E9th String breakage question

Curt Langston · Post by **Curt Langston** » 14 Nov 2006 3:27 am

That thread contains a quote from Curt where he finally agreed that extra overhang or total string length does not cause greater tension; but increased scale length does.

David, as I said in a few posts up
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We debunked this once before.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, WE did not........

I gave you guys a rest.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I let it go for the sake of some people getting angry.
The fact of string tension did not change.

Reread Sierras, and Michael Johnstones explaination. That says it all.

Remember the old beautiful rich tone and everlasting sustain of the long-scale steel guitars?

David, where are the 25 inch scale keyed guitars? If they had such a beautiful rich tone, then they would be made today in a 25 inch scale. They are not.WHY?

They are not being made because an .011 G# will not pull up to an A, after being stretched 30 inches. Simple.

I've tried putting a .011 G# where the 5th string goes, and adjusted the pulls to where it would pull up to A.

When you put the G# on the fifth tuning key, you have increased the length of string that must be tuned up to pitch, so that by the time you try to pull it up to an A, it breaks. Surely one can see that the portion of string in the headstock, must be pulled up under the same tension as the scale part.

David, YOU try this, and you'll see what I mean. It is an easy experiment that can be done quickly.

Give it a whirl![This message was edited by Curt Langston on 14 November 2006 at 05:27 AM.]

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 14 Nov 2006 3:35 am

oh geeze , here we go again..

As a non ENGINEER'ing type..

I adjust the tension until the string is in tune and I don't really care about the rest of the "DETAILS" that are going on behind the scenes.

the scale length of my Steel is..All the way from the left going all the way to the right. My main concern is that the strings are long enough to go into the changer slot and can go about 4 or 5 inches past the tuning post.

after that..well..I really don't care anymore.

sorry

t

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 14 Nov 2006 5:45 am

On July 9, 2006, Curt said:

Yeah David, I was definately confused. But thankfully I am straight on it now. I can't believe how simple it seems now. I was at the hospital,(working) and I saw a patient in traction while on a ventilator. I looked at his traction pulleys and thought about these posts, and BAM it hit me. Thats when I signed on and read some more of the posts. It did indeed sink in.... Sunk in good!

Yeah, right. Whatever. I'm gonna go listen to some rap...or maybe go get a root canal. Either one is better than this over and over.

Mike Wheeler · Post by **Mike Wheeler** » 14 Nov 2006 6:00 am

I'm not doing this again...I'm gone!

Curt Langston · Post by **Curt Langston** » 14 Nov 2006 6:07 am

David, you failed to read this post:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>We debunked this once before.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, WE did not........

I gave you guys a rest.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, right. Whatever. I'm gonna go listen to some rap...or maybe go get a root canal. Either one is better than this over and over.

Before you do anything hasty, why don't you do the little experiment, like I did. Then you'll see what I mean when I say this:

When you put the G# on the fifth tuning key, you have increased the length of string that must be tuned up to pitch, so that by the time you try to pull it up to an A, it breaks. Surely one can see that the portion of string in the headstock, must be pulled up under the same tension as the scale part.

Surely you can afford two strings! What, two dollars at most?

Like I said: I let that argument go, because some people got angry and were not able to debate without hostility. I do not worry about "someone getting angry" anymore. I would rather someone be enlightened on this.

Just "do the experiment" as ED would say.

Then go ahead and get a root canal or listen to rap.

At least you will see what I am talking about.

"Try it, you'll like it"

Just buy two strings David.

Two strings...........................

I'm not doing this again...I'm gone!

What do you mean Mike W.? You were never here!
Bye now![This message was edited by Curt Langston on 14 November 2006 at 06:11 AM.]

Brad Malone · Post by **Brad Malone** » 14 Nov 2006 7:35 am

Curt, I think by that little experiment that you have proven without a doubt that what you say is the truth...by this experiment you have not increased scale length, you have only increased string lenght and by placing the 3rd string on the 5th string tuning peg the 3rd string broke because of the increased tension. I also noticed that four people who have played keyed and keyless and responded to this thread, three stated that they break less strings with the keyless and one stated string breakage was about the same on both models. A lot of people, including me, have not had the advantage of playing both the Keyless and the Keyed models so I have to take advice from the people that have had more experience than me. You guys are great for taking the time to share your great knowledge with the rest of us that have not had your experience.

Curt Langston · Post by **Curt Langston** » 14 Nov 2006 9:12 am

...by this experiment you have not increased scale length, you have only increased string lenght and by placing the 3rd string on the 5th string tuning peg the 3rd string broke because of the increased tension.

