NamelessOne

Alright, erik, One thing about your argument I don't get... you say the force is higher on the headstock that it is on the working portion of the string. but, what if we, say, put frets, pickups, etc. on the headstock, made it 25 inches long, and said it was at a 11 degree angle while the working portion, now only a few inches long and sporting tuners, is flat. whould there still be more force on the (now longer) headstock? less on the (now shortened) working portion of the string? All I'm doing here is rescaling the example, so nothing should change. I'd work on showing this graphically, but I have to leave soon and won't be able to reply for several days, and I am not sure what program would be useful for this. and, trying to quantify my statement above that you say contradicts itself: At one end of the string, there is an anchor, that applys a force exactly equal to the tension on the string. At the other end, there is another anchor, but this one has the ability to apply a greater or lesser force, when a person make it to do so. these forces balance each other out, as if the tuner applys 10n of force, the anchor at the bridge applies 10n of force. when the string must deflect around something, like a nut, it applies a force to the nut. The magnitude of this force is dependant on, but does not change, the angle at which it deflects, and the tension on the string. the force here is ONLY between the string and the nut, but does not change the tension on the string. no matter how many nuts, pulleys, or saddles there are between the anchors, the amount of force they apply to bring the string to a given amount of tension will remain the same. While the force acting on the nut depends on the force the tuner applies, the force that the tuner applies does not depend on the force acting on the nut. It's the same as "While the volume coming from the amp depends, in part, on the position of the volume potentiometer on the guitar, the position of the volume potentiometer on the guitar does not depend on the volume from the amp". I like the idea of an experiment, though I would suggest that they use a single headstock on a hinge, rather than two, to remove inaccuracies. For this to work, though, the nut would have to be placed on the rotational axis of the hinge, so that the length doesn't change. to hold the headstock at the angle, a board with well-place nails in it should suffice.

A router and template is the best possible way to make a cavity, however a chisel might work (you might have some issues getting it at the right angle when you're deep in). If you must use a chisel, remove most of the wood first with a drill press. It's probably wiser to let a pro do it, but nobody who actually makes guitars on this board listens to that advice anyway.

Okay, it is true (I did state it in an above post) that a higher break angle at the nut means that the string is exerting more force on the neck, which is what you just proved above. However, the tuner is still exerting the same force on the string, no matter what the angle is. While a higher break angle does increase the forces acting between the string and the nut, and causes more of a bending moment on the neck, the tuner is still applying an equal force to the string. I understand your argument about greater downward force on archtops, and in fact, a few weeks ago on TB (which I know you frequent), there was a thread asking about exactly that, which was replied to with pretty much exactly the same claculations you used above. however, this force is only between the bridge and the string, and while it is affected by string tension, it does not have any effect on string tension. Rule One of engineering: Don't push on a string

I've been trying to say what perry just said, though I was getting sidetracked with erik's little argument. I know what perry's getting at, and totally agree with him. so, to rephrase that (since I seem to be having trouble explaining physics with words), +3 to Perry.

force is exerted on the nut, and bridge, but this does not increase the amount of force required to bring the string to pitch. if a string is under 20n of tension, it takes 20n to keep it there. it does not matter how many 100s of n it is exerting on another object, as long as it does not do any work on that object. think of multi-pulley systems, that's like grade 8 physics. In a simple two-pulley system, you apply 50n of force to the rope, through 1m, and it applys 100n to the load, through 0.5m. the rope is never under more that 50n of tension, but applies 100n of force. In a guitar, the string never actually does any work (the lazy b*stards!). the only work done in tuning a guitar is in storing the mechanical energy used to turn the peg as elastic potential in the string. the bridge, or headstock angle, makes ZERO difference. I repeat, it always takes the same amount of force to bring a string to the same amount to tension, no matter what. it takes the same amount of force to put a 1cm string under 20n of tension as it does to put a 1000m string under 20n of tension. in fact, that's why they use the same unit. it takes 1n to put something under 1n of tension, just like (for you americans) it takes 1lb to put something under 1lb of tension.

Godin- is one of them string-through? that would explain a bit... edit- looked at website. Wenge guitar looks thicker. perhaps the added length in the string-through holes? I would think that it wouldn't be enough to increase the compliance that much, though... hmmm... /edit Erik- the tension remains the same. get a spring scale or two. (the little ones that work under tension). put one at one end of a string, anchored on something. put the other at the other end of the string, and pull until it registers a certain amount. the other scale will register the same amount, if they're both accurate. now, place an object like the aforementioned chair back in between. bring it up to tension, and they'll still both the the same. In ANY object under tension, the tension remains the same over the whole object (unless there are other objects adding or releiving tension). the same guitar string, tuned to pitch on the same scale length, will always have the same tension. Ergo, the string between the nut and tuner will always be at the same tension, if the scale length is the same. However, I am awaiting your proof. I am... confident that I am correct, but have been wrong in the past.

