I do not recall where I indicated that the length of string beyond the nut, or the bridge, required an increase in tension to get a string to pitch...it does not.

String breakage for a given string material and gauge, will vary with the required tension to get to pitch. The required tension will vary with the nut to bridge length = higher pitch, or longer neck, will put more tension on the string.

Beyond that, the sharpness of bend over the changer fingers or nut will affect string life = sharper bends gives shorter life, all else being equal.

And then, more importantly, the string will be more likely to break if it is subject to repeated tension changes around a corner = changer finger radius. That is why most E9 string #3 G#s break there. The more, and faster, you pedal this string, the sooner it will break. The G# has both the highest tension per unit of cross sectional area (pounds pull per square inch), and amount of stretch per halftone of pitch change.

HOW TO = if you want to measure these parameters on your instrument, get a 50 pound digital fish scale, and a set of digital calipers and run the tension/stretch/pitch experiments. If you have access to an infra red camera (heat sensing) you can get a feel for the amount of heat generated on the various strings by the amount/speed of change activation. Which one do you think generates the most heat? (think "work")= the same one that breaks most often, and right where the heat is greatest.

Now about the tone/sustain/harmonic/bell/etc. thing...these, also can be measured. The units will be harmonic content vs. time, in one form or another. The equipment needed is available in many computer soft-wares for recording, but usually not with the appropriate controls and data processing capabilities.

With the appropriate computer program, the instrument harmonics (as provided from the pickup) can be captured and seen/analyzed. This method provides a way to see the amount of harmonics in a single string, to all strings at once, and as a function of their tension, where and how they are excited (picked/hammered), where the pickup is located, etc.. The basic program costs less than your volume pedal (pot type). The program provides a Frequency Spectrum Analyzer, and Oscilloscope in one package. It is used for acoustic design from speaker cabinets to room size/shape/material compensation.

Using these methods, the "qualities" of the various PSGs may be quantified and compared. These results may then be correlated with construction materials and practices...such as bridge/nut materials, active string length, body/changer materials, connection, et. al.

Most pickers won't be interested in the described approaches...they are into picking, not analyzing. Many of them hear things that the rest of us do not, particularly when they are two feet away from their amp, and we are 90 ft. away in a crowded auditorium, and at the mercy of the sound board/man. They need their "sound" for inspired playing.

The preferred sound, hence instrument, hence tuning method, will vary with the player and his style of music...one size does not fit all!

The instrumentation methods can measure repeatably to a level and resolution that the ear cannot hear...check with your local Physiologist...I seem to remember that the best for the senses is about one part in forty under ideal conditions (someone please update my memory).

PSGs are sort of like religion and politics...lots of words, opinions, buzz terms, emotional proclamations, cute sounding phrases, and very little fact involved...I am practicing to be the world's champion cynic...flame away if you feel the need!

The question for Ed is: Using your measurement data, do you think that one could make a box that you plug your steel into that will make it sound like JD's Emmons? Now that would be something!

JM...if you want to see many more charts on the various instruments, and talk shop, go to Jim Palenscar's North County Steel shop in Oceanside, and have him fire up the CD I sent to him.

I will get back to the instrument comparisons as put up in Photobucket after a bit...busy now on a definitive chord location document for the B Emmons E9 10 string (also 12 & 14).

[This message was edited by ed packard on 28 June 2006 at 09:53 AM.]

The Excel, and Anapeg instruments use a changer that pulls partially straight. My BEAST has very shallow angles where the string crosses the bridge and nut, but still uses the rotating changer.

There are several makes of PSG that do not wrap the string around the changer finger.

quote:

---

Buddy Emmons
Member
From: Hermitage, TN USA
posted 08 January 2005 09:54 AM profile edit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl,
In reference to your earlier post, my only experience with the 25” scale other than the Sierra was when Shot Jackson and I were building Sho~Buds. It was during the time the high G# was added to the tuning that we encountered the string breakage problem and had to reduce the scale 24 ½ inches.
To be different than Sho~Bud and possibly reduce string breakage even more, I had fifty 24 ¼” Emmons atom fret boards made in Nashville and gave them to Ron to use on the first guitars. By that time, the Sho~Bud fret board had proven that the longer scale didn’t work so there was no need to experiment with the Emmons guitar. Ron had built a Sho~Bud clone prior to my meeting him and may have been referring to that guitar, but the Emmons guitar started at 24 ¼” and stayed there.

