Ilikes2shred

I actually just did a belly carve today. For most carving, I'll either use a spokeshave or a surform (cheese-grater for wood). The spokeshave does take a little practice to use, but it's not too tough. The surform is ridiculously easy to use and takes down wood quite fast, but not normally as fast as the spokeshave. Both tools have their spots where they shine. I mainly use the spokeshave for the neck carve, but I prefer the surform for the belly carve and carving the top. Plus, it's easy to find one (hardware stores). Anyway, just my 2 cents, and good luck with your build! EDIT: I've also heard that some people use angle grinders with heavy grit sandpaper for the belly carve. I've never done it myself, but it may be worth a try.

I made my own version of the LMI jig, and it works great. You shouldn't have too much trouble making one if you choose to.

Sorry since that was a little confusing. Basically: The sensor will increase the output level when tilted anywhere from level (the point at which output is zero). My idea would involve two channels, one for left and right. The signals for both the left and right would be equal in volume when the guitar is in playing position. When the guitar is tilted, the volume for one channel would decrease, producing the fading effect. My first thought was to have the sensor wired so it would simply bypass the signal for a channel to ground as it was tilted. That is, the sensor would be mounted so it would be level at playing position. The output of the sensor would be wired to ground. As the sensor is tilted, its output would increase, thus filtering more of the signal to ground, reducing it in volume. However, the sensor increases in output as it is tilted either left or right. That means a channel would decrease in volume when tilted anywhere away from playing position. This would be the case for both channels, so tilting the guitar any way would decrease the volume of both channels, which would not be a fading effect--rather a volume control. In order to remedy this problem, I would use a mercury switch: The sensor in the left channel would be connected via a mercury switch. The only way for the sensor to filter the signal to ground (to reduce the volume) would be when the mercury switch is closed. The mercury switch would be mounted so it would be closed only when the guitar is tilted to the left. That would stop the left channel circuit from reducing its volume when it is tilted to the right, as the mercury switch would then be open. The right channel would be wired in the same way except the mercury switch would be closed when tilted to the right. Effectively, wiring the circuit in this manner would allow each channel to be reduced in volume only when tilted one way, solving the original problem and producing a fading effect.

I don't have much time to post now, so I'll make this short: @ Donovan: Thank you for posting that! It's just what I had in mind. It seems like it may need a mercury switch to activate/bypass it though, as it is affected by tilting two ways.... The original idea was basically for novelty.... so the pedal would not be as good. I would also include a switch to activate the fade so it's not always on. Anyway, thanks, and I'll post more later.

Prostheta: I was actually hoping to just be able to use a number of tilt switches which would close consecutively as the guitar is turned. As each switch would turn on, it would change the output level of either the left of right channel by a percentage of the original volume. This would produce a number of "steps" in the volume level, but hopefully they could be adjusted to limit how much they would be noticed. I am pretty sure that with three or four "steps", a quick pan (less than one second maybe) would seem perfectly smooth. I would use a circuit such as: This circuit would work off voltage-division, using the DC resistance of the pickup as the first resistor. As the mercury switches are activated, they open a new path to ground with a different resistance than the last, which would divide the voltage from the pickup in higher and higher ratios until a direct path to ground is established, at which point the volume would be zero (much like how a standard volume control works). However: If a degree of hysteresis would be needed, I would need to use a separate, DC (rather than AC) resistive-capacitor circuit to indirectly control the volume of the guitar, correct? (rather than using a resistive-capacitor circuit in the actual signal from the guitar... which would not produce the desired "analog" change in volume) Also, I like the idea of the Hall Effect sensor. All I would need to would be to feed the output of the sensor to control the degree of amplification (or de-amplification) of the the guitar signal.

I am very confident that the weight idea would work... It's just that I can't find any pots around 500K where the full range of motion is within about 30 degrees (the amount that would be practical to tilt a guitar). If anyone knows where to buy such a pot (or a usable alternative), please let me know. The slider idea actually sounds pretty good... assuming the sliding motion is smooth enough that a weight could push it. Right now I have a simple circuit that would lower the volume of each side in three steps (using mercury switches). I made a makeshift tilt switch, and will wire it up to test it. If it works, I will post the diagram.

I tested a basic circuit today that works off two volume controls (one for left, one for right) and it (purely the electronics) works fine. The problems would be with the mechanics... For it to work, I'd have to: a. find a usable pot that's full range is within about 30 degrees. b. get the pot loose enough that a small, light weight could turn it(using gravity). and c. make the weights small and contained (able to fit in a control cavity). I highly doubt I will be able to find something that will will work... How many tilt switches (mercury or other) do you guys think it would take to get it to pan smoothly?

@ PSW: Yeah, I looked up the mercury switches and thought the same thing.... Not to mention that I would rather not have mercury in my guitar, even if it is safely contained. Right now I'm hoping I can base the fading off a simple pot with a weight attached to the shaft. That way the shaft will turn if the guitar is turned (Using both sides of the pot and the wiper). From there I will have to figure out a way to use the change in resistance to control the output levels for the left and right signals... which may take a while. The other option would be the tilt switches that use a metal ball to connect the contacts. Both these ideas are potentially problematic because shaking could cause odd things to happen. and on patents: That's from the US patent website. It may be different in Australia, but in the US it sounds like the inventor can exclude others from even using the patented device if the want to. and @ Prostheta: That would be absolutely amazing, although incredibly difficult.

Thanks everyone! If I do end up making a similar control (assuming that won't infringe on any patent, although a quick search didn't turn one up), it looks like I will figure out the circuitry on my own. I'll be sure to post anything I may come up with. Btw Orgmorg: Beautiful work on that guitar. Edit: Never mind, design patents only last 14 years.

Alright, well I still can't find it and it doesn't look like you guys are having any luck either, so..... Does anyone know of some type of switch or something that changes according to gravity (so I could accomplish what the guitar I was trying to find could do)? I have some ideas in my head of how I could do this, but I'd rather not build the part myself...

Hi again everyone. I remember seeing a guitar on here a while ago that you could tilt up and down to fade between two amps. This has really got my interest, but I can't seem to find the thread, despite my efforts searching. Does anyone know what guitar I'm talking about and possible the thread that it was in? Any help is very much appreciated.

The general rule with dyes is to use the darker colors first. Lacewood is a hassle to dye. It must be thoroughly bleached to an off white and then dyed.... if you need to sand back, then it's difficult not to sand through the bleached area... and the dyes don't absorb very well (it takes a lot of very dark dye to get a good color). It's diffucult. It looks great when finished, but it wouldn't look like lava... so I wouldn't recommend it. I think a high figure maple or maple burl would be your best option. To do this, I would first dye dark black. Than I would sand back so there is just a little black in some places, and alot in others. Then I apply reds and browns, allow it to dry, then finish with a bright yellow. Any final blending can be done with a damp cloth. Good luck!

Can't you just sand off the carvin name?

I didn't use diamond files, and I had no problems, but they may work better... I wouldn't know. I just leveled the same way as SwedishLuthier and used a fine (as opposed to coarse) 3 corner file for crowning and dressing. I used a coarse bastard file to get them flush (on a bound board).

I've used Stainless once, and it's really not that bad. It's probably best to use a sharp file though. I'd highly recommend using ss.