cbowen

That would be great. I'm sure I can work in the same range.

Here's the plan: 12 strings, 0.300" string spacing. Two groups, with 0.380" between the two groups. It's a combination of wanting to go headless and yes, I really do want to make the tuners. Probably cost me 10x as much as buying them, but we're not in this for the efficiency, right? I've alread built a custom bridge, but I may redo it since I was originally going to use conventional tuners and a headstock. I just could not get the slim look I wanted with that great big 12 string headstock up there. The plan is 0.290" diameter knurled knobs and 6-40 threaded rod. 40tpi should give me plenty of precision. My main concern is how long the threads need to be. Do I need 0.5" of adjustment range or 1.0"? Other problem I've not figured out a good solution for is how to anchor the string. Can you clamp onto a 0.007" string with an aluminum clamp without weakening it at that point? Thanks, and having fun with the lathe, Charles

I'm looking at making my own linear tuners for a tap guitar project (12 strings). What I'm wondering is how much stretch I need to accomodate. I want to make something similar to the Steinberg linear tuners, but I have no idea what range of stretch they accomodate. I know even they have problems sometimes with high strings. Would 0.75" be enough or do I need an inch or more?

First off, copyright and patent are two entirely different subjects. But, in both cases, what you say is not at all true. If you read patents, you'll see lots of language like "in one embodiment" or "any design that". Patents are intentionally written as broad as possible and you can be found to infringe for something even close to the patent design. The same appllies to copyright. You don't have to copy exactly. The rule for infingement is "substantially similar". Take a look at any cases involving sampling, even when the sample was substantially modified. Playing just a few notes from a song can get you sued these days. One case involved three notes of a guitar solo lasting two seconds. The notes were lowered in pitch, filtered, and looped to make a 16 beat sequence lasting 7 seconds. This was rules to be in infringement.

There are two distinct issues here: trademark and patent. There's also issues of the law vs. issues of good lawyers. Fender and Gibson can't really be making a lot of patent claims for things like the Les Paul. That guitar design was introduced over 50 years ago. The maximum duration for a patent is 20 years and design patents are even shorter at 14 years. Any patents on this design has long since expired. There's been a lot of interesting inventions in guitars in the last twenty years, but much of what we see today is much older than that and patents don't really apply (see the caveat below, though). The other issue is trademark. You can trademark almost anything, especially names and shapes and physical appearance. This is the real protection for things like the Les Paul and companies tend to be really aggressive about trademarks. And, they can be renewed indefinately. So, in general you probably have more to worry about trademark than patents. That said, there's the issue of what's right and what actually happens. Patents are not renewable. Witness the number of generic drugs out there. When the patent expires, anyone can make the drug. Yamaha held a patent on FM synthesis, but that expirect in the 90's and FM synthesis appeared in everyone's computers. But, it's possible to play games with patents. You create a derivative invention and write you patent so it ends up covering any old version. IBM is brilliant at this, locking up a compression method for over a decade after the first patent expired by simply making a varation on the patent. The drug companies can't pull that one off, because those wanting to make a generic have lots of legal money for challenges. Trademarks can be abused as well. Writer's Digest had a column for 20 years called "About Books". Some company came along and decided to make a magazine called "About Books". They trademarked the term and promply sued Writers Digest, who ended up having to pay a fee to continue to use the name they had used for decaded. The Les Paul trademark was applied for decades after it came out. So, what does this mean to the home builder? I'm wondering that myself. I don't believe there is a personal use exemption on patents, so companies can go after us if they want to. The same applies for trademarks including body shapes. I would hope they would not want to bother over someone's basement project, though I would not suggest selling a copy of any commercial product (protected or not, I think that's unethical). Of course, they have to know, but forums like this may turn out to be problematic if Gibson, Fender, or whoever's legal department thinks they can churn some hours. BTW, patents and trademarks are all online, now, so if anyone wanted to they could see what really applies during their project.

One of the wonders of the Internet is online services for things like this. You can get small boards made by companies like www.pad2pad.com. A 3 by 5 inch board would cost only about $40 for two boards (most of the cost is setup) and it will look very professional. It will be more if you want soldermask and skilk screen. They provide the layout software to use as well. Charles

I'm trying to create a bridge for a Chapman Stick type instrument. Does anyone know where they obtain these screws and how they work? I assume the screws that hold up the strings are simply threaded rods with a v-groove in the top. The string spacing is only 0.300", so they must be pretty small, I'm thinking around 10-32 or maybe 12-32 (anyone know where to get that?). I'm comfortable custom machining all of the parts, but don't know a solution yet for that lifting screw. Any suggestions on size or maybe an available bridge I can steal parts from? Charles

Hope someone is still watching this thread. I'm fascinated by the Stick as well and view it as a really interesting project. I've got some questions that maybe a few people can answer. The biggest problem I see right now is the bridge. I think I can create the adjustable nuts and the string damper okay, but building a fully adjustable bridge doesn't seem feasable right now. The string spacing is 0.300" on a Grand Stick, which is pretty small. I saw a reference to single-string bridges, but the link was broken. Any suggestions on where I might find something that could work? I'm interested in building a variation on the Grand Stick. The neck on a Grand Stick is 3 5/8" wide. I'm wondering if twisting is ever a problem on necks this wide? Chapman uses a single truss rod in the back of the instrument for compression or extension. I'm thinking of using one of the premade truss rods for bass guitar that's the same length, but was wondering if I should use just one like Chapman does (who may be able to get really select wood) or if two would make the setup better since I would cancel any tendency to twist or is this likely to be a problem? I'm thinking of using Padauk for the neck with no additional fretboard material. Someone mentioned here that Chapman laminates multiple layers of wood for the neck. I can't see that in the pictures. Would a solid piece of 8/4 Padauk be just as good? The neck is 7/8" thick, with 1 3/4" thick section near the pickup. Any suggestions from those with vastly more experience than I? (which is most everyone). Charles