The Steel Guitar Forum

I gave up on trying to convince you David, because you get so angry. I posted that to close the thread. I have told you this.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR><SMALL>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We debunked this once before.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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


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


Like I said before, if you are not going to try the simple experiment, then we have little to discuss.

You obviously are afraid to try it for some reason.

Either spend 2-3 dollars and about fifteen minutes or forget it.

But just know that Sierra, Michael, Carl and Buddy cannot all be wrong, and you right.

Come on now.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR><SMALL>- Ed Packard, 7/1/06

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well bless Carl's heart, he was wrong.</SMALL><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well bless Ed's heart he is still wrong!

You have to watch information from some of the "experts", as sometimes they get too caught up in calculations and formulas and overlook common sense.

Even a doctor can misdiagnose a person.

As for me, I'll keep the same perspective, as you have not proven to me otherwise. I have actually done this experiment, so I have seen it with my own eyes.


Go ahead David. It only cost a couple of bucks. What are you afraid of?

As they say: JUST DO IT

Do you build the same caliber of steels that Sierra does?

Can you play like Buddy Emmons?

Can you play like Michael Johnstone?

Do you have the knowledge and insight that Carl Dixon has?

No?

I didn't think so.................

Drop me an email when you have actually done this simple experiment.

I'll wait to hear your results.

I'm tired of leading a horse to water.


<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Curt Langston on 15 November 2006 at 06:11 AM.]</p></FONT>

I try to put the correct string guages on.
This is often accomplishment enough.
If it doesn't break, I probably got the right guage.

David & Curt, I think I now see the answer to my question. A longer, same size or gauge string tuned to the same note will break more often not because it is under more tension but because the changer mechanism has to move the longer string more to accomplish the same degree of pitch change (i.e. G# to A). The scale is actually from the changer string ball end attachment peg to the tuning gear. The nut merely acts as a stationary capo. Therefore, I conclude that less movement of the string and changer mechanism, less bending of the string at the changer mechanism are two big reasons for longer string life or less string breakage. The reason the keyless design breaks strings less frequently is because its changer is moving shorter strings less to accomplish the same degree of pitch change.

Brad, you have got it exactly right. The only correction I would make is that the scale does not go from changer to tuning key. The scale length is measured from the changer (or bridge) to the nut. The distance from the changer to the tuning post is the total string length. The distance from the nut to the tuning post we have been calling the overhang. The less overhang there is, the less stretch there is, and the less flexing is required at the changer. Adding more overhang does not change the tension. Tension is not additive. It is the force measured at the end of the string. For a 24" scale, if it requires x tension to get the pitch to A, it will require x tension to get A whether the guitar is keyless with 1" of overhang (25" total string length) or keyed with 6" of overhang (30" total string length). But the 30" string will have more stretch, because stretch is additive. The longer the string, the more stretch. The extra stretch requires a longer pull, and more flexing of the string at the typical rotating changer. A keyless guitar with less overhang has less stretch and less flex at the changer. They can take advantage of that and use a longer scale length. Unlike increasing the total string length, increasing the scale length does require more tension to get to the pitch. The extra tension in a 25" scale keyless guitar can be tolerated without extra breakage because there is less stretch and less flexing at the changer.

Curt, I’m not the one standing alone here. And I resent the underhanded way you are trying to make me look like a lone dissenter against you and all the “experts.” You got no experts. You have some sloppy ad copy from one manufacturer and a couple of other Forum members. It is insulting for you to keep bringing Shot and Buddy into this, when they changed the scale length only, and did not concern themselves with the keyhead length in this regard, and did not misuse the term “tension” as you do. Looking back through all the threads on this, you are the one standing alone at the end of each one. I am simply agreeing with Ed Packard, b0b, Earnest Bovine, Jim Sliff, Eric West and many others. The only manufacturer besides Sierra that we have any information from is Ned Steinberger, the engineer who designed a keyless 6-string guitar. According to Jim Sliff, Steinberger agrees there is not less tension on the keyless guitar.

