Myth/science In Lutherie

[fryovanni]

The link to tirapop's equations should suffice.

Bottom line: string tension IS the same on either side of the nut.

Sounds good.

So I am trying to resolve an issue from my test. The issue is the distance required to pull a string to pitch when I added break angles. Tirapop pointed out that friction will effect the distance, and that if a zero friction method was possible the effect should be nullified. I agree that friction must play a role here, even with roller saddle or nut. I am not sure this is the sole factor though. These are my thoughts.

1- Tension on the string will be equal across it's length. We have agreed on this point.

2- Friction will make pulling a string more difficult, as the "dead" string length will pull over the respective saddle and nut during the pulling process.

3- after the string has been pulled the needed distance to reach the required tension. The tension is again equal across the entire length of the string (as we have agreed upon). This means the friction can not diminish the effectiveness of the "dead" string length.

4- A string has elastic properties that will modify how much the string has to be pulled to raise the tension. I am assuming on a straight string length the distance and elasticity would vary directly with total length of string.

5- As Perry made me aware of the arch created by the string going ove the nut and saddles. It occurred to me that this could quite likely modify the elasticity of the string at that portion of string length. It is being stretched over the saddle/ nut yet is not conforming 100% to that angle. So I can't see how this could not play a role on the strings stretching ability (really appears to stiffen the string).

So..... Talk to me guys. What do you think? I am just trying to work out what I am seeing, but my mind is definately not made up. I may very well be missing something here.

Peace,Rich

[erikbojerik]

2- Friction will make pulling a string more difficult, as the "dead" string length will pull over the respective saddle and nut during the pulling process.

3- after the string has been pulled the needed distance to reach the required tension. The tension is again equal across the entire length of the string (as we have agreed upon).

Well...maybe not. If the nut slot friction is high enough, you *could* have lower tension in the "dead" portion of the string (the highest-friction endmember being the locking nut...no matter how hard you bend, the dead string doesn't move). But most most nuts are probably not so bad as to do this.

This means the friction can not diminish the effectiveness of the "dead" string length.

What is the dead string "effective" at doing? No comprehende...

[boomerlu]

2- Friction will make pulling a string more difficult, as the "dead" string length will pull over the respective saddle and nut during the pulling process.

3- after the string has been pulled the needed distance to reach the required tension. The tension is again equal across the entire length of the string (as we have agreed upon).

Well...maybe not. If the nut slot friction is high enough, you *could* have lower tension in the "dead" portion of the string (the highest-friction endmember being the locking nut...no matter how hard you bend, the dead string doesn't move). But most most nuts are probably not so bad as to do this.

I always thought it was GOOD nut design for the string not to move in the nut slot...

[fryovanni]

2- Friction will make pulling a string more difficult, as the "dead" string length will pull over the respective saddle and nut during the pulling process.

3- after the string has been pulled the needed distance to reach the required tension. The tension is again equal across the entire length of the string (as we have agreed upon).

Well...maybe not. If the nut slot friction is high enough, you *could* have lower tension in the "dead" portion of the string (the highest-friction endmember being the locking nut...no matter how hard you bend, the dead string doesn't move). But most most nuts are probably not so bad as to do this.

This means the friction can not diminish the effectiveness of the "dead" string length.

What is the dead string "effective" at doing? No comprehende...

True. if the friction is so high it effectively stops movement of the string. It isolates the "dead string" portion of the full length. Again though, I am falling back on the tension being equal if it is a non-locking nut. That assumption is based on your guys final conclusion. Unless I missed something.

What the "dead string" portion is doing- 1. yes, effects intonation. (pretty much proven). 2-I am assuming and has not been agreed upon that. The full length of the string will effect the elasticity of a string. I am making my assumption based on my belief that a longer string has to be stretched farther to increase tension and raise pitch. This is based on my comparison in my mock up (two strings same scale. two different "dead string" lengths.

Boomerlu- Not good design unless you are talking about a locking nut. Ideal is a nut that will not cause the string to bind. If it does bind the guitar would not return to tune. Basically locking it at a bad time (so to speak). This is why you see roller nuts, Graphite nuts, and other slippery nut material.

