate physical laws as currently understood, but have not actually done that. That's good news because it means we can still use last year's textbooks. Have you seen how much new textbooks cost these days? It's an outrage.Chris Lang wrote: Mullen is trying to make their "bent" rods work, without regard to physics.
BTW I have the greatest respect for people who try to break the laws of physics. It's very difficult, but when you succeed, future generations of school children will read your name in the history books (if they can afford them.)
- Elton Smith
- Posts: 586
- Joined: 4 Jul 2010 10:08 pm
- Location: Texas, USA
- Richard Damron
- Posts: 1251
- Joined: 23 Jul 2007 2:51 pm
- Location: Gallatin, Tennessee, USA (deceased)
J.D. Sauser -
Gotta call ya out on a generalized statement that you made regarding universal joints.
"are not an adequate tool to transpose the axis of rotations at different angles."
Many moons ago, I owned a 1961 Jaguar XKE (E-type). At the rear end were two half-shafts connected to the differential and the short wheel axles by universal joints. Granted, they were not of the "constant velocity" variety which overcomes a nonlinearity attendent to garden-variety U-joints but they, nonetheless, DID "transpose the axis of rotations" - and very well, indeed. They can't be all THAT bad since Jaguar, other sports car manufacturers, Formula One, Formula Ford etc., etc., etc. all used them - and on the fly, no less!
As I think I stated earlier, the Mullen "bent crossrods" need not "rotate freely" but, rather, only through a few degrees +/- around a centered location. The tolerances given apparently allow this minimal movement.
Respectfully,
Richard
Gotta call ya out on a generalized statement that you made regarding universal joints.
"are not an adequate tool to transpose the axis of rotations at different angles."
Many moons ago, I owned a 1961 Jaguar XKE (E-type). At the rear end were two half-shafts connected to the differential and the short wheel axles by universal joints. Granted, they were not of the "constant velocity" variety which overcomes a nonlinearity attendent to garden-variety U-joints but they, nonetheless, DID "transpose the axis of rotations" - and very well, indeed. They can't be all THAT bad since Jaguar, other sports car manufacturers, Formula One, Formula Ford etc., etc., etc. all used them - and on the fly, no less!
As I think I stated earlier, the Mullen "bent crossrods" need not "rotate freely" but, rather, only through a few degrees +/- around a centered location. The tolerances given apparently allow this minimal movement.
Respectfully,
Richard
- Jaclyn Jones
- Posts: 282
- Joined: 2 Nov 2008 11:14 am
- Location: Texas, USA
- Contact:
The point that seems most important, at least me, is that it does work. Every day for the last 2 years. In bars, clubs and my living room. I love my G2. If the universe imploded because it fractures the laws of physics, it was fun while it lasted. You guys need to lighten up. Truth is, playing steel in high heels is way more dangerous than bent cross shafts!
http://www.myspace.com/jaclynjones
http://www.youtube.com/user/jackiej1950
Lots of guitars, banjos, mandos and a Mullen G2-D10,PAC D10, 1966 Marlen D10,Line6 x3 Pro, Peavey Powerslide, Michael Kelly Dobro and a "Fox Vintage Amp" model 5F8A. Oh Yea, a very patient husband.
http://www.youtube.com/user/jackiej1950
Lots of guitars, banjos, mandos and a Mullen G2-D10,PAC D10, 1966 Marlen D10,Line6 x3 Pro, Peavey Powerslide, Michael Kelly Dobro and a "Fox Vintage Amp" model 5F8A. Oh Yea, a very patient husband.
- Richard Damron
- Posts: 1251
- Joined: 23 Jul 2007 2:51 pm
- Location: Gallatin, Tennessee, USA (deceased)
- Richard Damron
- Posts: 1251
- Joined: 23 Jul 2007 2:51 pm
- Location: Gallatin, Tennessee, USA (deceased)