Billy… Regarding the topic, I prefer the keyless sound. Jeff Newman had a great sounding Kline keyless S-12 he used during seminars he and I held. We had just finished playing a phrase for the class and while they were absorbing it, Jeff smiled and leaned over and said, “Why does my guitar sound better than yours?” His Kline did have a cleaner sound but I wasn’t about to admit it so I replied, “Because you have a tin ear.” His face flushed and all he could do was force a chuckle. It was one of the few times I ever saw Jeff at a loss for words.

---

The quoted passage from Big E was valid at bthe time frame that he covered, but it seems that a bit of work was done on thin strings afterward. Bill Stafford used G#s on his Sierras, and his Excel, both with a 25.5" scale and tuned to E. They were/are both keyless.

A few years back (and maybe even today) there was a "bad" batch of 0.011s made that drove both keyless and keyed users crazy by breaking. The G#s are very close to the tension limit because of a very low value of cross sectional area. A 0.0115 helps considerably. Lack of sharp bends helps. Those that are A B pedal stompers/mashers will have more breakage than the soft touch style of players. This accounts for why one poster claims no string breakage, and another complains.

quote:

---

Can you imagine how long the BEAST would be with a 14 string keyed head?

---

If you go to a longer neck but keep the same string gauges, then you will have to increase the tension to get the same pitch. If you were at the optimum tension with the shorter neck, then with the same gauge strings, the longer neck will be beyond optimum tension. Other than string breakage, I'm not sure what happens beyond the optimum tension.

The reason the 3rd string G# was the limiting factor for longer necks in the past was that 0.011 was the smallest gauge that the string manufacturers could make with a consistent diameter. If they can now make 0.010 and 0.09 gauge strings with consistency, then on a longer neck, one could just go to one of those for the 3rd string G#.

So the string breakage problem occurs with longer necks (keyed or keyless) when one attempts to keep the same string gauges as on the shorter neck, and compensates for the longer neck by increasing the tension. If you simply use smaller gauge strings on the longer neck (which seems logical), then the tension remains the same, and the string breakage problem would seem to go away.

If on the other hand, the string tension is below optimum on the shorter neck, then going to a longer neck, and keeping the same string gauges and pitches, raises the tension, but of course results in more string breakage.

There may or may not be other reasons to prefer keyless. But this alleged string breakage problem seems to be a red herring. In moving to longer necks and smaller gauge stings, there will of course be a point beyond which there is no smaller gauge string. And of course that point will be reached first for the highest string, which is the G# on E9. But it seems like that limiting point will be about the same for keyed or keyless. It's all about the tension and the gauge. The distance behind the nut seems to be irrelevant to that.

------------------
Student of the Steel: Zum uni, Fender tube amps, squareneck and roundneck resos, tenor sax, keyboards

In the EMMONS quote that you gave, I notice that Buddy did not say where the strings broke on the longer necks. One breakage problem in the past was with the ball wrap unwrapping as the tension was increased.

DD…The comment on the length of the BEAST with a 14 string key head had to do with body length, not the length of the 3rd string.

I am curious as to what “optimum tension” refers…what is it optimized with respect to? Is it breakage, pounds pull, tone?

String frequency, tension, length, et al behave per the following equation:

Hz =1/(2L)*(SQRT(F/m))
Where:
Hz = frequency in vibrations per second.
L = the nut to bridge distance = scale length (not string length).
SQRT = square root
F = force applied in the direction of string length = tension.
m = mass.

Here in the Colonies, we tend to use the force F in pounds of pull, and the mass m in pounds per cubic inch…convert to suit.

From this equation, we can see that the nut to bridge distance, string gauge & material, and the tension applied, determine the frequency (pitch) of the string). The string length (beyond the nut, and beyond the bridge) do not affect the fundamental frequency of the string.

As the scale length is made longer, the tension required to get a given pitch must increase. The string stretches (see Modulus of Elasticity) with increased tension, hence the string diameter shrinks accordingly.

The breaking point/value for a string depends upon the string material (see tensile strength), the string diameter, and the applied tension. It is NOT the length of the string that determines the breaking point…it is the tension, the material, and the gauge.

Let’s apply the above to the E9 G# string and see what falls out.
We will use A instead of G# for the calculations, as the G# tends to break when it is stretched to A.

We will use three string gauges = 0.0090”, 0.0110”, and 0.0115”.
We will use three scale (nut to bridge) lengths = 24.0”, 25.0”, and 30.0”.

The tensions required to get A with a 0.0090” string are:
24.0” scale = 20.7 pounds pull.
25.0” scale = 22.5 pounds pull.
30.0” scale = 32.5 pounds pull.

The tensions required to get A with a 0.0110” string are:
24.0” scale = 31.0 pounds pull.
25.0” scale = 33.5 pounds pull.
30.0” scale = 48.5 pounds pull.