I am still not sure what to think about this one Erik. You may be on track here. I am only stating my thoughts, and like I said I am trying to sort through this.

Peace,Rich

[tirapop]

Rich,

I've got old and cheap stringed instruments with high friction (some friction?) nuts. Friction at the nut can cause higher string tension on the tuner side of the nut. When I tune up, I have to do things like pull the strings away from the fretboard or press down on the strings between the tuner and nut, to overcome friction to equalize tension. If I don't, after a couple minutes of playing, the string go sharp as I put enough load and vibration on the strings for them to overcome friction and equalize (or maybe only reduce the difference in) string tension.

Not having had roller or Graphtech nuts is what made me think that friction is what is coming into play with your string break angle experiments.

The only other thing that comes to mind, as a possibility, is if the string is getting "plastically deformed": the string is getting a kink where it goes over the nut/saddle. If the string gets permanently bent, it adds some resistance as you try to drag it over the nut/saddle. You have to unbend the bent part of the string. The amount of string movement is small, so, I don't think that's likely.

You can experiment with the friction hypothesis using higher and lower friction nuts. It would also help to keep the break angle at the saddle constant and change only the break angle at the nut, to reduce the number of variables that effect the result.

It would be nice to know what the string tension was on either side of the nut. Some bicycle wheel builders use spoke tension gauges. It use two fixed posts. It's designed so that the moving post (between the two fixed) exerts a standard force on the spoke. The dial gauge on the moving post shows how much deflection there is under that standard load. Builders use the gauge to keep spoke tensions uniform. The gauges are kind of spendy. Maybe you can improvise something.

You could test the bent string hypothesis by changing the radius the string break angle is applied over. If the tuner side of the nut has no radius, string tension is more likely to form a kink in the string. If there's a large radius, there isn't enough bending load to kink the string. Comparing a kinked and unkinked string with the same break angle and same length should settle that question.

[fryovanni]

Rich,

I've got old and cheap stringed instruments with high friction (some friction?) nuts. Friction at the nut can cause higher string tension on the tuner side of the nut. When I tune up, I have to do things like pull the strings away from the fretboard or press down on the strings between the tuner and nut, to overcome friction to equalize tension. If I don't, after a couple minutes of playing, the string go sharp as I put enough load and vibration on the strings for them to overcome friction and equalize (or maybe only reduce the difference in) string tension.

Not having had roller or Graphtech nuts is what made me think that friction is what is coming into play with your string break angle experiments.

The only other thing that comes to mind, as a possibility, is if the string is getting "plastically deformed": the string is getting a kink where it goes over the nut/saddle. If the string gets permanently bent, it adds some resistance as you try to drag it over the nut/saddle. You have to unbend the bent part of the string. The amount of string movement is small, so, I don't think that's likely.

You can experiment with the friction hypothesis using higher and lower friction nuts. It would also help to keep the break angle at the saddle constant and change only the break angle at the nut, to reduce the number of variables that effect the result.

It would be nice to know what the string tension was on either side of the nut. Some bicycle wheel builders use spoke tension gauges. It use two fixed posts. It's designed so that the moving post (between the two fixed) exerts a standard force on the spoke. The dial gauge on the moving post shows how much deflection there is under that standard load. Builders use the gauge to keep spoke tensions uniform. The gauges are kind of spendy. Maybe you can improvise something.

You could test the bent string hypothesis by changing the radius the string break angle is applied over. If the tuner side of the nut has no radius, string tension is more likely to form a kink in the string. If there's a large radius, there isn't enough bending load to kink the string. Comparing a kinked and unkinked string with the same break angle and same length should settle that question.

I am totally with you and Erik on what would happen if the nut binds (as you describe on your guitar). When I built up this little test monkey. I intentionally used just a zero fret. Removing the chance of the nut binding or causing extra drag. As far as the arching that I see at the bringe and nut. It is not permenant or kinked. It occurs at the roller saddle (fair radius) and at the zero fret. Think of it like the end of a fishing pole, not as though the string is kinked (just arching, but the arch actually flattens out well past the break point- Even raised the action a bit on the test rig). Take a look at the nut and bridge on one of your guitars I am sure you will see what I am talking about.

