E9th String breakage question

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 15 Nov 2006 6:47 pm

Brad, exactly.

Curt, sorry, I don’t get it. So you put the two strings on, one on post 3, one on post 5. Both open strings are tuned to G# and have a pull to A. Then what? Do you sit there and mash the pedals until the strings break or what? Also, your data for PG does not have any break down as to which post each string was on. Other than the fact that most strings break at the changer, what does this experiment prove? Is this the experiment you wanted me to do?

Earnest Bovine · Post by **Earnest Bovine** » 15 Nov 2006 6:59 pm

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.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is more tension on the G# string in the 5th position than on the string in the 3rd position. How did you measure the tension? And what were the results for the 2 G# strings?

Did you also pull them up to A, and compare the tensions there?

Curt Langston · Post by **Curt Langston** » 15 Nov 2006 7:06 pm

Also, your data for PG does not have any break down as to which post each string was on.

3 and 5, as b0b suggested.

Other than the fact that most strings break at the changer, what does this experiment prove?

That the 5th string did not hold up, and was replaced 11 times. The 3rd is still on.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>BTW, the 3rd .011 G# is the original, and has not needed to be changed as of yet.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you sit there and mash the pedals until the strings break or what?

No, I just played along with a CD, trying to utilize the G#'s in harmony as much as possible. It did not take long for the 5th G#'s to break.

A simple experiment that anyone can do.

Thats why I kept saying, "Do the experiment" so many times. It is a cheap way to get some answers.

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 15 Nov 2006 7:30 pm

You didn't, by chance, forget to tune the pedal on the 5th string, did you? I mean, if the pedal is raising it to Bb, it will surely break!

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 15 Nov 2006 7:36 pm

This result is completely expected. There is more stretch in the string on post 5, it is a longer pull, there is more rotation of the changer cam, there is more flexing at the changer, and that causes more breakage. We all agreed on that back in July. This does not demonstrate your claim that there is more "tension" on string 5. The question of increased tension on string 5 is confounded by the existence of more flexing at the changer. More flexing is a plausible explanation of the results that violates no laws of physics.

If you want to examine the issue of more tension in the absence of the confounding issue of more flexing, you need to do one of the experiments I suggested. Just tune the strings straight up to A, or whatever high pitch causes them to break about half the time. Since there is no pedal mashing and changer rotation, there is no additional flexing on the longer string, and that variable is eliminated. You can tune to the same high pitch and count which post breaks the most strings; or you can tune each string until it breaks, and see which post allows the highest pitch on average. There are still potentially confounding variables, such as an unknown bur on the changer or nut or tuning post, different angles at the nut, etc. But at least this would eliminate the main confounding variable of different amounts of flexing at the changer.

Curt Langston · Post by **Curt Langston** » 15 Nov 2006 7:41 pm

This result is completely expected. There is more stretch in the string on post 5, it is a longer pull, there is more rotation of the changer cam, there is more flexing at the changer, and that causes more breakage.

There is more stretch in the string on post 5,

And more tension.

Remember: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>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.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No b0b, I followed your advice earlier in the posts. Both 3 and 5 were a .011 guage tuned open to G#.

Both 3 and 5 were pulled up to A.

Of course, pulling to Bb would cause the 5th G# to bust immediately!

It was bad enough, just pulling the 5th G# up to A.

One thing this has done for me is:
I am not as gun shy about popping strings!

[This message was edited by Curt Langston on 15 November 2006 at 07:49 PM.]

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 15 Nov 2006 9:35 pm

And more tension.

That is a completely unwarranted assumption without a shred of evidence for it. Most of the breaks were at the changer, where there is increased flexing. One break was while tuning up. We all get a bad string once in awhile. Two breaks were at the keyhead. Well there is increased stretching at the keyhead, and there is a bend over the nut, which would be the second most likely place for a break after the changer site. You got good evidence for increased stretching and flexing, but none for increased tension. Bad science.

The only evidence we have regarding tension is Ed Packard’s experiment where he directly measured tension with a force gauge and found it was the same, regardless of total string length.

I'd say case closed. If you want to reopen the issue, do my experiment and tell us what happens.

Curt Langston · Post by **Curt Langston** » 16 Nov 2006 3:13 am

I'd say case closed.

Well David, say want you want.

But the 5th string G# was under more tension, and therefore broke faster.