The tensions required to get A with a 0.0115” string are:
24.0” scale = 34.0 pounds pull.
25.0” scale = 37.0 pounds pull.
30.0” scale = 53.0 pounds pull.

It may be seen from the numbers that there are some very high pounds pull values. The question is, how much is too much, and tensions the string too close to the breaking point. The 30” scale length values are too close to, or past the breaking point when raised to A….so on the BEAST (30” scale) it is raised to F and tuned to E. The BEAST is tuned to C9 instead of E9.

Here is the simplified chart.

NOTE	DIA	LENGTH	LBS PULL
 	 	 	 
A	0.0090	24.0	20.70
A	0.0090	25.0	22.50
A	0.0090	30.0	32.50
F	0.0090	30.0	20.50
 	 	 	 
A	0.0110	24.0	31.00
A	0.0110	25.0	33.50
A	0.0110	30.0	48.50
F	0.0110	30.0	30.50
 	 	 	 
A	0.0115	24.0	34.00
A	0.0115	25.0	37.00
A	0.0115	30.0	53.00
F	0.0115	30.0	33.50

NOTE	DIA	    AREA       LENGTH	 force total    force/area
      inches    sq inch    inches    pounds         pounds per square inch
A     .0009     .000081     24.0     20.70          255555
 	 	 	 
A     .011      .000121     24.0     31.00          256198
 	 	 	 
A     .0115     .00013225   24.0     34.00          257088

Is the part of the string that is behind the roller nut,(tuner end) under the same tension as the scale portion? (I assume it is)

Does that portion of string length,(nut end) move at all during the raise to A?

What is the maximum length that an .011 gauge string can be,(changer to tuning peg) and still pull up to an A from G#, without breaking?

The reason I ask is, this post from Carl Dixon:

quote:

---

2. Because of a longer string string length(bridge to key peg), string breakage tends to be more frequent. Too much tension.

---

And this, from the same thread:

quote:

---

I can, and have proven it beyond ANY shadow of a doubt. The tension on strings 3 thru 7 is MUCH less on a keyless guitar. And tension IS what breaks strings. True, they happen to break at the top of the changer in most cases. But the root cause is the tension, in this analogy.

---

This is a good thread!

Thanks again.

[This message was edited by Curt Langston on 30 June 2006 at 12:48 PM.]

Curt...same tension behind the nut, +/- any frictional effects. It would have been nice if Carl had said how he came to his "beyond a shadow of a doubt" conclusion...sorry, I don't agree with him, and by way of actual measurement.

Yes, that end of the string does move with the G# to A stretch. The amount of motion can be calculated. If the scale length is 24", and the string length beyond the nut were 24", and the amount of stretch for the change activation is X", the amount of motion at the nut would be 1/2X". If the length beyond the nut were 0", there would be no motion at the nut. Realize that if the length beyond the nut were 24" (= to scale length), the amount of stretch would be twice that required for the pitch change.

We are talking about less the 0.001" for most G#s, keyed or keyless.

DD...One added problem re the thin strings, as well as manufacturing dimensional issues, is that the ratio of surface to volume is greater. The surface is more subject to process variations such as heat and stress than the middle.

I use 0.0115" on the 25" necks for a slight advantage re the area/tension issue. On the BEAST (30" scale tuned to C instead of E, I use either 0.110 or 0.0115 as I have a half tone less tension to begin with, plus shallow angles over the bridge and the nut.

Ain't these thingies fun?

[This message was edited by ed packard on 30 June 2006 at 01:31 PM.]

I am not knowledgeable about this stuff, but these stresses are much higher than I would've guessed.

dia len tension stress
[in] [in] [lbs] [psi]
A 0.009 24 20.7 325383
A 0.009 25 22.5 353678
A 0.009 30 32.5 510868
F 0.009 30 20.5 322240

A 0.011 24 31 326202
A 0.011 25 33.5 352508
A 0.011 30 48.5 510348
F 0.011 30 30.5 320941

A 0.0115 24 34 327336
A 0.0115 25 37 356218
A 0.0115 30 53 510259
F 0.0115 30 33.5 322522

Joe

[This message was edited by Joseph Meditz on 30 June 2006 at 01:35 PM.]

quote:

---

Can you imagine how long the BEAST would be with a 14 string keyed head?

Indeed! That would be a feat to behold. I doubt you could keep an .011 G# on it!

---

To a large extent, there seems to be some "unwritten law" that says we must use standard keys, mounted in a straight line, and keep them parallel to the deck. All of these traditions make the keyhead longer than actually necessary. I've always wondered why the string angle behind the nut on keyed guitars must be so deep at the outer strings, and progressively less at the inner strings.