All of us except you agree with this textbook physics equation: Hz =1/(2L)*(SQRT(F/m)). The L in the equation is the scale length. There is no term for the overhang or the total string length because they have no effect on the pitch, only the scale length does. Solving for F (the force or tension) gives: F = m (2 L Hz) exp 2. Therefore, for a given pitch (Hz in the equation) and gauge (m), the tension will change only if the scale length (L) changes. If the tension and pitch stay the same over the scale length, and if the tension is the same over the scale and in the overhang, then the tension is the same over the whole string. The tension will not change unless the pitch, the gauge or the scale length changes. I am sorry you cannot understand that like all the rest of us do. But I have done my best.

The equation and my experience predict that, without pedal mashing, just tuning up to pitch, there will be no difference in string breakage between a short distance and long distance from nut to tuning post on the same guitar with a fixed nut. It will be like flipping a coin. How many flips will it take to convince oneself that heads and tails have the same probability? But it would be way worse than that. Most of the time when you string up two strings and tune to A, neither will break. It will be like the coin fell down a drain so there is no heads or tails to count. One will have to go through many, many strings to accumulate enough breaks to determine if there is a statistically significant difference in the number of breaks for each post. 15 minutes!?! Ha! You waste your time on that experiment. Ed already did the definitive experiment. Instead of going through scores of strings and counting breaks, he measured the force directly. There was no difference. I believe his experiment. And I agree with all the others (except Johnstone and Dixon), and I believe the equation. You stand alone in doubting the equation, and doubting Ed's results. It is no longer my problem. I'm done here unless you attempt to insult me again. <font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by David Doggett on 15 November 2006 at 11:18 AM.]</p></FONT>

David..would you accept this statement? "The tuning scale length is measured from the changer (or bridge) to the nut. The tension scale is the distance from the changer to the tuning post and is the total string lenght".

If you can accept this I can correct my orginal statement and make it more concise and correct.

<SMALL> Ha! You waste your time on that experiment.</SMALL>

David, you are one angry person. I wonder if that anger stems from insecurity?

Did you do the experiment? Or are you afraid of the results?

<SMALL> And I resent the underhanded way you are trying to make me look like a lone dissenter against you and all the “experts.”</SMALL>

If you look like the lone dissenter, that is your fault.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR><SMALL>You stand alone in doubting the equation, and doubting Ed's results. It is no longer my problem. I'm done here unless you attempt to insult me again.
</SMALL><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I stand with Sierra, Michael, Carl and Buddy.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR><SMALL>I'm done here unless you attempt to insult me again.
</SMALL><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Easy there, David. No one has insulted you. You just lost your composure through insecurity. Not my fault. I simply asked that you do the experiment, and you go off all jacked up!

Yeah, Sierras' wrong and you are right....



Not hardly...............

<SMALL>I'm done here unless you attempt to insult me again. </SMALL>

Well, you may not post here anymore, but you are not done until you do the simple experiment.

Now, go spend 15 minutes doing the experiment, so that you too can be enlightened<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Curt Langston on 15 November 2006 at 12:35 PM.]</p></FONT>

If Curt is right, then everyone with a keyed guitar should put G# on the 1st string instead of the 3rd. Buddy could have done it in 1958 and had a 25" scale on his Sho-Bud! Wonder why he didn't do that...

Wasn't gonna, but can't keep quiet!
Curt, you were wrong before, and you still are!
Let's assume the longer string is breaking more. It may be, but not because of tension! Do more experiments and let us know the real reason for the breakage, the tension on the 2 strings is the same, period! The distance the strings move to achieve the same tension at the same scale length for the same note is different, look that direction for your answer! JP

Brad, if by "tuning scale length" you mean the length that affects the pitch, then yes that is correct, although I have never seen it referred to that way. In your next sentence the phrase “tension scale is the distance from the changer to the tuning post” doesn't seem to make sense because the term "scale" is not used to refer to the whole length from changer to tuning post, and the term "tension" is not associated with a distance, but rather a force.

There is a term in physics that relates force to distance: Work = Fd, where F is force, and d is distance. No work occurs if there is no movement. So the static tension at the end of a string does not involve work. However, work is involved in the lever action of a pedal or bell crank, and in the rotation of the changer, and in cranking up a tuning key to arrive at pitch.

At first glance one might think there is more work involved in bringing a longer string up to pitch, since the distance traveled is greater. But that is not necessarily true. A string with 1" overhang will have a short but stiff pull. In other words the distance will be short, but the force required will be large. A string with 6" overhang will be a longer pull, but much of that will simply be pulling the stretch out of the string. So the force per unit distance traveled will be less. In other words the distance will be long, but the force required will be small. If friction is not a factor the work will be the same for the two strings. And if the scale length is the same, the tension for the two strings will be the same at the end of the pull.

