The Steel Guitar Forum

Earnest asks:

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.
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.)

I'm sorry Earnest, I really don't understand your question.

I responded to your previous question, but it seems like you did not understand.

The bottom line is Mullen "bends" do not work as effeciently as they could, because they are not physically correct. If they were physically correct, they would be straight like every other builders rods are.

Hope this helps.

You guys are making me feel stupid. "Moon" had an early self fashioned instrument that featured lawn mower parts and bellcranks from a carburator. Tom's early ZB's were not perfect examples of engineering principles.

Our instruments are created to give voice to our talents. If they do that they are successful. Please explain to me the "flaws" in Tom's solo in "Together Again" or Ralph's "Apartment #9".

I only wish my talents rose to the levels with which Mr. Mullen's guitars are able to produce.

Jaclyn Jones wrote:The point that seems most important, at least me, is that it does work.

Jaclyn, my point all along, as well.

I own a S-12 Del Mullen Signature G-2.I love the sound and the playability of my guitar.

Even though, I have 386 of college credit,(13 years). I never liked physic, never presume I was an mechanical engineer or machinist. Nor do think I ever want to build a steel guitars, never.

What I love is the sound and the playability of my mullen guitars, so I keeping my bent shafts, just for that reason alone. Del's a pioneer in design, honest person, open minded and great player. Mike knows pedal steel guitar, knows how to build them and is great machinist, and builder.

I hope others will play a G 2 just once, then try to go back to playing their "other brand", see which you like best. Then go and play it!!!

I, also play a SD Zum U-12 also, they have a straight shaft. Sorry, but I do not like it better than my G-2. I say play more, talk less, but that just me.

Been reading this post with much interest.

Having been a machinist for 23 years I have to add some clarification to the tolerance point. For those that do not understand the degree of tolerance I'll try and put it into a simple perspective.

The tolerance mentioned was .002 with a runout of .0005.

To put this in layman terms a human hair (on average) is .003" - .004" thick. If you were to split that hair in two, you would end up with .0015" - .002". Now don't forget you have to cut that in half again as it is only half of that .002 per side which would be .001. That's pretty small and that is what the clearance is for the bearing mentioned. The allowable runout is less than half of that again.

To machine something to within a tolerance so accurately is a credit to the craftmanship of this company!

Turbines, and high speed applications are rarely more accurately machined than that. To have a steel guitar with those tolerances is nothing short of amazing and an absolute credit to the research and development as well as the quality control of the Mullen guitar company.

Outstanding to say the least. I'm even happier that I've ordered my Mullen now!

"Ralph's "Apartment #9".Not Pete Drake?

"Moon" did the original recording with Bobby Austin.

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.- J.D Sauser

.
Well put. The term "physically incorrect" is meaningless. Something is what it is. Whether it works well, poorly or not at all is the difference between good and bad mechanical design.

but the laws of physics are still around, being applied today! (except in the case of the mysterious bent rods)- Chris Lang

___________versus____________

The laws of physics are still in play, but not in the case of the Mullen "bent" crossrod. - Chris Lang

Not much difference that I can see. You're stating that laws of physics were not used in the design of, and are not even "in play" for the G2 mechanism at all. You're statements seem more based in metaphysics than hard science.

Tony says:

Not much difference that I can see. You're stating that laws of physics were not used in the design of, and are not even "in play" for the G2 mechanism at all.

Yes Tony, I think you are starting to get the point.

However, I am not saying that Mullen does not consider the laws of physics in every aspect of their guitars, just the "bent" crossrod atrosity. There are other very good features in their guitars. However the "bent" mechanism is not one of them.

That is where a deviation from the laws of physics, took a huge turn.


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.- J.D Sauser

Physics lead to mechanical results or, if not followed to bad mechanics.

I agree with that statement as well. The "bent" crossrod idea did not follow the laws of physics.

Sure wish that you folks would get off of that PHYSICS kick and start talking about things MECHANICAL.

Here's something for y'all to chew on.