Am I the only one who ever thought of raising the keys slightly on the outer strings, and lowering them on the inside strings? Seems like it would make the angles more equal, and allow a shorter overall length keyhead.

[This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 30 June 2006 at 01:58 PM.]

quote:

---

What is the maximum length that an .011 gauge string can be,(changer to tuning peg) and still pull up to an A from G#, without breaking?

---

Not sure what steel SAE # is used for string making, but these values indicate that the tensile limit is quite process dependent.

In general, the yield strength is 20 to 30 KPSI less than the tensile strength values for the materials listed.

Curt...any length you want as long as you can tolerate the amount of pedal throw, or bell crank rotation limits.

[This message was edited by ed packard on 30 June 2006 at 02:09 PM.]

quote:

---

2. Because of a longer string string length(bridge to key peg), string breakage tends to be more frequent. Too much tension.

---

And Sierras website:

quote:

---

New technology fulfills the 30 year dream of tone plus sustain. Remember the old beautiful rich tone and everlasting sustain of the long-scale steel guitars? Due to excessive string breakage, scale lengths had to be shortened when pedals were added to steel guitars. Even though this also reduced sus- tain and tone quality, it was necessary to keep the strings on the guitar. Sierra's advanced engineering and manufacturing quality of the 'Gearless Tuner' allows a 25-inch scale with shorter string length than a keyed or geared guitar with a 24 inch scale.

---

Sounds like Sierra considers TOTAL string length in the factoring of string breakage.
BTW, this is not about keyless, as far as I am concerned. It is about how string length, and how much stretching and tension can the G# take before breaking.

Since the keyhead portion of the string stretches and is under tension, it must be included in the factoring of the breaking point. (included in total length)

That is what I am getting out of C. Dixon's and Sierras quotes. They are both referring to TOTAL string length.

[This message was edited by Curt Langston on 30 June 2006 at 07:28 PM.]

" TARGET=_blank>http://www.precisionbrand.com/products/default.asp?p_catid=48[tab] 	 
Dia'	 	Low KPSI	High KPSI	Low/High	 
0.0060	 	415	455	0.912087912	 
0.0070	 	407	447	0.910514541	 
0.0080	 	399	434	0.919354839	 
0.0090	 	393	428	0.918224299	 
0.0100	 	387	422	0.917061611	 
0.0110	 	382	417	0.916067146	 
0.0120	 	377	412	0.915048544	 
0.0130	 	373	408	0.914215686	 
0.0140	 	369	404	0.913366337

quote:

---

The longer the total string length, and the more the string stretch, the more heat at the top of the finger from change activation...more heat means sooner breakage. This will vary with style and technique.

---

quote:

---

I do not recall where I indicated that the length of string beyond the nut, or the bridge, required an increase in tension to get a string to pitch...it does not.

---

If I said "required an increase in tension to get a string to pitch", I did not mean to.

What I meant was that the keyhead portion of string is included in the tensioning, and pulling up to pitch.

Good info. Ed. On the above tables, how are the strings anchored at the nut end?

How much overhang?

Are the lengths used in the tables including absolute anchor points, or just scale length, or what?

Your above quote indicates that the longer the total string length, the more string to stretch= more heat or stress, and sooner breakage.

Thats what I have been saying all along.

I am not talking keyed or keyless, I am talking total string length and more stretching required to bring the string up to pitch= breaking strings sooner.

I realize that probably greater than 95% of strings that break is done at the changer. But, it is because when the scale is longer than 24 1/4 - 24 1/2 inches long, more breakage occurs, because you have to realize that there is still all that extra string length in the keyhead. It is pulled and under tension as well. Carl and Buddy were referring to this in their posts, when they talk about maxing out at a 24 1/4 scale on a keyed guitar.

quote:

---

Curt...re the quotes...believe the equations, or believe the "statements"...

---

The statement by BE was actual results from trial and error. He found that a 25 inch keyed guitar was hard to keep strings on.

Also, can the Beast be tuned to standard E9th?

What would happen if it were tuned to E9th, and why?

I appreciate all the good info. in this thread. This is good stuff.

Thanks again.

[This message was edited by Curt Langston on 01 July 2006 at 09:45 AM.]

To the degree that a string does NOT bend around the changer finger, the flexing/heating effect from changer activation is not focused at the finger apex, so less of any breakage problem from will occur at this point/location. Straight tension changes from changer activation will be absorbed by each increment of the string; hence the problem tends to go away. The problem is NOT really the length of the string, or the scale, but rather the configuration of the finger mechanism. The problem is WORSE for the thin strings tensioned to high pitches because they stretch further for a halftone change, and do not have the mass to absorb the strain that the larger dia’ strings do.