Well Brad, we're glad to help. Hang on to this piece of information. I'm glad that you are able to see the simple logic in this. Many players and "experts" do not get this. Some do though. I believe it is because they get too caught up in equations and formulas to see the obvious.

Once a person tries this experiment, they will see. It really is not rocket science.

If you try this experiment, just wear a cheap leather garden/yard work glove, in case you have the string hit you.

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 14 Nov 2006 9:57 am

To do the experiment correctly:

Back off the tuning nuts for your third and fifth strings (A and B pedals).

Put new .011 strings on both the 3rd and 5th.

Tune both strings to G#. Feel the tension by pressing the string a bit with your finger at the 12th fret. Does the 5th string feel tighter?

Now adjust the tuning nuts so that both strings are raised to A.

Sit there and stomp on both pedals until one string or the other breaks. You can do this while you watch TV or something. It will probably take a few weeks, at least. Don't worry, it's good exercise. Count the number of times you press the pedals. Record the results.

Repeat the experiment a number of times to see which breaks first most often. Once is anecdotal. Twice can be coincidence. The more times the experiment is repeated, the better the results. Does the 5th string break first 70% of the time? 90%?

I believe that the results will be 50-50.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/b0b2005.gif" width="78 height="78">Bobby Lee (a.k.a. b0b) - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Williams D-12 E9, C6add9, Sierra Olympic S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop S-8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (E13, C6 or A6) My Blog 
<div style="display:none">[This message was edited by b0b on 14 November 2006 at 10:16 AM.]

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 14 Nov 2006 10:04 am

Remember, variables that can affect string breakage include burrs and grooves on the nut or bridge, and using the wrong string gauge on a gauged nut roller.

Daryl Stogner · Post by **Daryl Stogner** » 14 Nov 2006 10:15 am

I don't break strings, but I do kick over my amp when I'm finished playing.

Curt Langston · Post by **Curt Langston** » 14 Nov 2006 10:30 am

It will probably take a few weeks, at least.

Good one b0b.

You should consider a standup routine!

In all seriousness though, you will break the fifth G# MUCH faster than the 3rd G# due to the extra length and tension required.

I have tried it several times now.

[This message was edited by Curt Langston on 14 November 2006 at 10:31 AM.]

Post by **b0b** » 14 Nov 2006 10:32 am

How many times? What brand of strings? Did you replace the 3rd at the same time? Do you have gauged nut rollers?

Curt Langston · Post by **Curt Langston** » 14 Nov 2006 10:40 am

How many times? What brand of strings? Did you replace the 3rd at the same time? Do you have gauged nut rollers?

A total of 5 times so far. I thought that was enough.

Jagwires .011. I thought this would be the best choice. It is the brand that a lot of folks use.

Intitially, identical Jagwires were put on at the same time. The 3rd G# has not broken yet. (why change it?)

Rollers are not gauged.

Brad Malone · Post by **Brad Malone** » 14 Nov 2006 10:59 am

I believe it is because they get too caught up in equations and formulas to see the obvious.<<

I read that mathematicians theoretically proved that it was impossible to fly, then Wilbur and Oville Wright came to town. It's the age old saga, theory versus practical...practical wins hand down IMHO.

P Gleespen · Post by **P Gleespen** » 14 Nov 2006 11:12 am

Curt, do the strings break at the same place every time?

I mean, do they break at the ball end where they are bent by the changer, or are they breaking elsewhere? If elsewhere, is it consistant?

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 14 Nov 2006 5:05 pm

Aw, man. I tried to swear off this thread. But it's like a hang nail. b0b, your experiment will not demonstrate which string has more tension. It will only demonstrate which string will break most often. The confusion here is that Curt and others assume that increased tension is the only thing that will cause the breakage. But the tension can be the same (as it will be according to the laws of physics if the pitch, scale length, and gauge are the same), but the increased stretch of the longer 5th string will cause more rotation of the changer to get to pitch, more flex of the string, and more breakage - due to more stretch and flex, not more tension. The breakage will almost always be at the top of the changer where the increased flex is, not out in the overhang past the nut where Curt believes the increased tension is (how there can be different tension on different sides of the roller nut is something he has never expalained).

The scientific way to do this is with some kind of force measuring device at the end of the string instead of a tuning key. I believe Ed Packer has done that test, but Curt refuses to believe his results.