If by your second sentence you are trying to say that the tension is the same over the entire distance from changer to tuning post, that would be correct as long as there is negligible friction at the nut.

Curt, yes I am “jacked up.” You have now called me insecure, afraid, a lone dissenter, and needing enlightenment. Knock off the snide insults and give us hard data or clear logic.

At first glance one might think there is more work involved in bringing a longer string up to pitch, since the distance traveled is greater. But that is not necessarily true. A string with 1" overhang will have a short but stiff pull. In other words the distance will be short, but the force required will be large<<

I agree with the above but I think there may be more cam rotation to accomplish bringing the longer string up to pitch...greater distance but less force..correct me if I'm wrong

I still want to know if Curt's string breaking experiment breaks the strings at the same place each time. I'm betting it does.

If by your second sentence you are trying to say that the tension is the same over the entire distance from changer to tuning post, that would be correct as long as there is negligible friction at the nut.

David, That is what I'm saying, I did not want to include things like, friction at nut, grooving of the cam or Burr on cam finger into the statement because I consider these to be more of a maintenance issue than a design issue.

The distance the strings move to achieve the same tension at the same scale length for the same note is different, look that direction for your answer! JP

JP, you just hit the jackpot.

<SMALL>If Curt is right, then everyone with a keyed guitar should put G# on the 1st string instead of the 3rd. Buddy could have done it in 1958 and had a 25" scale on his Sho-Bud! Wonder why he didn't do that...</SMALL>

Why would you want a G# on the first string?

<SMALL>Curt, yes I am “jacked up.” You have now called me insecure, afraid, a lone dissenter, and needing enlightenment. Knock off the snide insults and give us hard data or clear logic.</SMALL>

Please...........

Get a hold of yourself!

David, don't you think you are being a little dramatic?

Are you that thin skinned, and emotional?

Surely not.............


(remember, that was a question, not a statement)

Wouldn't it be easier to just do the experiment, than whine about it?

Here is what was said:

<SMALL>David, you are one angry person. I wonder if that anger stems from insecurity?</SMALL>

Well, does it?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR><SMALL>Did you do the experiment? Or are you afraid of the results?
</SMALL><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, did you?

<SMALL>And I resent the underhanded way you are trying to make me look like a lone dissenter against you and all the “experts.”</SMALL>

Your words not mine

<SMALL>Now, go spend 15 minutes doing the experiment, so that you too can be enlightened</SMALL>

hardly an attack on characture

<SMALL> Knock off the snide insults and give us hard data or clear logic.</SMALL>

Knock off the sniveling, and do the experiment!

<SMALL>You got no experts. You have some sloppy ad copy from one manufacturer and a couple of other Forum members. </SMALL>

You got no experts? .................

So, Sierra has a sloppy ad?

Hmm, it does not seem to be hurting their sales!

Oh, and how many guitars have you built?

None?

But Sierra is wrong, and David Doggett is right?

No....... Not by a long shot.

Just do the experiment. And be honest.

It is the right thing to do

I'll be awaiting your results!

<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Curt Langston on 15 November 2006 at 03:20 PM.]</p></FONT>

<SMALL>I agree with the above but I think there may be more cam rotation to accomplish bringing the longer string up to pitch...greater distance but less force..correct me if I'm wrong</SMALL>

Correct. Cam rotation requires work. At the rotating cam it is angular travel, but below the cam the finger is pulled linearly.

b0b, my keyless Flugelblunker HAS NEVER BROKEN A STRING. Matter of fact it's so unnoticeable I can't find it anymore. I agree with Jim Sliff's first post, if string breakage was a MAJOR PROBLEM this entire forum would know about it. As for questioning why G# on the first string would be nice, think about it. I have a KEYED MILLENNIUM, 3 years old and has broken two (2) .012 in that time frame. I don't think that's excessive so I've quit worrying about it.

Phred

I don't get why Curt won't answer my question about where the string breaks.