Consider the magnitude of the effect…if a string were 10% longer, the amount of stretch for the halftone change will be 10 % more. This is less than the strings given tensile strength and maybe not much more than the manufacturing tolerance of the strings dia’. The difference between a 24 ¼” scale and a 24 ½” scale becomes an insignificant part of the problem. Further, if the stretch of the string per halftone at pitch were less, the motion at the changer finger would be less. All string materials are NOT the same, and they were probably considerably worse when Big E was deciding on scale lengths.
The 0.011” string is the worst offender on the E9 because it stretches farther for a halftone pitch change. On the E9/B6 Universal, as used by Bill Stafford (string #9 = B, lowered to Bb, and also raised to D = a four halftone excursion) may break for him as often as his 0.011” string tuned to G#., and his scale is 25.5”.

The “long” strings on the key head design are NOT the ones that cause breakage problems. They may have other issues such as non return, over return, harmonic issues etc. Most of these are mechanism issues first, and string length issues second, just like the changer finger wrap/string break problem.

In another thread, on thermal expansion, among other items, I think that I gave the amount of stretch per half tone change for each string on a 30” scale…these were measurements. You can compare the relative amounts if you can find the post.

Re the Buddy/Carl quotes… In the quote that you gave, I did not see anything about where or what the stresses were, where the strings broke, etc….I may have missed it, or it may have been in the context not given. As I see it, the scale length was “tuned” to the available string (0.011”) material to compensate for a traditional instrument design. String length was not the problem, but it became the fix. You work with what you have at hand.

Yes, the BEAST could be tuned to E9 if you like to change G#s, but at the expense of the extra frequency range.

I also remember reading that Sierra literature and being puzzled by their explanation of why they could use a longer neck. They also said the strings had a more solid feel, indicating they were at higher tension. In other words they used the same gauge strings as the shorter necks, but with higher tension on the longer neck. How could that have been possible unless the strings were simply better in this later era? Maybe that is the real explanation for why they could use a longer neck. In support of this, many of us today use an 0.012 for the 3rd string. Even though the tension is more than for an 0.011, they don't seem to break any more often. I'm betting you couldn't do that with the 0.012s of the early Sho-Bud era.

Until you reach the limit of how small a string can be (and maybe the 0.011 is near that), the traditional solution for a longer neck is to use smaller gauge strings. A baby grand piano has a length of about 5' for its lowest strings. A concert grand has a length of about 9'. But they don't simply stretch the same string to higher tension on the concert grand. They use a smaller gauge string. For a given pitch, a longer,smaller string has richer overtones and better sustain than a shorter,thicker string. Likewise, the Fender Stringmaster was made in three neck lengths. But you weren't intended to use the same gauge strings on them. The shorter neck models had to use thicker strings, and lost sustain. Some players prefer the closer frets for slants, and so accept that compromise. But everyone agrees, the long necks with the smaller strings had better tone and sustain.

------------------
Student of the Steel: Zum uni, Fender tube amps, squareneck and roundneck resos, tenor sax, keyboards

quote:

---

I also remember reading that Sierra literature and being puzzled by their explanation of why they could use a longer neck. They also said the strings had a more solid feel, indicating they were at higher tension. In other words they used the same gauge strings as the shorter necks, but with higher tension on the longer neck. How could that have been possible unless the strings were simply better in this later era?

---

David, Sierra said they could have a 25 inch scale, with less breakage than a 24 1/4 inch scale keyed guitar. They realized that the 24 1/4 scale keyed guitars actually have more string length under tension, (when they considered the keyhead portion), than do their 25 inch scale keyless.
I doubt that new technologies in string making had much to do with it. The total length of a string,(changer to anchor)can only be so long before it breaks, when trying to raise it up to an A.

quote:

---

being puzzled by their explanation of why they could use a longer neck.

---

They did not say longer neck. They were talking scale. Because even with a 25 inch scale, they are using less TOTAL string length than a keyed 24 1/4 inch scale guitar. Remember a 24 1/4 keyed guitar has at least 27 or 28 inches of TOTAL string length to stretch and pull up to pitch.

(the string popper BMI in the other thread, had even more, since the 3rd G# string was actually in the 4th string position, making it even longer)

They did not say it had a higher tension. They said it had a more solid feel.

quote:

---

Curt...out of curiosity, how do you account for being able to change the length of the played string with the bar, without changing the tension? In the bar use case, we now have two "overhangs", and two "total string lengths".