Without a force meter, we can devise a half-assed trial-and-error method. To eliminate the confounding effect of flex at the changer, let's forget about the pedals and just tune the open string straight up to A. Curt claims the longer string cannot be tuned up to A without more breakage due to more tension. So let's put a string on the shortest key, the first one, and experiment with different gauges of string until we find one that breaks about half the time when one tries to tune it up to A (no pedal mashing). Now take the same gauge string and put it on the 5th tuning key (or even better, the 6th key on a 12-string), and see if it breaks more or less than half the time when you try to tune it up to A (again, no pedal mashing). If it breaks more often, that would seem to indicate that the tension is greater, or that there is a bur on the changer or nut, or something else we haven't thought of (it's a messy experiment).

Pushing down in the middle of the string (call that deflection) to feel the tension is not a good measure of the tension at the end of the string. If the tension is the same at the end, the longer string will stretch more upon deflection and feel softer. But of course that does not mean it has less tension at the end of the string. It simply has more stretch.

Now of course all of the above assumes that this is all done on the same guitar, with a straight across roller nut, so that the scale length is the same, even though the total string lengths are different.

The experiment that Curt is thinking of that is confusing him is one where there is no nut between the changer and tuning key. The scale length and the total string length will then be one and the same for each string, and will simply be the distance from the changer to the tuning key. Of course that string/scale length will be longer for the string on the 5th key. For the longer string/scale to come up to an A will of course require more tension. In terms of deflection, there will also be more stretch. But I think there may be a greater increase in tension than in stretch. That is why Bill Stafford thinks the longer scale feels tighter. It has a lot more tension. That may also give it more volume and sustain.

Now remember what the bone of contention is here. It is not that there is more breakage with the longer string because of more flexing at the changer. That is plausible (and can be due to more stretch rather than more tension), and no one seems to be challenging that here. It is not that a longer scale with more tension will have a different tone and sustain. That too is plausible and uncontested, and why Bill Stafford likes the longer scale.

Here is what has to happen for Curt to be right. The two strings of the same gauge must have the same tension over the scale length (changer to nut); otherwise the pitch would be different. But the pitch is tuned to A for both strings. Therefore, the tension over the scale length must be the same. If either string gets more tension there, the pitch will rise. We would have to lower the tension until the pitch is the same, in which case the tension over the scale length is the same. But according to Curt, somehow the string with more distance beyond the nut gets more tension simply because of the extra length there. And this extra tension exists only in that region beyond the nut. If any of that extra tension gets transferred to the scale side of the nut, the pitch would rise above A. But the pitch must be A on both strings for the experiment to be valid. Otherwise we are simply prooving that a pitch higher than A has more tension - duh.

Now anyone who thinks there will be more tension in the longer string between the nut and tuning key (and not between the changer and nut, which would cause a higher pitch than A and invalidate the experiment), and that extra tension will cause more string breakage (presumably out there in the keyhead where the supposed extra tension is), should take a few hours and use up a bunch of strings and report back to us. Frankly, Curt's prediction seems so outrageously impossible that I am not inclined to waste any time on it.

P.S. The idea that we are all so stupid that the simple high school physics equations involved here (see the July thread I cited above) are too confusing for us to handle is simply insulting anti-intellectualism. I'm sure no one meant it that way. It really is all common sense that doesn't require equations. But the equation that applies is certainly not over my head. So speak for yourself.

[This message was edited by David Doggett on 14 November 2006 at 05:18 PM.]

Curt Langston · Post by **Curt Langston** » 14 Nov 2006 5:38 pm

P.S. The idea that we are all so stupid that the simple high school physics equations involved here (see the July thread I cited above) are too confusing for us to handle is simply insulting anti-intellectualism.

Well David, don't take it personal or feel insulted, but high school physics about string tension did not consider a pedal steel guitar, where you are pulling the string up to a different pitch, over a roller nut.

But according to Curt, somehow the string with more distance beyond the nut gets more tension simply because of the extra length there.

No, it is the extra length of THE ENTIRE STRING that requires more tension. Keyhead and scale part have the same tension.

(how there can be different tension on different sides of the roller nut is something he has never expalained).

Where did you get that? I have always said that the keyhead and scale portion have the same tension.

You seem to have a lot of "explainations" and your post is very wordy, and misconstrued.

I think you are thinking too hard on this.

Just put an .011 gauge G# on your 5th key and try it. Is that too hard? I have done it. Now you do it.