The spoke tension tester sounds interesting. I will see what I can find out about them. Maybe I can work something up.

I did have a thought about possibly adding drag at the headstock. Something that can add a bit of drag without changing the break angle over the Zero fret or binding the string. If that by itself alters the distance required to bring the guitar up a step. It would confirm it is most likely friction driving the results. I think if I start swapping nuts at this point we will have too many variables at play (ie. Nut construction). One way or the other we have a change in the strings function here that we need to understand. As the distance you have to bend a string to reach pitch is a real world playability factor. Even if this is a issue created because of a zero frets profile (creating high friction). It would be good for a guy to know before choosing to use a zero fret.

I may also need to pinch the string at the tuners to remove the possibility of slippage, but the strings have equal wraps single layer (no overlapping strings). Looks solid to me (but it is a possible variable).

Peace,Rich

[boomerlu]

Rich, sorry I wasn't too clear but:

I thought good nut design would have it so it doesn't move LATERALLY, while allowing freedom of motion in the nut to bridge direction (so that the string doesn't bind).

[fryovanni]

Rich, sorry I wasn't too clear but:

I thought good nut design would have it so it doesn't move LATERALLY, while allowing freedom of motion in the nut to bridge direction (so that the string doesn't bind).

Oh yes, the string does need to stay in place and not move side to side, but still move forward and back. I totally agree.

Peace,Rich

[badsnap]

Just to add a little "fuel to the fire"...something to consider...when you increase the break angle, given all else stays constant, you increase the total string length. Not the scale length, the string length. Ever notice how little phyical movement it takes to elicit a tone change from the string between the nut and the tuners?? The tension is equal throughout the string but the LENGTH is different which is what make the tone higher in pitch (nut to tuner as compared to nut to bridge) and allows it to change with much less distance of bend (much more force required to bend it though). That is what happens when you change the angle...you change the total string length. I think that is what Perry has been tring to illustrate...or get us off our lazy butts to illustrate. As always I could be wrong...I didn't perform the experiment...I was busy playing!!!...Rog

[fryovanni]

Just to add a little "fuel to the fire"...something to consider...when you increase the break angle, given all else stays constant, you increase the total string length. Not the scale length, the string length. Ever notice how little phyical movement it takes to elicit a tone change from the string between the nut and the tuners?? The tension is equal throughout the string but the LENGTH is different which is what make the tone higher in pitch (nut to tuner as compared to nut to bridge) and allows it to change with much less distance of bend (much more force required to bend it though). That is what happens when you change the angle...you change the total string length. I think that is what Perry has been tring to illustrate...or get us off our lazy butts to illustrate. As always I could be wrong...I didn't perform the experiment...I was busy playing!!!...Rog

Well now ya had to go and start burning things up .

So I guess I would point out that I set the hinge mechanism so that the pivot point is directly below the zero fret (nut). Barring a slight margin for slop in my placement. The length should remain constant (or as close as my placement will keep it-should be darn close). As for the bridge side. I used a tailpiece that allows me to adjust length to stop piece (again if I made my adjustments correctly- length should be same as before/ darn close).

I don't think I totally follow you here-"The tension is equal throughout the string but the LENGTH is different which is what make the tone higher in pitch (nut to tuner as compared to nut to bridge) and allows it to change with much less distance of bend (much more force required to bend it though). That is what happens when you change the angle...you change the total string length."

Do you mean if I had allowed the string length to increase (behind the nut and bridge). The string would need to be pulled farther to reach the higher pitch?

Good thoughts, and I appreciate your input. I believe you are correct that Perry would like to see more real work and less guess work.

Peace,Rich

[badsnap]

What most of us keep overlooking (a few have noticed it) is that when the neck angle increased on your hinged mechanism - you had to retune?!?! Correct?? When you brought the tuning back down (to be correct) you increased the length of the string!! You then had to reset the intonation too !?!? Otherwise, your hinged peghead is nothing more than a really cool reverse tremelo!!

quote: Do you mean if I had allowed the string length to increase (behind the nut and bridge). The string would need to be pulled farther to reach the higher pitch?

