The Steel Guitar Forum

b0b wrote:

James Mayer wrote:Hmmm. Seems to me, a car with power steering has better handling and feels more responsive to the driver.

You're joking, right?

I know it's difficult to tell, but I joke around frequently. Whatever stirs the pot.

I metioned this a few years ago and was almost laughed oof the forum. The issues then were the right solnoids, weight, cost. i contend it is feasibile, but all three of the listed issue will need solving. Also, people are slow to accept new ideas, so anyone building this would have to wait while a lotta people changed, retired or something else occured to create a more open mingd towar radical change. Politics should not be discussed on the forum

I think overall it's a great idea... but like others have said, good luck getting the steel guitar world to accept it. Look at the Emmons P/P... a mechanically inferior beast which still has such a desirability... people like their old stuff as long as it works.

As for me, if someone can make it work for a reasonable price, and I'll buy it- how can we advance anywhere without encouraging the development?

Mike Perlowin wrote:

John Billings wrote:I think a "Hydraulic" steel guitar will come first.

I believe it's been tried, and the resultant guitar was weighed a gazillion pounds, and leaked.

Today's steels work pretty darn good. Maybe a solenoid operated changer might be better, but I for one am happy with what I've got.

Another drawback, Mike. On a hydraulic steel, you have to change the oil every 3000 chords.

Another drawback, Mike. On a hydraulic steel, you have to change the oil every 3000 chords.

...only for "in the city playing" __ "on the road playing" you could probably go 5000 chords.

Jim Pitman wrote:I'm an EE in the automation/motion control biz, specifically semiconductor fab equipment. I also play pedal steel and made and sold pickups for a while.
I've done a quick feasibility study. The technical issues I'd want to get addressed before commiting time and money are:
1. How much torque? I believe I've heard 20lbs of linear force is typical.

Jim,
On a .12 gauge string, it takes 32.5 lb to pull the string up to the G# note.
To pull it up to A, plus 20 cents, it takes 37.33 lbs. In other words it takes an extra 5 pounds or so to pull the string from G# to A

Only B0b and Georg Sortun seem to have respectively(a) the open-mindedness and (b) the competence in mechatronics to envision what this instrument could be. Plus me. Georg, your description fits exactly the outline characteristics of the experiments I have been doing for the last year. Same design specs, same decisions.

In those, I have certainly produced all the pitch range I need with a motor-driven servo, operated by a pot on the pedal/lever. Need "feel"? No problem, put a spring on the damn thing to dial in whatever degree of resistance you want. When you pull against a string, that is exactly what you get, plus all the lumpy non-linearities of slop, play, wear etc. You are welcome to that, gentlemen.

There is no automatic pitch change in the idea under discussion, as some seem to think. We are talking about an instrument which works like a normal PSG, sounds like one, makes the notes, etc in the same way, the same tone.

The only difference is the pedals aren't connected to the string changers mechanically, but electrically. So by selecting a different copedent, you change the allocation of the pedal action to the string. Example:

Option 1 = Emmons setup. Pedal 1 raises E's to F#. LKR drops E's to Eb.
Option 2 = Day setup. Pedal 3 does this instead. LKR raises F# to G.

2 seconds to change over, 2 keypresses.

The scheme proposed simply changes the allocation of action (at pedal etc) to reaction (at string changer) - not rocket science, just a little applied electronics and mechanical engineering.

Obsolescence? Sure, it's a concern. You see it where manufacturers design in obsolescence. It's easy to design it out. I'm happy to keep working on this in my own. The guy who said let's see if I can shift that first batch of 100 was right of course.

Will Cowell
Huntingdon, UK

Even within the the context of a single tuning, I would love to have a switch to change what a pedal or knee lever does. This is a challenge with today's all-mechanical steel designs. It's hard to fit the parts in the allocated space. With a motorized changer it would be a piece of cake.

I don't like the idea of programming it via a laptop. The instrument would become obsolete within 20 years, as computer technology progresses. A dedicated internal computer is better solution, IMHO. There are plenty of Yamaha DX-7's still in use, despite the fact that its 80s-era internal computer is primitive by today's standards.

I don't know if a servo motor with a rotary encoder would react quick enough for a fast pedaller.

It would certainly be convenient for quickly changing the copedent, though.

No pots for control input, too unreliable. No encoders, too expensive - there isn't a speed issue really. There are better, cheaper and more reliable methods of sensing pedal/lever position. But I'd rather not give somebody else a free ride on the work I've done to date.

B0b, I agree. No remote computer - unless you want to save a copy of your copedents - use a dedicated on-board controller. Atmel AVR2560, that sort of thing. Huge memory, flash programmable so firmware can be updated, 16 A to D channels, multiple counter/timer outputs and more digital I/O ports than I know what to do with. A tinkerer's dream.

Will C