---

Ed, total string tension will only increase very, very slightly per the weight exerted by the bar.
For instance play an open E string, then bar it at the 12th fret. Both will be the same pitch, yet if you press a little harder on the bar, you will sharp the note.(in this respect you will be increasing the tension slightly)

Consider this:
Many people feel that a keyless guitar has more "attack" (Not saying that I do)
So to illustrate this we can do the following:

On a keyless guitar with a 24 1/4 inch scale, grab hold of a string(say the 3rd G#)
and pull up on it a bit.

Now do the same thing on a keyed guitar with same scale.
While they are both tuned up to the same pitch, the keyed guitar will have a little more stretch to it,(albeit small) due to the extra length in the keyhead. Since the keyed guitar has longer strings on it, there is more string to stretch. The longer a string is, the more stretch you will get out of it.
(take a 4 inch piece of string. Using pliers at both ends pull on it. Now do the same thing to a 12 inch length of the same gauge. I doubt you will feel much travel with the 4 inch piece, but you will on the 12 inch piece)
This is why total string length needs to be calculated in a strings stretch and breaking points. After all, the nut on keyed guitars is always a roller nut.(obviously to allow the string to travel on the nut)
And a keyless does not always have a roller nut. GFI for example. There is no (measureable) extra string to worry about stretching, when you raise up to an A from G#.(hence the more "attack", so to speak.)

This is why you can have a keyless 25 inch scale with less tension (and breakage) than a keyed 24 1/4 scale.(the keyed guitar is actually 27-28 inches of string under tension)

Yes, we know that a given string will only take x amount of pounds of tension, before it breaks.

And, we know that the longer a string is, the more tension it will take to get up to the desired pitch.

I think a more accurate way to measure string tension, is to actually measure the strings from the two anchor points.

It is not the scale, but the TOTAL length of strings under tension.

Like you stated about your Beast:
You could not have an 0.011 G# raising to an A.(for very long)(I paraphrased)
Not so much that your scale is too long, but the TOTAL string length is too long.(I realize that you have almost NO overhang)

Good discussion.

[This message was edited by Curt Langston on 01 July 2006 at 09:54 PM.]

My conclusion is, that until stretching is introduced, string length beyond the scale length is of no import re fundamental pitch.

The opening post of this thread gave some equipments that can be used to measure (put numbers to) these issues. This allows comparing the hardware results/behavior with the equations.

As someone said in another thread, after reciting his credentials, this is barely high school physics. Anyone interested can go to the local college book store, go to the physics book section, look in the index of the books for "vibration", "string", "tension", and the like, open to the given section, and see if you find anything useful/familiar.

Same for the string stretch issue...look under "Properties of Materials", "Modulus of elasticity (Young's modulus)", "Elongation", "Stress & Strain".

For how materials behave in environment and in contact, look up "Hardness", and "Thermal Coefficient of Expansion".

All the above, and more will be in the same book.

"And, we know that the longer a string is, the more tension it will take to get up to the desired pitch."

Semantics perhaps, but ---the longer the
"Scale Length" is, the more tension etc---. "Total String Length" is not part of the the tension determinant unless friction or similar issue becomes involved.

"Total String Length" matters when tension is changed in order to change the strings pitch. At that point, a longer "Total String Length" (assuming that TSL means from clamp to clamp) enters the picture to provide increased finger rotation requirements, and related problems.

"It is not the scale, but the TOTAL length of strings under tension."

I would prefer "the Scale Length, and the Total String Length are at the same tension (ignoring nut or bridge friction issues), but the required tension is determined by the Scale Length, the string dia' and the desired pitch.

"I think a more accurate way to measure string tension, is to actually measure the strings from the two anchor points."

That is the normal way to make the measurement...the measurement is set up to minimize the frictional issues, and it is accepted that the tension is the same at all parts of the string. It is also accepted that each inch of the string stretches by the same amount (= inches of stretch per inch of string is a constant; usually said as inches per inch per inch).

quote:

---

"Total String Length" matters when tension is changed in order to change the strings pitch. At that point, a longer "Total String Length" (assuming that TSL means from clamp to clamp) enters the picture to provide increased finger rotation requirements, and related problems.

---

Exactly.
As observed when raising the G# to A.
Longer TSL=increased tension

quote:

---

My conclusion is, that until stretching is introduced, string length beyond the scale length is of no import re fundamental pitch.

---

Of course not. That is why the old non pedal Stringmasters could have those long scales.(you could even have a G# in your Beast, providing you did require raising it up to an A)

It seems we are describing the same things, only using different wording.

quote:

---

I would prefer "the Scale Length, and the Total String Length are at the same tension (ignoring nut or bridge friction issues), but the required tension is determined by the Scale Length, the string dia' and the desired pitch.