Yes, thats exactly what I am saying...along with the fact that you did indeed increase the string length...not the position of the tuner on the board, it was still X inches from the hinge, but the length of the tuner from the nut (geometry!)...hence the string length. Godins guitar with the greater angle feels looser in the strings because his strings are phyically longer and have more mass to spread the tension across, therefore, in order to reach the same tone the bend needs to be greater (but less force applied to get there). To give Perry credit, after I posted my last comments, I tried this on an in process rebuild guitar and though I know my set up is not as precise as yours Rich...same results...the longer string was noticably looser and took a longer bend to reach the same note, hence where I draw my conclusion from (along with my common sense and engineering skills and training) ...Rog

[rhoads56]

good to see some people are out there trying it in the real world rather than playing with calculators

[GregP]

This "calculator" guy (not that I'm against "real world", but just saying that I didn't do any physical tests for this thread) mentioned the length thing a long long time ago. That was my original and main point. As part of it, I mentioned that without retuning, your tension and pitch ALSO change with increasing headstock... so that was covered, too, even though I didn't string up an actual model.

Damn, it's like reverse snobbery... instead of the typical definition of snobbery in which the crusty intellectual is sneering at the "unedumacated" it's looking down at someone who is able to imagine and visualize how the physics of it works in practice without actually having to rig something up. You have your own personal beef, Perry, in that you'd rather see more guys MAKING guitars than talking about them, which is all well and good. But it's just that... a personal beef, and one that's manifesting itself pretty overtly lately. There's no reason to discount other approaches just because of it. I mean, when the answer was right in front of your face, far be it to say, "Yeah, that's it." No, somehow the information is only correct if a practical test is done? Makes no sense.

Every type of learning is valid, no less the way I (for example) approached this problem; and the expenditure of energy I could've spent mocking something physical up is much better spent on something else when I already know (yes, know, not suspect) the answer to the question at hand....

I don't have to be a pizza chef to understand that higher heat and shorter cooking times will let you crisp up your crust without drying out or overdoing the toppings, but that conversely if you have TOO high a heat you won't have enough cooking time for the crust to rise... you don't have to be a practicioner of every discipline in the world to be able to speak intelligently about them.

Greg

[GregP]

On an related point, sometimes it's the "calculators" (as a metaphor for theory, not as literally using a calculator) are exactly what's required to debunk the myth. Take the direct-mount vs. ring-mount pickup debate. There's no way of really knowing that any of the minute differences you may or may not hear aren't due to placebo effect. People have already proven as much by trying both results-- some of those "practical testers" saying that they heard a difference and others saying, "no way." Since there's no consensus, it's obviously anecdotal and unreliable evidence.

I'd rather approach the problem logically, discussing the impact of direct vs. ring mount on the actual magnetic field, and the possibility that vibration in the guitar may or may not influence the pickup itself to produce a noticeable result (I say not, fwiw).

It seems to me that this thread has a place for both. My getting defensive isn't analogous to saying that the practical way has no value, and indeed I said earlier that it DOES, so I'm keeping room in the thread for both and all ways of solving a problem or even just running off at the mouth about an interesting topic.

Greg

[thegarehanman]

I've been reading this thread and lying low as it seems most logical points have been brought to the surface. Anyhow, I have to side with greg. The only real way to know what's going on with a guitar when a string is plucked(or any part of the guitar for that matter) is through empirical analysis. There's too much room for bias when testing actual models, not to mention you won't necessarily understand why what's happening is happening. Now I'm not saying that testing a theory is bad in anyway. On the contrary, you need to test your calculations to see if the calculated differences are even noticeable to the human touch or hearing etc. Anyhow, I just felt some backup was necessary.