Maybe the answer upsets his theory? Maybe it doesn't. I wish he'd tell me. I'm entirely too lazy to do any sort of experiment at all, unless you count some experiments with drugs when I was a teen. (ok, and a 20 something. ...and once or twice after that. ..oh...and the other day. ...but never at dusk!)

I'd like to add that basic physics principals apply whether a person has built a steel or not, and whether or not someone can play like Buddy Emmons. (Curt, those are really silly and childish taunts, c'mon! What's next, are you going to tell him that your old man can beat up his old man? Oh yeah? I double dog dare you!)

On the other hand David, it really wouldn't hurt to run Curt's experiment, then you'd be able to say "Yes" when he asks for the 20th time if you've done it.

Curt, David has asked you to do an experiment of his own, have you done it?

I'd also like to say Flugelblunker. I'd like to, but I can't.<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by P Gleespen on 15 November 2006 at 04:29 PM.]</p></FONT>

<SMALL>I don't get why Curt won't answer my question about where the string breaks.</SMALL>

Sorry PG. I did not mean to give you the cold shoulder! I just forgot all about your question.

I have tried this 11 times now, as I had dozen pack of Jagwire .011's

The breaks were like this:
(1) at the keyhead when tuning up.
(2) at the keyhead while pedaling.
(8) at the changer cam while pedaling.

I realize that the cam is where most of the breaks on any steel will occur. I know that there is more travel with a longer total string length, and the associated increased tension.

I invite anyone that questions this to simply try it!

Maybe if David does, he can relax.

you guys could have practiced plenty, maybe broke a 3rd string and replaced it before you could read this whole thread !

But at least some good practice time would have been accomplished...



<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Tony Prior on 15 November 2006 at 05:25 PM.]</p></FONT>

Thats true Tony. I feel a little silly spending time breaking .011's, but at least it proved to me, what I knew all along.

Oh well, if nothing else I feel satisfied.

Even if no one else tries the experiment!

Um, Curt, what exactly was the experiment whose results you just quoted for PG? Inquiring minds want to know.

I will be restringing a Carter D12 with 24” scales sometime in the next month as I fix it up for resale. As an experiment, with all the other strings off, I will put an 0.011 on the first post, and another on the 6th post. I will watch a tuning meter and tune each string with the key until it breaks. According to Curt’s theory I should be able to tune to a higher pitch on the first post. It doesn’t make any sense, but according to his thinking I should be able to get a higher pitch over the scale length for the first string, because less “tension” is added by the short overhang. So the whole string will have less tension, but over the scale length I should be able to get a higher tension and higher pitch. On the 6th string, the extra overhang should add more “tension”, and that extra tension should prevent me from getting as much tension over the scale length, resulting in a lower pitch at the break point. I’ll do several strings on each post and report the results. Would you consider that a fair test, Curt?

This is not the same experiment I originally proposed, in which both strings are tuned to the same high pitch, and the number of breaks while tuning up to pitch are counted. But it is a more efficient test, because I am guaranteed a break on every string I try. The string that can be tuned to the highest pitch before breaking, should in theory break fewer times if the strings were both tuned to the same high pitch. To be absolutely clear, this is a pure test of tuning up to pitch on strings with the same scale length but different overhang lengths. No pedals or levers will be used, because that would introduce flex differences at the changer, which we all seem to agree should have an effect on string breakage. This is just a test of the highest pitch that can be achieved on the open string before it breaks. Curt’s prediction (and the prediction of Johnstone, Dixon and the Sierra ad writer) is that the string with the shortest overhang should generally reach a higher pitch before breaking. The prediction of the rest of us is that I should get about the same pitch on both strings before they break, because the extra overhang adds no more tension.

<SMALL>Um, Curt, what exactly was the experiment whose results you just quoted for PG? Inquiring minds want to know.</SMALL>

Simply put a new .011, (of the same brand) on the 3rd and 5th keys. Make sure they are tuned to G#, and they both pull to A.

Thats it!

<SMALL>Inquiring minds want to know.</SMALL>

All you had to do was ask. I thought there was no question about the experiment part.

BTW, the 3rd .011 G# is the original, and has not needed to be changed as of yet.

It's like a bicycle and a hill: If you use high gear, you pedal harder but use fewer pedal crank rotations to get to the top of the hill...If you use a lower gear, you pedal easier but use more pedal crank rotations to get to the top of the hill.