But the tension can be the same (as it will be according to the laws of physics if the pitch, scale length, and gauge are the same), but the increased stretch of the longer 5th string will cause more rotation of the changer to get to pitch, more flex of the string, and more breakage - due to more stretch and flex, not more tension.

more flex of the string, and more breakage - due to more stretch and flex, not more tension.

So, you are saying that you can somehow stretch a string without adding more tension?

The scale length and the total string length will then be one and the same for each string, and will simply be the distance from the changer to the tuning key. Of course that string/scale length will be longer for the string on the 5th key. For the longer string/scale to come up to an A will of course require more tension.

Like Ed's Beast? Why doesn't he tune to E9th?.......String length will not hold up.

For the longer string/scale to come up to an A will of course require more tension.

BINGO We have a winner!

Now, why don't you spend 2-3 dollars and break a few .011's on your 5th key, by tuning it to G# and pulling it up to an A?

You could do it in the time it took you to write your last post![This message was edited by Curt Langston on 14 November 2006 at 05:56 PM.]

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 14 Nov 2006 6:28 pm

The applicable physics equation applies to all strings, all instruments.

No, it is the extra length of THE ENTIRE STRING that requires more tension. Keyhead and scale part have the same tension.

If the tension changes between the changer and nut, the pitch will change, but we are always tuning to A, so the pitch and therefore the tension cannot change there. For the same scale length and gauge, A always has the same tension over the scale length. That’s what the equation says, and it is well established physics from centuries ago. The fact that the tension is the same on both sides of the nut, and the scale length stays the same, tells us that the tension for the whole string is always the same for A, regardless of the length beyond the nut. That’s why those of us who understand the equation don’t think the experiment is worth doing.

So, you are saying that you can somehow stretch a string without adding more tension?

No, I am saying to stretch a string from G# to A, holding the scale length the same, always adds the same amount of additional tension, regardless of the string length beyond the scale. If there is more string length beyond the scale, there will be more stretch, and the pull will be longer. But it will be an easier pull. So the amount of work done (force times distance), and the final tension at A will be the same for both strings. If the tension were not the same on the two strings over the scale length, they would not both be at A. If they are both at A tension over the scale length, and the tension is the same on both sides of the nut, then the tension at A must be the same for both strings on both sides of the nut and the whole string. You are confusing the longer pull with more work and greater tension. The pull is longer, but the work is the same, and the final tension is the same.

long pull distance + easier pull = short pull distance + harder pull = same work = same final tension

Ed’s beast has a long scale length, and so is a completely different situation than the experiment we are talking about where the scale length stays the same for the two strings in question. Everyone agrees (and the equation says) that if the scale length increases the tension increases.

I touch type faster than I can change the dozens of strings it will take to run this experiment. And I believe the equation, so I have no incentive to try to disprove it. A is A. If the scale length and gauge are the same, the tension is the same.
[This message was edited by David Doggett on 14 November 2006 at 06:32 PM.]

Brad Malone · Post by **Brad Malone** » 14 Nov 2006 6:37 pm

Part of the confusion is that some people are trying to solve the problem without having had the one or two year experience of playing both the keyless and the keyed steel so they could state their findings from the experience they have had as far as string breakage on each one is concerned. Out of the four people that responded to this thread that have had experience on both models, 3 said they had less string breakage and one said it was exactly the same...forgive me if I missed anybody that has had experience of playing both models. So far I think this thread has many great minds on the way to prove by experimentation the string breakage issue and design ways to make it occur much less...I'm surprised that the builders have not commented.

Curt Langston · Post by **Curt Langston** » 14 Nov 2006 7:07 pm

Well David, you're getting warmer.

If the tension changes between the changer and nut, the pitch will change, but we are always tuning to A, so the pitch and therefore the tension cannot change there.

The tension changes all the way to the tuning key, since we do not use a locking nut.(as on a Floyd Rose equipped 6 string electric)

I touch type faster than I can change the dozens of strings it will take to run this experiment.

Well, it would not take you a dozen strings. After breaking 4 or 5 you would understand.
Until you actually do the simple experiment, there is little left to discuss.

Due to excessive string breakage, scale lengths had to be shortened when pedals were added to steel guitars. Even though this also reduced sus- tain and tone quality, it was necessary to keep the strings on the guitar. Sierra's advanced engineering and manufacturing quality of the 'Gearless Tuner' allows a 25-inch scale with shorter string length than a keyed or geared guitar with a 24 inch scale.