The more physics related classes I take, the more I look at every thing as forces in the form of vectors(and the more I realize many of my previous beliefs were simply false ). It really helps to take the guess work out of something. Then again, sometimes it's useless and feel becomes overwhelmingly more important. I think these types of situations require equal attention from both a theoretical and practical point of view. At least that'll save you the most time.

peace,

russ

[rhoads56]

the fact that rich DID the work, and found out OTHER factors which none of you could have (or actually DID) estimated with your "calculators" proves my point. Ive done the "calculations". Ive sat there for hours thinking through techniques and ideas/theories. Ive gone over everything ten times and discussed it with people more knowledgable than myself. But its always the PRACTICAL expirements that prove the theory, and show up other flaws, or factors which can change the outcome. Like pickup mounting.

It makes ZERO difference to me how you do it. Seriously. I dont care. If you dont do the real world tests, thats fine, it does not effect me. If you do, and you find a few OTHER related problems, then thats great. Does it effect me? Not in the slightest. In fact, there is zero possible benefit for me at all, only the chance someone might use my suggestions for their own business, which ultimately, could disadvantage me. And i damn well know too many of my opposition have already weasled too much info out of me.

Anyway, i dont need to argue, or prove anything. I'll leave you guys to play around on your own, and i wont suggest any more "experiements".

Rich, feel free to email me if you would like to continue experiementing, im happy to assist, but im not going to go out of my way to assist people who just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

Cheers.

[thegarehanman]

Argue for the sake of arguing, perry? Now you know that's not what's going on here. Testing these things makes logical sense. However, there's no sense in testing something if you can't estimate the results before hand. It's necessary that you understand what variances you're looking for, be it through simple logic or (cringe) calculations, so that you can tweak your results when you get to the phase of actual tests. It's important that people reading this thread realize that. We don't need to be wasting peoples' time by telling them to perform an infinite number of tests. And let's not point fingers(be it ambiguously or not) about arguing for the sake of it, you're just as much of a fire starter as the rest of us(read: me ).

peace,

russ

[fryovanni]

What most of us keep overlooking (a few have noticed it) is that when the neck angle increased on your hinged mechanism - you had to retune?!?! Correct?? When you brought the tuning back down (to be correct) you increased the length of the string!! You then had to reset the intonation too !?!? Otherwise, your hinged peghead is nothing more than a really cool reverse tremelo!!

quote: Do you mean if I had allowed the string length to increase (behind the nut and bridge). The string would need to be pulled farther to reach the higher pitch?

Yes, thats exactly what I am saying...along with the fact that you did indeed increase the string length...not the position of the tuner on the board, it was still X inches from the hinge, but the length of the tuner from the nut (geometry!)...hence the string length. Godins guitar with the greater angle feels looser in the strings because his strings are phyically longer and have more mass to spread the tension across, therefore, in order to reach the same tone the bend needs to be greater (but less force applied to get there). To give Perry credit, after I posted my last comments, I tried this on an in process rebuild guitar and though I know my set up is not as precise as yours Rich...same results...the longer string was noticably looser and took a longer bend to reach the same note, hence where I draw my conclusion from (along with my common sense and engineering skills and training) ...Rog

Rog,

You know I had to loosen the strings when I changed the headstock angle to re-adjust the tailpiece. However you must be correct about the headstock. Even though I set the hinge back it is pivoting below the zero fret so the length has to increase some. You are correct that the string length has to have increased a bit (thanks for making that clear to me). Our opinions on extra length of a string should increase the distance needed to pull a string up to a given pitch, but should require less force. Now here is the thing that is still kicking me.

"Ok, I decided to take the string angle at the bridge down to 13 deg., and I took the headstock break angle to 13 deg..

distance to pull 1 step.

Longer string-.321" (slighter angle= .41"-diff. .080")

shorter string-.306"( slighter angle=.325"-diff. .019")"

These are my findings when I increased the break angles. Notice that the slighter angle required less distance to bring up the pitch on both strings. This contradicts what I think would happen unless another factor is playing into th equation. What you pointed out (increase in overall string length) makes it even more backwards to what I would expect. What do you think?

