SamIAmUBUF

To cover the bridge

I almost asked not to get that reply, but I decided not to kill all of your fun.

I'd love to make a purpleheart bridge cover for my bass. any suggestions, comments or warnings?

Ok, brace yourselves for some solid stupidity

What exactly is the purpose of a bridge cover?

Looks nice. Is the neck angled?

nope

I really dont think its needed the hole looks about the same as my ibanez sr 406 ill measure it once i find my friggin calipers

thanks for the offer, that would be great. let me know when you find your friggin calipurs

Great body shape! I love it.

Only thing that concerns me is that the low-B hole looks a bit close to the edge. But if you're going to cap the front (or back) of the headstock, then you should be fine.

I've been seriously considering it

I don't know is this is a joke or something, but does anyone else see a guy dressed up as Hitler?

yeah, I found that a little odd as well

looks like a carl thompson!!

it's roughly based (bassed) on a couple of Ritter models and the BC Rich Wave

there it is before all the routing. I'll get you a more recent pic as soon as I have one

I really like the flower. I did something similar on a refinishing project

Keep us up to date on how it's going

I'd be looking for something like this...

works well for replacement, neat and small hole required...would put it behind th bridge or an enlarged control cavity for structual reasons. This is the type of box used by Parker I believe...

←

yeah, I'd mentioned I want to use a stewmac box, which is basically the same.

can you you install a battery box on the back of a bass between the pickups without a huge effect on your sound? I'm looking at the stewmac box (possibly the 18-volt if I can get away with it). I'm also open to other suggestions. This information may be useful to know as well; The through-body section is 1-5/16 thick. I'm using 2 active soapbars (so I'll be doing a lot of routing down the middle to begin with).

Well, here's my contribution to this debate.  I just finished two identical Strat bodies, chambered alder with 1/4" cocobolo top, all woods from the same rough boards.  An oily open-grained wood on top of a dry closed-grained wood.  I sanded a forearm contour into both of the alder blanks, steamed the coco tops, bent them over and clamped them (without glue) and held them in place for 2 days.  When I lifted the tops, both sprang back a bit leaving a ~1/2" gap between the top and the forearm contour.

I glued the tops on one at a time, using Titebond (original).  On the first, I wiped the coco hard with acetone, hit both glue surfaces quick with 60-grit, then glued & clamped for 2 days.  No problems save for a small gap in the glue line at the waist.

Did everything the same on the second, except I forgot the 60-grit rough up.  Guess what?  The coco top pops off the forearm contour about 60 seconds after I pull the clamps.

The only down-side I see to roughing up first is that you can potentially mess up perfectly straight surfaces and leave yourself a messy-looking joint.  But if you do it right it won't, and it certainly can't hurt the structural integrity.

←

to avoid a messy-looking joint, I don't rough within 1/16" of a surface that will be visible after gluing. obviously there are exceptions, but it works well for large pieces (like neck-through instruments)

Finals? Ha! I spit in the face of finals. In 3 hours I have a Calculus final. Later this week I have a philosophy and chemistry final as well. Am I tired or discouraged? No. I stab exams in the face like so many brave warriors.    Just have to keep reminding yourself that in 5 days, you(we) get a break.

←

good luck on the calc final. I've been there 3 times (calc I, II, and III)

my only problem with relying on a study like this is that the properties of wood and metal are vastly different (not that it's really going to matter.  the "do not rough" team is winning me over at this point anyway .) That aside, your point is taken. thanks for your input

←

The properties of wood may be different, yes (I believe Spruce was the wood in question in those tests), but the mechanism through which glues work is the same, and the basic structure of wood is the same. Of course, you've got oily, hard to glue woods as well, and those may requires some de-oiling (although again, there be arguments on that front), or maybe the use of epoxy (which does like a rougher surface).

Gluing Metal is a completely different subject, natch. I've glued silver for inlay (good ol CA), but I'd probably go with epoxy or polyurethane for dissimlar materials.

←

good insight. thanks again.

Did you not read what mattia posted? Mattia specifically mentioned that the study was in regards to wood. Why on earth would it make a difference whether you sanded metal or not before welding it together(it wouldn't)...or did you think they were gluing metal together?

Is it april fools or something?....n/m, it's december.

←

lol no, I missed half of that. I guess I just assemed he was talking about metal, I didn't seem to consider any pivotal wood-wood joints on an airplane. (and, yes I realize you don't glue metals. that's what I was getting at when refering to the vastly different properties of metal vs. wood) Please excuse me, I'm extremely tired right now. finals week is taking it's toll, and I'm only one day into it.

Any more contributions to the actual topic at hand?

I'd like to see this smooth/rough gluing surface debate resolved to some extent. other than this post, are there any good arguments you guys can post?

←

I don't know about here, but this has been discussed at length at the MIMF.com (register to read the discussions in the library). Every time it comes up, the consensus is that planing is best, scraping next best, sanding best after that, and that no wood surface needs 'roughing up' unless you're gluing stuff together with Epoxy. The fact surfaces need to be perfect, tight, and smooth is something that's underlined strongly whenever hot hide glue comes up as an option. PVA is less picky, but the same still holds true.