There's never been a good musical reason for the shorter scale. It's always been used to keep string breakage to a minimum, since the shorter scale re- duces string tension. Sierra has eliminated this problem by employing a unique gearless tuner. There is no extra string length behind the nut to in- crease string tension. Even on the E9th third G# string, there is less string breakage with the 25 inch scale, because the actual string length is about 2 inches shorter than on the 24 inch scale with standard tuners. In addition, there is no backlash from the gearless tuner, and tuning is much quicker and more accurate.

As far as scales lengths go,most keyed guitars max out at 24.5" before you run into excessive string breakage because the section of string under tension(changer to tuning post)is as much as 27" on the middle strings of a keyed guitar.Conversely on a keyless design,say on a 25" scale,the section of string under tension is only 25" in total. So there is actually more tension on most of the strings on a keyed 24.5" guitar than all the strings of a keyless 25" guitar. Less tension means less string breakage and a shorter pedal pull/string stretch to achieve a given pitch change - so strings last longer and don't break nearly as much.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Keyed:

1. Generally harder and takes longer to change strings.

2. Because of a longer string string length(bridge to key peg), string breakage tends to be more frequent. Too much tension.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

4. Because the total string length is much shorter, it is common to have a longer scale. IE, 25-25 and 1/2 as opposed to 24-24 to 1/4. This is supposed to give a better sound and have more sustain. (See note below)

In reference to your earlier post, my only experience with the 25” scale other than the Sierra was when Shot Jackson and I were building Sho~Buds. It was during the time the high G# was added to the tuning that we encountered the string breakage problem and had to reduce the scale 24 ½ inches

So, Sierra, Michael Johnstone, Carl Dixon and Buddy Emmons are all wrong?

And David Doggett is right?

[This message was edited by Curt Langston on 14 November 2006 at 07:13 PM.]

Earnest Bovine · Post by **Earnest Bovine** » 14 Nov 2006 7:27 pm

Yes, David Doggett is right.
What is wrong is the idea that, for example, two .014" strings tuned to E on a 24" scale guitar will be at different tensions because of different lengths of non-vibrating string.

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 14 Nov 2006 7:31 pm

The Sierra add copy was wrong. Michael Johnstone is wrong, Carl Dixon was wrong, Buddy addressed different scale lengths, not string lengths, and never mentioned tension.

I'm the only fool with enough patience to hang in here for this ridiculous issue over and over again. If you read the previous threads you will see that most others agree with me - b0b, Jim Sliff, Ed Packard, and many others.

Brad, I think you are misunderstanding the issue between Curt (and Sierra, Johnstone, Dixon) and the rest of us. Keyless guitars may break fewer strings, even though they may have longer scales and higher tension. That seems plausible to me, because of the less stretch and flexing at the changer. The longer scale and higher tension of some keyless guitars may have advantages for tone and sustain. That's plausible, and I believe Bill Stafford on that. But the reason for all that is not because keyed guitars with longer strings have higher tension. If their scales are shorter, they have less tension. So the issue is the erroneous use of the term "tension" in the explanations of Curt, Johnson, Dixon and Sierra. It's wrong physics and a semantic error. If they had used the correct terms of stretch, changer flexing, or whatever, in their explanations, there would be no issue for some of us. On the other hand some people (Carl Dixon for one) claim the tone and sustain is not as good with keyless guitars. I have no opinion on that. If the scale is longer and the tension is higher on a keyless guitar, I see no obvious reason why the tone and sustain would be worse. I would tend to believe Bill Stafford and the Excel players that the tone and sustain are as good or better.[This message was edited by David Doggett on 14 November 2006 at 07:34 PM.]

Curt Langston · Post by **Curt Langston** » 14 Nov 2006 7:35 pm

The Sierra add copy was wrong. Michael Johnstone is wrong, Carl Dixon was wrong, Buddy addressed different scale lengths, not string lengths, and never mentioned tension.

Buddy addressed different scale lengths, not string lengths, and never mentioned tension.

You should know that it was a keyed Sho-Bud. He did not make the keyhead shorter, he made the scale shorter,(and overall string length) to reduce tension and string breakage.

It's wrong physics and a semantic error.

They're all wrong, and you're right?

David, you could have popped 4 or 5 strings doing the experiment, in the time you used trying to rebutt this simple fact.
Or are you afraid you will be proven wrong?
If not, then why not do the experiment?

Sorry Earnest. I'm too pooped to play. Go back and read the post from Sierra. Or Buddy. Or Carl. Or Michael. Maybe that will tide you over...................