Russ and Greg. I think about the theory a heck of a lot more than I test. That is how the test is developed. The nice thing about physical testing at some point is that it allows you to see things in action. You also notice little things that didn't occur to you before. Then again the human "perception" factor can't be tested on paper. So as you mentioned Russ it has other purposes. This topic has been 90%+ talking about the theory and calculations (by some VERY smart fellas- much brighter than me.). The talk about an issue and develop question at hand. Then some tests are set up while debate continues, finally look at the tests results and try to use all this to come to solid conclusions. In the end if you get results that we agree upon. It gives us something we can share. If you only debate the theory argue points, but never have solid findings that can be agreed upon you just get another archived debate. That isn't going to help a guy just trying to learn how things work.

Perry- I appreciate the fact that you willing to help. Honestly this basic and generalized information is not going to be specific enough to provide trade secret combinations of components and design. That would require much more accurate and specific testing and models (I won't be doing that- well... unless you want to break out your new line of acoustics ). I would not want you to divulge anything so specific that it would let the cat out of the bag so to speak. If your competition does not have this basic stuff down. They are not your competition. (But you know that).

Peace,Rich

[brian d]

"Ok, I decided to take the string angle at the bridge down to 13 deg., and I took the headstock break angle to 13 deg..

distance to pull 1 step.

Longer string-.321" (slighter angle= .41"-diff. .080")

shorter string-.306"( slighter angle=.325"-diff. .019")"

These are my findings when I increased the break angles. Notice that the slighter angle required less distance to bring up the pitch on both strings.

Rich, maybe I'm reading your findings wrong. Didn't the slighter angle require more distance to bring up the pitch? (.41" for slighter angle compared to .321" / .325" for slighter angle compared to .306")

Regards,

Brian.

[thegarehanman]

Rich, while you're at it(if you have the propper guage), why not see if you can measure the pounds of pressure required to deform the string enough to make the pitch raise by a given increment? That'll provide a new angle of insight into the situation.

peace,

russ

[GregP]

Russ and Greg. I think about the theory a heck of a lot more than I test. That is how the test is developed. The nice thing about physical testing at some point is that it allows you to see things in action. You also notice little things that didn't occur to you before. Then again the human "perception" factor can't be tested on paper. So as you mentioned Russ it has other purposes. This topic has been 90%+ talking about the theory and calculations (by some VERY smart fellas- much brighter than me.). The talk about an issue and develop question at hand. Then some tests are set up while debate continues, finally look at the tests results and try to use all this to come to solid conclusions. In the end if you get results that we agree upon. It gives us something we can share. If you only debate the theory argue points, but never have solid findings that can be agreed upon you just get another archived debate. That isn't going to help a guy just trying to learn how things work.

It depends on the guy. I agree that the majority of new (and especially young) learners will get more out of putting it into practice. There will always be a demographic, though, that gets more out of, "well, the longer the string, the more 'material' there is for distributing the tension" than, "make a model and tell me what you get." I'm simply advocating for the former, without discounting the latter. If stating the theory (and even debating it) helps a certain kind of learner to see what's going on, then great! It's a mistake to think that putting something into practice isn't the ultimate goal on this forum, and I value the contributions of the people who were willing to make the practical models as part of their own learning and then contributed that knowledge to the thread. I'm happy to let them take that role while I continue scrutinizing theory and physics! If people take it to PM, that's an unfortunate loss.

If you ONLY debate and argue points, you're right-- you get nothing but a pedantic debate. That's why I do think that Perry's approach (and others') is not only helpful, but required! I merely wanted to state for the record that BOTH are important and that there's no shame in being a "theory" guy, too.

--

Man... it's just teh interwebs after all...!

Greg

[tirapop]

Rich,

Thanks for going through the trouble and doing these tests. I hadn't ever given any thought to the tuning and bending effects of string break angles and extra-scale string length until you did the tests and produced data. It's been interesting trying to think these things through.

Let me go one record as being FOR thinking and FOR trying stuff. It all works hand in hand. Theory is usually informed by experience and observation. I wouldn't want to try to develop every theory from first principles.

A lot of engineering is based on simplification and approximation. A lot of reality happens just outside of that. Much of engineering is based on empirical data and finding mathematical analogies that match the test data. You can predict results without really understanding the mechanism of how something works. Percentagewise, there aren't that many closed form solutions.