I'm satisfied with my results, and I don't feel a need to try to convince you any futher.

Remember, one string broke while tuning up, and two more at the keyhead.

Coincidence?

No......

Tension.

I can't remember the last time I broke a string while tuning up. I know it has been at least 10 years, and thats because I got a set of old strings that came with a Sho-Bud that I bought. And breaking strings at the keyhead? This was a first for me.

Also, this test was done over a two day timeframe.... two days When was the last time you consistantly broke a new string in less than an hour? Much less 11 strings in two days? (Remember that these were new Jagwires, that have never had a bad report on the forum for breaking.)

Yeah, there's more tension alright. It is not all in the rotation of the cam either. Altough, that does factor somewhat in the test, it does not explain away breaking 11 strings in a two day span, by any means!

I'll tell you what, you can go with Ed's "measurements", and I'll stick with renowned steel builder Sierra and my eyewitnessed results, and we can agree to disagree!

And if you want to dismiss it, that is fine with me, but you really should try it before you do.

It is an eye opener.

I really enjoyed this post, but it is time to move on.

No more leading a horse to water. You can try the experiment and see for your own eyes, or you can go with some unseen "measurements"

The choice is yours.

Bye for now.
See you on another topic!

[This message was edited by Curt Langston on 16 November 2006 at 03:49 AM.]

Brad Malone · Post by **Brad Malone** » 16 Nov 2006 7:38 am

David and Curt, You guys solved the problem, the longer string broke more ofter because of the flexing at the cam caused by greater movement of the cam mechanism..that’s good enough for me. The tension is on the entire length of the string from the cam to the keyhead. The reason the keyless design breaks less strings is because of the reduced string length which leads to less flexing and cam movement. The tension issue is solved, it is the same on both strings if they are the same gauge, brand, tuned to the same note and pulled to the same note. You guys cleared up an issue which had been on my mind for a long time…I even came up with the Bicycle analogy because of you two guys. Thanks again for all the input.

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 16 Nov 2006 7:56 am

Curt, you don't get it. I don't doubt the results of your experiment, but your explanation misuses a term from physics. Your results have a plausible explanation, more stretch and flexing. Tension is not a plausible explanation, because it doesn't conform to the conventional use of that term in the equation above. Tension is not additive, and doesn't increase with string length. Stretch does. The only way you are going to convince the rest of us that increased tension is involved is to measure the tension directly. Ed Packard did. There was no more tension on the longer string, which agrees with the equation. I trust Ed. You think he is lying. Go buy your own strain gauge and disprove him. The only thing you have going for you is your "expert" quotes. They misused the term the same way you do. Big deal. No one's perfect.

Answer this simple question, which I have asked you many times in many ways and you have never answered. If the tension increases over the whole string simply because it is longer, then it must increase over the scale length (changer to nut). But if the tension increases over the scale length, how come the pitch stays the same (G# or A)? Just for once, stop your snide personal insults and your quotes from "experts" and answer this simple question with clear logic of your own thinking. You do know how to think for yourself, don't you?

[This message was edited by David Doggett on 16 November 2006 at 08:29 AM.]

Curt Langston · Post by **Curt Langston** » 16 Nov 2006 8:24 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I'll tell you what, you can go with Ed's "measurements", and I'll stick with renowned steel builder Sierra and my eyewitnessed results, and we can agree to disagree!

And if you want to dismiss it, that is fine with me, but you really should try it before you do.

It is an eye opener.

I really enjoyed this post, but it is time to move on.

No more leading a horse to water. You can try the experiment and see for your own eyes, or you can go with some unseen "measurements"

The choice is yours.

Bye for now.
See you on another topic!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry David, I can't reason with you.

I tried. I gave you the results of my experiments that b0b said to do.

I don't know what else to say or do.

I did not mean to intimidate you. I am sorry if I upset you. I thought it was a good topic.

But now I am moving on.

I'll let you have this thread.

One thing we CAN do though, is agree to disagree!

Please don't look for another post on this thread from me, as this is the last.

You may have the last word, even though I do not agree with your statements.

How's that?

I'm tired....................

See you on another post!

[This message was edited by Curt Langston on 16 November 2006 at 10:22 AM.]

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 16 Nov 2006 8:31 am

Too "afraid" or "insecure" to answer the simple question? My, my.

Post by **b0b** » 16 Nov 2006 10:37 am

I've closed this one.