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!