Experimentation, without critical thinking, is too scattershot. Without some insight into what's driving your results, you'd blindly try things that wouldn't actually add anything to your knowledge. Your success would rely too much on luck.

[fryovanni]

"Ok, I decided to take the string angle at the bridge down to 13 deg., and I took the headstock break angle to 13 deg..

distance to pull 1 step.

Longer string-.321" (slighter angle= .41"-diff. .080")

shorter string-.306"( slighter angle=.325"-diff. .019")"

These are my findings when I increased the break angles. Notice that the slighter angle required less distance to bring up the pitch on both strings.

Rich, maybe I'm reading your findings wrong. Didn't the slighter angle require more distance to bring up the pitch? (.41" for slighter angle compared to .321" / .325" for slighter angle compared to .306")

Regards,

Brian.

I suppose that could be hard to follow.

To place it in a better form

--------------------SLIGHT----13DEG. @

--------------------ANGLE-----NUT & BRIDGE

LONG STRING-----.41"------.321"

SHORT STRING---.325"-----.306"

First column(original min. break angle) shows the longer string requires more distance to reach the higher pitch. That makes sense and is what I expect.

Second column(after angle is added) shows a decrease in distance to pitch.

Two things are striking to me. First if this is purely a factor of overall string length we should see an increase in distance (the string is going to be longer as I pitch the headstock as Rog pointed out.), yet this is not what I found. Second the string length must still be a contributing factor as the change appears to be varying because of length.

There has to be other factors playing into the results. So far friction has been brought up. I am not sure how much friction will effect the result though. As we have agreed that when the string is brought to pitch the tension should equalize across the length of the string (barring binding issues- which is highly unlikely in this set up). I have observed the sting deforming or arching over the break points. I can see how that may effect elasticity (but I am not sure to what extent). I am not sure what the answer is, but am hoping we can develop thoughts on what may be happening.

Russ- yes, I need to check the tension required. I am not set up to get an accurate test yet.

Greg- Everyones efforts are helping to reach the goal. Can't be done with only half the imput. On a side note: You must have a well spoken fella. You use a lot of words I rarely hear used. Then again I am an electrician, and most of my daily dialog is grunting an eh..

Peace,Rich

[Mickguard]

You know I had to loosen the strings when I changed the headstock angle to re-adjust the tailpiece.

Here's a thought that everyone with a trem-equipped guitar should be able to try -- set the trem to ride up high above the guitar, tune it up, make your measurements, etc.

Now, reset the trem flush against the body, tune it up, take your measurements, etc.

It's another way of testing the effects of string length, right?

I don't have the time to conduct experiments right now, just got a whole packet of work in that needs to be done before we leave for vacation next month. Ah yes, real life intrudes sometimes... I'm definitely more comfortable with a hand-on testing approach, it's the only way I can 'see' things.

So I appreciate fryonvanni's work here a lot.

But the job of a scientist is to conduct an experiment, not necessarily perform the experiment. Both are necessary and both are valid-- like the conductor of an orchestra provides an overview to the entire musical score that the tympani player in the back may not have.

[brian d]

There has to be other factors playing into the results. So far friction has been brought up. I am not sure how much friction will effect the result though. As we have agreed that when the string is brought to pitch the tension should equalize across the length of the string (barring binding issues- which is highly unlikely in this set up).

I think that friction is probably the answer. Of course (in the absence of a locking nut) the tension equalises between the vibrating part of the string and the dead string. The question is how long it takes for this equalisation to occur. The more friction, the longer it will take. Until it happens, the effect is closer to zero dead string.

The higher the break angle over the nut, the greater the downward force of the string on the nut and thus greater friction.

Maybe you can see if after bending the string if you hold it in the same position how long it takes for the pitch to drop. I guess you'd need an electronic tuner that shows cents to see the dynamics of the pitch over time with constant deflection of the string.

On another point, with the changes in intonation with dead string length, I assume that's because of the deflection the string makes when fretting. Which would mean that the lower the action, the less the dead string length would affect the intonation. Is that what you concluded?

Thanks for all the good work your doing for the cause.

Regards,

Brian.