posted 26 August 2001 04:29 AM         

The frailties of the .011 s.g. strings,
I feel, have gone somewhat unnoticed.
To focus on the trite saying, that an
irate individual once assertively sent
reverberating off the walls in a nearby
town, " You can't make a silk purse
from a sow's ear ", could very well
place the flimsy spring wire in the
category of things that break easily, stab fingertips, absorb cash flow, etc.

Our expectations may be a bit lofty, as
we go into the tonal delivery of the
spring wire at the changer. We are not
utilizing 14 K gold or bell metal that
would deliver the purest of sound
vibrations. The strings are basically
common steel, where its value is often
less than one cent per pound at scrap
dealers. In actuality, I don't think a
junk dealer would be interested, as they
have so little value.

As we venture into the tonal aspects of
various changer modifications, our zeal
could find our fancy footwork directly
over the dreaded pitfall, comprised of erroneous assuptions, where the only
way back is to backpedal some of our
beliefs. In the course of converging
on trial based changes, there are many
far reaching influences, such as steel
finger picks, that need to be addressed
before singling out new ideas that may
or may not prove beneficial. The bright
tones from newly purchased strings is
variable at best. No great amount of
implicit trust can be restored after
the .011 lashes out, and tears the
flesh of the hand, as if in retaliation
for the extreme abuse that it has
undergone.

Further, the clamor and activities that
that encompass staging areas, detracts
noticeably from the great tone of the
steel guitar. Unfortunately, the best
tones are lost amongst the din of the
clientele. Bill H.

[This message was edited by Bill Hankey on 26 August 2001 at 05:33 AM.]

posted 26 August 2001 07:14 AM         

quote:

---

No great amount of implicit trust can be restored after the .011 lashes out, and tears the flesh of the hand, as if in retaliation for the extreme abuse that it has
undergone.

---

posted 26 August 2001 07:24 AM         

I won't post anymore on your subjects, but I had to say that.

posted 26 August 2001 09:27 AM         

. . . All seriousiness aside . . .
I too would love to see a picture (after all, we've already had the THOUSAND WORDS). What holds it in place? The string tension alone?

[This message was edited by Larry Bell on 26 August 2001 at 09:30 AM.]

posted 26 August 2001 12:37 PM         

Yes, the ball end rests against the outermost part externally.

The string is independent of the changer
other than riding at the top with a
slight dip downward to maintain correct
intonation. Upon entering the Lucky 7,
it extends straight to the ball.

Both drilled holes are just below the
top of the Lucky 7. It's simply a
1/4" wide strip of aluminum. It extends
out from the changer 15/16 ". The side
that fastens to the changer is 1" long.

It is beginning to show some promise.
The string has not shown any signs of
detuning or delivering a blindside slap.

This week I'll visit my stepson's home.
He has a new camera that will take good
pictures. I will then proceed to share
them with you. Bill H.

[This message was edited by Bill Hankey on 26 August 2001 at 02:35 PM.]

posted 26 August 2001 05:02 PM         

------------------
Jim Smith jimsmith94@home.com
-=Dekley D-12 10&12=-
-=Fessenden Ext. E9/U-13 8&8=-

posted 27 August 2001 07:45 AM         

This idea is as original as a newly
discovered plant or animal species.
I've always had tendencies to steer
clear of the pack, and do my own thing.
Even though I had developed the habit
of doing just that, " LITTLE ROY" spoke those very words to me in 1985, when I
asked him how his great style came to
be. Little Roy granted me an interview
of which I was proud to do for THE
COUNTRY MUSIC RECORD NEWSPAPER. The late
CHET ATKINS, the most notable guitarist
of all time, bar none, granted me an in
person interview; also. Therefore, I
walk the straight and narrow; musically.
I will list 5 original ideas to assure
anyone with a measure of skepticism
that I'm doing a fair amount of, "going
my own way."

1. 5 string grab melody lines.

2. Forward and reverse harmonics...

3. Independent modification ( Lucky 7)

4. Specialized metal insert (thumb pick)

5. Durable short sleeve to protect 3rd.
string at the changer, and to raise
the apex to its proper level.

The 5 ideas written above should clear
away some of the debris and doubts that
are associated with new ideas.

As for patents, you will not find me at
their doors. Bill

posted 27 August 2001 10:10 AM         

The Williams modified changer, IMHO, has two important improvements over the conventional changer. The original changer concept is still the same, with the exception of the two improvements which are quite obvious at first glance. My interpretation of the Williams Changer is still one which suggests that the cosmetic values were sought before the realization that the design would retard string breakage. My Lucky 7, is not remotely similar to what they have produced. In all likelihood, there are countless methods of redesigning the changers to forestall string breakage to some degree. Some may prove to be patentworthy, although I've seen none that would fill the prestigious title; to date. As I was typing this reply, my thoughts have opened up an entirely new approach, whereby, I feel certain that I could produce a third string changer, which is totally independent of the conventional changer. My feelings are, at this point, to pursue the new idea.
Bill H.