Negative. the tension remains the same over the entire string, no matter what. the only exception is when there is a locking device, such as a floyd rose nut (or any tuning peg), that achors the string. however, the entire portion on the string between the bridge anchor (tie block, trem, string-through holes, etc) and the tuner is the same tension. now, to toss another can of worms in there, the compliance (not tension. compliance in this case means the force required to strech a string a certain distance) of a string will increase as the unused length increases, for example by having a longer distance between nut and tuner. This is likely one of the main differences between top-loaded and string-through-body bridges, the other being longitudal (not measured by pickups) vibrations in the string, which can vibrate the body more on a string-through, making the pickups move slightly relative to the strings.

Yes, it needs a truss rod just as much as (or more than) a guitar needs one. A bass truss rod is very similar to a guitar one, but longer.

"uniform linear tension" translation: the same amount of pull over the whole string length or something like that. um. yeah. how about showing me what he's making up about that, so he can get the physics beatdown. this could be fun...

question 1: are you sure that's just veneer (paper-thin, would have to be formed to the carve) and not a carved laminate (solid wood) top? if you're unsure, post pics of the edges so we can see. advice: if it's a carved top (not veneer) and you remove the paint yourself, warmoth charges $220 for a "black-red-yellow" burst, similar to what what you want. if you want a more pick-shaped burst, you'd have to contact them (they claim that that type of extra usually costs about $50, though it may be more). there's a $30 upcharge for working around binding. I'd saw to let the pros do this one, as a burst is not (to my knowledge) an easy finish, and I think it's quite a bit different from model painting. just IMHO

well, I'm a bass player, and according to my knowledge of physics, byrd is wrong, unless there's a big decrease in tension on the solid strings. the lowest tuner should always be closer to the nut, for more even FEEL. tension only depends on the linear mass (gauge), vibrating length (distance from nut/fret to bridge), and pitch (tuning). the extra length of string near the tuner has NO effect on actual tension. i repeat, NO effect on tension. however, it has an effect on feel. to demonstrate, take a used/broken/whatever string. cut it into two different lengths. somehow support them so you can't move the ends (like a normal string, anchored at the bridge and tuner). now, take the midpoint of one and pull it a centimeter to one side. repeat with the other string. the shorter string should be harder to deflect, as there is less length for it to stretch over. for an attemp at making that last bit easier to understand, imagine two strings, L and S. L is twice as long as S, but otherwise they are identical. both are stretched an equal distance. it takes more effort to stretch S, as there is less distance for it to strech for. L acts like two Ss, each stretched half of the distance. so, longer non-vibrating length (long headstocks, string-through body, etc...) makes for a string that feels looser, but has the same amount of tension. this is desirable for strings that feel unnecessarily tight, and can be reversed to tighten the feel of "flabby" feeling strings. another demo of this would be to try out a floyd-equipped guitar with a long headstock. play it with the nut unlocked, then with the nut locked, and feel for the difference. yet another side effect of this is the distance of bend required to raise the pitch a certain amount, which decreases as the string feels "tighter", though the force required remains the same, but that's a different story just my attempt to get us arguing about something more constructive...

i like, but maybe just a bit darker color. or less saturation.

I actually liked the idea of a temporary headstock for bringing the strings to pitch... maybe just use dowels and tension to hold it on, then lock the nut, detune the tuners, and snip the strings. or just use a vice grip and pull as hard as you can...

kevan- you should sell a modified back cover so people don't worry as much about playing without a cover. maybe include a way to extend the thumbscrews so they're easy to reach, so you can make the cover cover more. just my 50th of a semitone...