---

Yes, they ARE under the same tension. I agree. And the longer that string is, the more tension it will take to raise to the desired pitch

quote:

---

but the required tension is determined by the Scale Length, the string dia' and the desired pitch.

---

If both parts of the string are under equal tension, then that is irrelevant, as far as the breaking point is concerned.

Ed, your 30 inch scale Beast is as close to having the scale length and the total length being equal, as anybody has ever come. And it will not hold an 0.011 gauge G# raised to an A.(per your own description) It is too long. Call it scale or call it total length. On your guitar the overhang is probaly less than 1/4 inch on either end.

When BE was trying to raise a G# up to an A on a keyed 25 inch scale Sho-Bud, he had trouble keeping strings on it. And no wonder. The total length of string he was trying to stretch up to pitch, was probably at least 28 inches or better!

It wasn't scale length that kept breaking his strings. It was total string length under tension.

Thanks for your input! This keeps getting better and better.

[This message was edited by Curt Langston on 02 July 2006 at 10:20 AM.]

"Yes, they ARE under the same tension. I agree. And the longer that string is, the more tension it will take to raise to the desired pitch".

If the Scale Length is shortened, but the Total String Length is kept the same length, then the tension needs to be reduced for a given string to achieve pitch. I think that you will accept that.

Then if the Scale Length is lengthened, and the Total String Length is kept the same, then the tension for a given string needs to increase to achieve pitch. I think that you will agree to that.

It is the Scale Length that determines pitch in the above cases, as the Total String Length remains constant.

Big E changed the Scale Length to solve his breakage problem because he was stuck with an existing mechanism and key head dimensions. His Total String Length decreased because he shortened his Scale Length in order to reduce tension on the string(s). His tension reduced because he shortened the Scale Length, not because he shortened the Total String Length.

If he had left the Total string Length the same, and just shortened the Scale Length, he would have also solved the problem to the extent that less tension was the major part of the problem to be solved.

The other parts of the problem were due to finger wrap angle, finger wrap finish, and the amount of stretch due to change activation, only the later item being a function of Total String Length.

Buddy was stuck with a changer mechanism that ate strings at the top of the finger, a key head with traditional shape and dimensions plus the limiting metallurgy of the existing string manufacturers...shortening the Scale Length and keeping the traditional instrument appearance was a good business decision as it made the strings last longer (it did not really solve the string breakage, just delay it somewhat).

quote:

---

His tension reduced because he shortened the Scale Length, not because he shortened the Total String Length.

---

How could he shorten the scale length, and not shorten the TSL? Are we to presume that he put some sort of spacer between the keyhead and nut to keep the TSL the same length? That seems like a lot of trouble, and not at all logical.

The simple fact remains through all of these discussions and charts:

The longer a string is, the more tension is required to bring it to pitch.

And tension is what breaks strings. Whether at the changer or nut. A string will only take so much tension before it reaches it's breaking point.

A longer TSL only hastens this occurrance.

quote:

---

String tension depends on the total string length, not just nut to bridge(changer). Many 6 string guitars with the same scale length have different tensions due to different total string length, beyond the nut or bridge.

---

JP, good example.

[This message was edited by Curt Langston on 02 July 2006 at 11:28 AM.]

Read again...I did NOT say that he did not shorten the total string length, I gave the reason that the tension changed. IF he had left the total string length the same, and only shortened the scale length, there would have been a huge overhang, but the tension to pitch would have been reduced.

"Not logical, and a lot of trouble"

Agree. presumptions aside, a spacer would not be needed...the body would do the job.

"The longer a string is, the more tension is required to bring it to pitch."

Disagree. The scale length determines the tension to pitch for a given string.

"And tension is what breaks strings. Whether at the changer or nut."

Not totally true...If after clamping a string (similar to the clamping used on the BEAST, you bend the remaining string vigorously it breaks off...not because of tension, but because of metal fatigue. Metal fatigue happens at the wrapped changer finger with changer activation; in this case tension also is there, and changes, thus hastening breakage via fatigue, or from the introduction of "Shear strength" issues.

"A string will only take so much tension before it reaches it's breaking point."

Agreed with caveat...The tensile limit (breaking point for an applied load/force)for the given string wire (not the wrap/ball portion, or any bend around fingers etc.)is given in the charts above. There are values for the 1950 era, and for the latest music wire suppliers information. They are very different. It appears that today's string materials are much better. "so much" was different then and now...probably batch to batch. and string brand to string brand.

It appears that we have come to an impasse. I was hoping that it was only a language problem. The truth may be known by making measurements using the digital fish scale and digital vernier calipers mentioned in the opening post. I used these to verify the pitch vs tension vs pitch change on the BEAST.