[This message was edited by Bill Hankey on 27 August 2001 at 11:51 AM.]

posted 27 August 2001 10:40 AM         

quote:

---

My interpretation of the Williams Changer is still one which suggests that the cosmetic values were sought before the realization that the design would retard string breakage.

---

posted 27 August 2001 11:57 AM         

quote:

---

my thoughts have opened up an entirely new approach . . .

---

b0b,
Do you think that a retrofit device would be covered by a patent for the changer itself? You're right -- we're in an area where patent attorneys become a necessary evil, whether you are the one with the patent OR the potential infringer.

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2000 Fessenden S-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S-12 6x6, 1971 Emmons D-10 9x9, 1971 Dobro

posted 27 August 2001 02:32 PM         

Thank you for imparting a much needed
affirmation, by offsetting the flood of
negative consternations which have set
into motion, disparities that are detrimental to development and progress.
I had mentioned a short sleeve to be
used in combination with The Lucky 7 to
arrest the unbridled 3rd string quandary
which is rampant amongst some earlier
steel guitar universal changers. The
SLEEVE and LUCKY 7 are still in the
developmental stages, which will allow
me ample time to enter into experimental
arenas, where a clipped on version will
replace the tapped Lucky 7 on my s. guitar.

posted 27 August 2001 04:55 PM         

Bobby L, am I right in assuming that the Williams patent being under the heading of "design improvements" is kind of a formality? I understand your above posts taken as a whole to imply that Mr. Rudolph was still concerned primarily with the issue of string breakage. I certainly would be suprised if a reputed builder dreamed up a changer design for looks only, without a primary awareness of its mechanical and tonal implications. That seems pretty farfetched.

posted 27 August 2001 05:23 PM         

If Bobby's positive view of the Williams' performance continues, (NO breakage,) it would certainly seem to be different from Bill's device, which apparently still requires yet another add-on, "The Sleeve". Where will what's left of our tone be then?

[This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 27 August 2001 at 05:27 PM.]

posted 27 August 2001 05:39 PM         

quote:

---

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable (man) persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

---

-George Bernard Shaw, writer, Nobel laureate
(1856-1950)

This little nugget seems to apply here.

------------------
Herb's Steel Guitar Pages
Texas Steel Guitar Association

posted 27 August 2001 06:24 PM         

quote:

---

Bobby L, am I right in assuming that the Williams patent being under the heading of "design improvements" is kind of a formality? I understand your above posts taken as a whole to imply that Mr. Rudolph was still concerned primarily with the issue of string breakage. I certainly would be suprised if a reputed builder dreamed up a changer design for looks only, without a primary awareness of its mechanical and tonal implications. That seems pretty farfetched.

---

posted 27 August 2001 08:58 PM         

Actually, Bobbe, I've only broken one third string on that Pro-III you sold me....(last fall..!) 'course it's the axe that stays home. The gig-axe..??? well... might just have to place an order...

unless . . . someone has an invention that would prevent third string breakage...!! How cool would that be...???

Friend of Bobbe K. Seymour (and I don't care WHAT the "K" stands for),

posted 28 August 2001 05:56 AM         

Recent observations revealed that the effects of bending and wearying the .011 string was not as conducive to breakage as all relevant comments have indicated. After locking the .011 s.g. string in a vise between two aluminum strips, I proceeded to bend and work the string, to create as much trauma to the semi-brittle wire; as possible. Amazement started settling into my expectations, as the little wire sought sanctity, time and time again, like a badger backed into a woodpile. I immediately thought of the manufacturers who have come under criticism, of late, as the string resisted breaking beyond belief. I quickly ascertained that whomever selected that spring wire, were very deliberate in their work. The experiment allows me to move away from the changer aspect, and the influences of the radius, because I'm on notice that the .011 wire string is not as susceptible to breakage, through moderate bending as I once thought it to be. The string is remarkable, and if it is forced to share the trauma by design changes, I'm convinced that it will meet and satisfy all needs. Bill H.

[This message was edited by Bill Hankey on 28 August 2001 at 06:03 AM.]

posted 28 August 2001 08:23 AM         

I would like to introduce an unspoken
term, as it relates to universal
changes in relation to 3rd string
breakage. The term is UNDUE LEVERAGE.
The changer is fraught with numerous
inconsistencies. The most important of
all, is the undue leverage that develops
where the .011 passes over the radius
at the top of the changer. The design
creates a stress area that contibutes
largely to the ultimate distruction of
the string. I maintain that by
proceeding to counteract the design, by
relieving the stress area, we will find
a course of action that would remove
doubts, and restore confidence to a new
level. Bill H.