You could do your own tests, of course, but my bet is that all methods will give you a perfectly strong joint. But I still trust a scientific study dealing with joint failure in airplane parts (much more extensive testing than anything you or I will be willing spend time/matierals performing at home), and the rationale makes perfect sense to me, while the 'rough things up' school of thought doesn't s'much.

←

my only problem with relying on a study like this is that the properties of wood and metal are vastly different (not that it's really going to matter. the "do not rough" team is winning me over at this point anyway .) That aside, your point is taken. thanks for your input

I just read somewhere else that suggested that instead of gluing two perfectly planed surfaces that you rough up the surfaces with coarse sandpaper first --the idea is that your raise the fibers, which then mesh together with the glue, strengthening the joint and making it possible to achieve a near invisible glue line.

Now, that's a long sentence. 

←

Seriously, don't. It's complete and utter nonsense, just like those 'toothing planes' desinged to give the glue something to 'bite' into. I think it was Forest Labs, in the US, that did some testing circa WWII regarding what kind of joints held up best (they were comparing planed and sanded joints in wood being used for aircraft construction). Hands down, a freshly planed joint beats out a sanded/roughed up joint. And if it's tight, it's tight, and you won't find the glue line. I know I can't easily locate the centrelines on the acoustic tops I've jointed.

With the exception of epoxy, which likes something to 'bite' into, and needs to have glue left in the joint (ie, they're easier to starve), glues used in woodworking work best on FRESHLY planed surfaces, followed by freshly scraped, followed by sanded (I don't go past 220. Or below it, really). The reason I've seen bandied about for this is that a freshly planed surface is perfectly flat, there's no sawdust/contaminants in it, and you've got chemically 'free' ends on the wood fibres, that are looking to bond with something. Leave 'em out for a while, they're oxidise/reduce in the air, but given a chance, glue will do the trick. Undoubtedly, you can get good results with rough surfaces (glues have evolved, after all), but for the best surfaces, freshly plane prior to glueup.

As I understand PVA chemistry, it chemically bonds the two porous surfaces together. Sinks into the surface a little (works on porous materials only), and presto! The glue itself isn't very strong (cohesive strength is negligible; epoxy's the only one that's good at keeping itself together), ie any gaps/areas where the glue line is thicker than absolute minimum thickness mean weak spots. This is doubly true for Hot Hide glue.

Getting tightly fitting gluing surfaces is key. If you can do that with an edge tool (planes, chisels, scrapers), by all means to, sanding is good too, but don't go roughing up your surfaces unless you're using epoxy, which needs something to 'grip' onto, unlike PVA/AR or Hide glues.

←

I'd like to see this smooth/rough gluing surface debate resolved to some extent. other than this post, are there any good arguments you guys can post?

Man I felt like I was drowning for a moment there...then I couldn't figure out what that yellow-brown liquid might be...and then I woke up. Whew!

←

that's creepy

I've never really like green guitars, but I'm sold. they all look great.

yeah.... i dunno about the 350 logo kinda makes me think of cars why dont you do like you signature thatd look great...

←

This is a tough one...for the photo I was playing around with using a different logo style across the headstock, something like this:

I also like this next one, which would go on a long white plastic truss rod cover:

And I have one more like a Rickenbacker logo (for a flipped truss rod cover):

I don't really want to imitate the Rickenbacker logo too closely though --I'm not trying to fool anyone. But their truss rod cover is a big part of the look of their guitars...At any rate, any logo I do will be on plastic, not directly on the headstock, so I'll have time to play with that while the finish dries.

←

I'm with zoso spencer. it feels more (for lack of a better word) informal. it makes it look more friendly and personal.

Others should comment on this, but......I do believe it is possible to clamp TOO tightly.  If you have really well-planed glue surfaces that mate perfectly, and very closed-pore wood on either side, it is possible to clamp too tight and squeeze out too much glue, leaving you with a weak joint.

←

I just read somewhere else that suggested that instead of gluing two perfectly planed surfaces that you rough up the surfaces with coarse sandpaper first --the idea is that your raise the fibers, which then mesh together with the glue, strengthening the joint and making it possible to achieve a near invisible glue line.

Now, that's a long sentence.

←

I usually go over the surface with a rasp.

Dookie wasn't all that bad. Since then, it's been a steady downhill slide

Just to be clear: Titebond Original, right?

←

yeah, the original

Titebond II (and III, methinks) is only marginally stronger, dries less hard, and is subject to more creep than Titebond original. It's OK for places that need to stay together when hot and wet (ie, laminated binding/purfling that needs heat bending), but I don't see any advantages to using it otherwise. I've seen plenty of potential disadvantages, though, so it's Original all the way for me, thanks.

←

that seems to be everyone's opinion

Don't use poly.  It's great for glueing dissimilar materials together, but for glueing wood to wood, I recommend wood glue

←

titebond:2 gorilla glue:0

you win, I'll buy the good stuff