Perhaps even you could spend 10 minutes and do the experiment..............

Its very enlightening.

Night................[This message was edited by Curt Langston on 14 November 2006 at 08:10 PM.]

Brad Malone · Post by **Brad Malone** » 14 Nov 2006 9:19 pm

Keyless guitars may break fewer strings, even though they may have longer scales and higher tension. That seems plausible to me, because of the less stretch and flexing at the changer<<

David, About 10 years ago I visited Billy Cooper's music store and had a chance to examine a lot of different steels and I noticed that some had smaller diameter cams than my Mullen...I think a smaller cam will also put a sharper bend on a string leading to more string breakage. The Mullen is pretty good as far as string breakage...The newly designed changer on the Williams may be even better because of less string bending at the cam...I can't prove this because I never had the opportunity of playing one....I'm just trying to learn from people that have had the opportunity to play a lot of different brands of steels and can speak from experience.

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 14 Nov 2006 11:41 pm

No, it is the extra length of THE ENTIRE STRING that requires more tension. Keyhead and scale part have the same tension.

The tension changes all the way to the tuning key, since we do not use a locking nut.(as on a Floyd Rose equipped 6 string electric)

Curt, if you agree the tension is the same all along the string, and if the two strings (same scale length, different total string lengths) are both playing the same pitch (say A), and the same pitch with the same scale length and gauge requires the same tension (the textbook equation we all agree on), and you are also claiming the tension is the same over the scale and on the other side of the nut, then where is the extra tension? You’re claiming the longer string has more tension, but it can’t be over the scale length or the pitch would be different. And you are also claiming the tension is the same over the scale and on the other side of the nut. It doesn’t make sense. You are saying there is more tension, but you have ruled out all the places it could be. You seem to think that the tension can be the same on both sides of the nut, but when you add them over the whole string there is more tension than on either side of the nut alone. I’ll let someone else address that erroneous idea:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You don't "add" the tension.
If the overhang were a MILE LONG, the string would have the same tension ANYWHERE ALONG IT in order to get the scale length up to the desired tension in the scale area to the desired pitch. A MILE LONG.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> - Eric West, 7/7/06

They're all wrong, and you're right?

This attempt to appeal to authority and isolate me fails. Your “all” is an old Sierra ad, Michael Johnstone, and a single Carl Dixon comment that he would probably now consider a mistatement. And it is not just me against them.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Sierra's ad was designed to sell guitars. It's wrong.

Carl Dixon didn't think it thru carefully.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> - Bobby Lee, 11/13/06

Curt...re the quotes...believe the equations, or believe the "statements"...

- Ed Packard, 7/1/06

Well bless Carl's heart, he was wrong.

- Eric West, 7/1/06

If you look back through all those posts back in July, you will see that essentially all of the many participants except Michael Johnstone and Chris Lang agreed with me: http://steelguitarforum.com/Forum5/HTML/012971.html http://steelguitarforum.com/Forum5/HTML/013022.html http://steelguitarforum.com/Forum5/HTML/012961.html http://steelguitarforum.com/Forum5/HTML/013035.html http://steelguitarforum.com/Forum5/HTML/013038.html

In fact, you yourself also finally agreed with the rest of us:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Jim, David, Eric, Charlie, b0b, Ed et al :
Actually, I think I see your point. I believe that I have been wrong all this time.
Hmmm.
Oh well.
What can I say.
Guess I'm ready to drop it.
So, basically, the scale length on a guitar has to be under 25 inches, because if it is much longer, then you have too much tension and the G# won't hold up.
Maybe, the 24 1/4 inch scaled guitars that broke the G#, were doing so because of some sort of resistance created by the roller nut. Or, perhaps too sharp a bend at the nut. (seems like I heard that somewhere)
And come to think of it, 25 inch scale keyless guitars seem to be a little tighter.
Eureka!
It all seems so logical now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> - Curt Langston, 7/9/06

You need to stop telling the rest of us to go read that stuff, and reread it yourself. The experiment I proposed above was first proposed by Earnest Bovine, and also Eric West. You never did it. You’re the one trying to disprove the known laws of physics. You do the experiment. If you don’t get the result all the rest of us expect (and the equation predicts), then come back and show us the data. And by the way, it will take way more than 5 or 6 strings. To get a statistically significant difference will require at least 10 or 20 strings tuned up to pitch on each of the two tuning keys. We look forward to seeing your data.

[This message was edited by David Doggett on 14 November 2006 at 11:48 PM.]