One of my treasured books is called the "Machinery's Handbook". It is sort of a bible for all things mechanical. It has 2482 pages - which will give you an idea as to how comprehensive it is.

Interestingly enough - the INDEX DOES NOT CONTAIN THE WORD "PHYSICS"!

To be sure - a small portion of the "bent crossrod" dilemma can have a "physical" explanation but the overwhelming preponderance of applicable evidence is to be found in the MECHANICAL realm.

The majority of explanations in this thread and which are purported to be attributed to "physics" are not that at all.

Some of you speaketh with forked tongue.

Get it right.

Respectfully,

Richard

Only parenthetical because someone mentioned Brumley and ZB guitars...

Tom Brumley's solo on "Together Again" was cut on a Fender 1000... a broken Fender 1000, in fact.

However, the cables, both of them that were hooked up, were all pretty much on the same plane. I'm guessing Sir Isaac Newton didn't turn over in his grave all that much.

In 1970 I went into a pawn shop on Lankershim Blvd. in North Hollywood (just south of the Palomino, for you guys who know the neighborhood) and there was what had to be one of the first ZB guitars ever. I know this because the undercarriage was welded like a Sho~Bud Permanent, and painted black with no flocking or lacquer finish. A verrrrrry early ZB, probably made soon after Zane left Sho-Bud.

Richard: When I went to college, Physics was taught in segments: mechanics & motion / electromagnetism /optics /and relativity. You are right though, mechanics is the more precise term.


Chris: I'm not getting your point at all. The physical forces of nature do act on Mullen steels. To think that they don't come into play on the G2 is either naive or delusional.

chris: i knew a guy that have a non pedal steel that he drilled a hole thru the body directly under the b string and attached a clothes hanger to the end of the pedal and drove a nail thru the bracket where it pivoted. it raised the b to a c#, i don't think he went to maybe the third grade in school. but he had a job playing every weekend....thanks jack

Tony Glassman wrote:Richard: When I went to college, Physics was taught in segments: mechanics & motion / electromagnetism /optics /and relativity. You are right though, mechanics is the more precise term.


Chris: I'm not getting your point at all. The physical forces of nature do act on Mullen steels. To think that they don't come into play on the G2 is either naive or delusional.

Physics, mechanics...How much of this thread has been about semantics?

Tony, meaning no disrespect, it seems improbable to me that you don't know what Chris means. It's obvious to me that what he's saying, rephrased to match your formulation, is precisely that the physical forces of nature do indeed come into play on Mullen steels, and the bent-crossrod design, in his analysis, is disharmonious with them, i.e. is such that the interaction of the design with the physical forces of nature works against optimum function to some degree.

I only offer my interpretation of the semantics. About whether that analysis of the mechanics is correct I am curious, but do not venture an opinion.

Though I would point out that no one, neither Chris nor anyone else, has suggested that the G2 design doesn't work.

Mechanical engineering is a discipline of engineering that applies the principles of physics and materials science for analysis, design, manufacturing, and maintenance of mechanical systems.

Physics (Ancient Greek: φύσις physis "nature") is a natural science that involves the study of matter[1] and its motion through space-time, as well as all applicable concepts, such as energy and force.[2] More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves.[3][4][5]

I think everyone is just having fun now!

Brint, I'm sorry, I simply don't interpret Chris' statements the way that you do.

As far as this thread being about science vs. semantics, I'd say the proportion is about 30:70.

This is one of the most absurd discussions I've seen in a long time. Do we really have to wonder why so many of the leaders in the steel guitar community have had it with this forum? I won't stop to try to refute every point here - it's obvious that the crux of this is nothing less than the critical underlying premises and philosophy about what constitutes 'engineering design'.

As to "scientific" evidence, I can only refer to Ross Shafer's computer expertise in showing the fallacy in the bent rod design - the tendency for such an arrangement to bind up under rotation.