Resaw Verb, to resaw to cut a piece of wood in half in the most difficult way possible. produces loud noises and copious amounts of dust. pieces may not be perfectly even, and a large amount of thinkness is lost but it was worth it. Closeup also, got the neck glued up. this is starting to take shape. edit: i might need help drawing up a wiring diagram, i'll draw what i know then ask if it works. the pics aren't sanded, wetted or anything. that's still rough off of the saw. I don't know much about tap tuning, but if i hold it up at a node and tap it, it rings for quite a while. so i'm happy. i keep looking at the back and thinking it looks like it belongs on an acoustic... sorry i don't have pics of the neck, it's clamped up in my friend's shop. as well as helping me, he was finishing up his first paid build, an impressive sitka/maple acoustic with a cocobolo fingerboard. very nice looking, but i don't have any pics. sorry. re-edit: i made a Wiring Diagram and would appreciate it if somebody told me where i'm making any mistakes... this is to be 2 pups with a seperate tone pot on each, 3-way, and a master volume.

no 80s thrash? i'm pretty sure it doesn't fall under hair metal, as all the thrashers dissed hair metal. and what would Iron Maiden fall under? it's impossible to list the types of rock, there's way to many sub-groups.

the straight grained peice is mostly straight, at least on one side. the other side has some bad runout, but this is for a laminate neck so i'll only be using a bit off one side. the rest might go into the body core or something. just got back from talking to the guy who's helping me with this. he's letting me use some of his maple for the neck, it's sparsely flamed on top but the flame really shows on the edges (quartersawn) that are going to be the most visible part. designwise, i ditched the pickgaurd, and am planning to put the crotch on top, and the sapwoodybit on the back, with the sapwood next to the neck-through. there's a little bit of flame that'll probably end up wasted the way i'm planning to cut around the crotch, but i'll try to make it into a headstock overlay. come on, i didn't make that many intentional tasteless jokes. i could have ranted on and on about how happy i was about my crotch wood...

update: talked with my friend who's helping me with this, he's letting me use some of his flamed maple for the neck, but told me to get a center lam of something stiff. so, i went to the lumberyard and got some black walnut. i was REALLY lucky and found a nice peice of 4/4 crotch for CDN 6.99/board foot, as well as a straight grained peice. rubbed the crotch with a damp cloth when i got home, it's amazing. i am SO happy right now... and here the crotch is going to be the top, i hope, and the nice straight piece is part of the neck. crotch isn't surfaced yet, obviously, so there's probably a bit more figure hiding in there. the pics are dry, but it shows up more when wet. also, refined the design to a point i like. see here here and here i just can't stop looking at that crotch..

ummm... i'm pretty sure there's no purpleheart in there... he had a multi-lam neck including purpleheart, but it warped, and the current neck is made from wenge. looks awesome, gives me a little confidence for when i do my project (hopefully soon) nice flame maple, too. i've been eyeing some of the flame and birdseye that somehow got into the gym floor at my school... i guess there's just no justice in life, with that much nice flame, birdseye and even some burly bits going into a floor.

i'd say to draw it out with accurate positionings on frets 12 and 24 (if you have one). they are at exactly half and 3/4 of the scale length, and if you know exactly where they are, you can get a better idea of the upper fret access and balance. with the porportions of the necks and bodies where they are, the designs look like they'd have either limited high fret access and bad neckdive... you want the front strap button to be close to fret 12, for good balance. The headstock looks cool, though... i was thinking of going with somthing like that on my upcoming project, though my design is just a bit different.

okay... I'll probably smooth that out a bit when I make it, and make sure to accentuate the arm contour more (black veneer layer under top wood, or something like that) also, the headstock (i THINK it's my own design) looks like I've seen it somewhere... am I ripping any other designers/companies off here? I like to be completely original with my design.

if you look at the (very faint) line just below the top line, the body does curve in more. that's the approximate position of the armrest contour, and if i use a veneer top it'll show up quite a bit (hopefully) what do you mean about the upper horn being pinched off?

(VERY unexpert opinion) could it be the grounding? what happens when you play another guitar through the same amp? same guitar through through a different amp? i'd guess it'd be the grounding...

i'm going to have to extend the "happy birthday" to hyunsu also... i've seen some of his work, and it's impressive.

okay, i've updated the plan... i've got it drawn out fullsize, and given into peer pressure by deciding to go with a natural finish (probably polymerised tung oil or something). body shot head shot foot shot would getting a nice veneer for the top be practical, with an oiled finish? then i can get a nice/classy type of wood for the top without having to spend as much... and the forearm cut i have (faintly) drawn in will accentuate the shape also, any advice as to whether or not i should wind my own pickups? from what i've been told, homewound pickups usually sound good, as well as costing MUCH less (i'm probably not going to be paying for most of this, ralph klein is but i want to keep costs as low as possible). also, i got rid of the cool comet thingy... doesn't fit well with natural finish