Respectfully - unless you or someone else can show somehow that there is something wrong, from a performance or reliability point of view, I completely disagree with the notion that anybody has shown anything whatsoever 'wrong' or 'flawed' with this bent-rod design. This system was designed to work within the limits of a small-angle rotation, much the same as tube or solid-state amplifier is designed to operate within certain voltage and/or current limits. The fact that it does not bind under the rotation for which it was designed proves your statement false.

Engineering design is not descriptive science. Descriptive science is a tool to an engineer, not a goal. Every properly designed and engineered device is set to operate within certain limits, and every engineering scientific theory is subject to the practical limits imposed by its use in an engineering design.

Engineering is the art and science of making tradeoffs between design goals. There are always tradeoffs in true engineering design. The utility of a design is defined by how well it achieves many often competing and even contradictory goals at once. You measure an engineered system in its totality, not any single feature.

There are lots of outstanding engineering designs which do not satisfy certain peoples' aesthetic sense of how that design should look. For example - from the standpoint of someone interested in linear system theory and linear amplifiers, a vacuum tube amplifier is a complete kludge. Tubes are highly nonlinear devices that through ingenious manipulation can be made to sound great - linear within limits, nonlinear outside of those limits - but great either way. A great amp designer is a virtuoso who understands how to manipulate the design space to get the desired overall response.

The same goes for a great instrument designer. The goal is the totality of the response of the instrument. Goals like "maintain symmetry", "maintain parallelism", or other basically engineering-aesthetic issues are completely subservient to the response and performance of the instrument as a whole.

These contraptions are designed for musicians, not engineers. I don't give a damn whether or not someone thinks a design is elegant, to their conception of engineering aesthetics. After CBS took over Fender in 1965, they went about 'fixing' little idiosyncrasies in Leo's designs - guitars, amps, you name it. I suppose some musicians liked those changes, but the vast majority of guitar players - for whom these things were designed - wrote a very different verdict for history.

PS - U-Joints in cross rods? Are y'all serious? Y'all ever hear of Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation/design that does the job is usually the best. From the standpoint of performance, what are you trying to fix that requires yet more degrees of freedom that can be the death knell of a sustaining vibrational system?

All IMHO - but those opinions are formed from many years of various kinds of science and engineering experience. Most of the differences I read here are, IMO, due to differences in philosophy, and not science or engineering. The science here is trivial, but the philosophical differences are enormous.

Yes, +1 What Dave said.

Jim Simon,Thanks a bunch I just learned something,still not smart enough to jump in this thread

Where is that dead horse cartoon?

Jeff Newman was right! You guys like to fight too much.

Sure is funny how such a "poorly designed", "not correct" guitar can be one of the best selling guitars on the market, if it's not the best selling guitar on the market. Mullen guitars is doing a great job producing guitars that stand up to the needs of the players, and the list is long with some pretty great players on it. They must be doing something right.

Brint says:

Tony, meaning no disrespect, it seems improbable to me that you don't know what Chris means. It's obvious to me that what he's saying, rephrased to match your formulation, is precisely that the physical forces of nature do indeed come into play on Mullen steels, and the bent-crossrod design, in his analysis, is disharmonious with them, i.e. is such that the interaction of the design with the physical forces of nature works against optimum function to some degree.

That's it exactly, Brint. I don't see why Tony cannot understand this.

i.e. is such that the interaction of the design with the physical forces of nature works against optimum function to some degree

The bent crossrods are not optimal, because they cannot operate in a precise way, due to their incorrect design.

(maybe that is why they are not named "The Royal G2 Precision")

That is why no other buider uses them. They are not correct or precise.......

Thats why folks on this thread have used the term "design flaw"


Sorry.................



Mike says:

Sure is funny how such a "poorly designed", "not correct" guitar can be one of the best selling guitars on the market, if it's not the best selling guitar on the market.

Hey!... Wait a minute. I thought that the new Rittenberry was the hottest guitar going?


Well, at least Gary uses "straight" crossrods!




BTW,
I wonder how many G2s have been sold to date?

Jerry Garcia




snicker