JP...Agreed, there are a variety of neck lengths and construction methods.

Agreed...that many scale lengths are the same. BUT there are also several different string gauges used for the same string number, and different string to neck, and different fret heights. Any change of these parameters will cause a different feel. A feel is not a value, and therefor comparison becomes a problem.

I am back to suggesting that performing the experiment with the measurement equipments is in order.

Curt...thanks for the fun and patience.

Edited to add a comment re SHEAR STRENGTH possibility at the finger wrap.

[This message was edited by ed packard on 02 July 2006 at 01:18 PM.]

Say it was a mile long.

The tension between the nut and the bridge would have to be exactly what one that was only 25" would be to get the same note (In that exact section.)

Provided you had a roller that wasn't binding the string, the tension on top if it, an inch beyond it, and in the case of the string a mile long, 5277'11" would be exactly the same as the 25" section.

Of course a longer string would be susceptable to temperature and "vindictive return" changes.

The only downside to having a longer string above the nut, or involved in extra windings is that in the former case there is more area for breakage to occur, and in the latter there is a possibility of friction in the windings to even out for some time after being brought up to tension.

Back to Cartoon Physics.

BTW.

I think we all owe Mr P a whole bunch for actually taking the time to correlate and publish actual findings. (And anybody else that does it.)

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 02 July 2006 at 03:22 PM.]

Stretch is how far you have to pull the string to raise it to a given pitch. Tension is the force required to pull it to pitch. If the nut remains at the same scale length, longer distance behind the nut means you have to pull further on a changer. But because of the extra stretch it is easier to pull (less force required per inch of stretch). But since you will have to pull it further, the total force will end up being the same, whether you have a long easy pull with a long behind-the-nut distance, or a short hard pull, with short behind-the-nut distance. In either case the tension will be the same if the scale length (bridge to nut)and gauge are the same.

Let's try this thought experiment. Take off the nut on a steel guitar. So now the string is pegged at both ends. Now hold a bar on the string anywhere. The bar now is the "nut," and the distance from the bar to the keyhead is the "behind-the-nut" distance. If you move the bar closer to the bridge, the pitch raises, and the behind-the-nut distance increases. But the tension stays the same over the whole string. Move the bar away from the bridge and the pitch lowers, and the behind-the-nut distance decreases. But the tension remains the same over the whole string. The tension is totally unaffected by the behind-the-nut length. This is what Ed and myself and the others are saying. It is the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Now do the opposite thought experiment. Let's replace the bar and nut with a capo attached to the neck, so we can move it anywhere and temporarily fix it. Put it at 24". Tune the string to A and measure the tension. Now move the capo to 25". The pitch will drop. You have to increase the tension to bring the pitch back up to A. Even though the distance behind the nut decreased, the tension still had to be INCREASED. This is the opposite of what you are saying. Now do the opposite. Move the capo to 23". The pitch rises. To get it back down to A you have to relax the tension even more than it was At 24", even though the distance behind the nut increases. Again, the opposite of what you are saying.

Now suppose we have two guitars with different peg to peg lengths, and we can vary the "nut" by moving the capo. We set both strings to exactly the same tension. Without the capos they play different notes, the longer string playing a lower note, even though the tension is the same. But if we put both capos at 24" from the bridge, and we don't touch the key to change the tension, the note will be the same, and the tension will still be the same over the whole length of both strings, even though the total length of each string is different, and the distance behind the nut is different. And the tension is the same, because we didn't touch the key and change it. If you now move both capos to 25", both notes will change to the same lower new note. But the tension over all of both strings stays the same, even though the total string lengths are different, and the lengths behind the nut are different. Again this is all exactly opposite of what you are saying.

Again, I think you may be trying to say the same thing as the rest of us, but you are using unclear terminology. Tension is the force required to hold the string at pitch. Stretch is the distance required to pull the string to get it to pitch, either by twisting a key, turning a screw on a keyless, or activating a pedal or lever. We all understand that longer distance behind the nut means more stretch is required to pull to a given pitch. But if the scale length (Bridge to nut) is the same, the tension is the same. For a given string gaufe, tension is only dependent on the scale length (bridge-to-nut), not the distance behind the nut or the total string length. You can cite all the unclear statements you want from ad writers at Sierra and misguided six-stringers, but you will never get anyone who understands a little high school physics to agree with you.

I don't mean to be impatient or condescending to you. But if you don't get your terminology straight, we will continue to go around in circles, and you will never be able to understand why your statements are wrong. For all we know, your thinking is right, but because your terminolgy is confused, your statements of what you seem to think defy a well-known law of physics. Pitch depends on three things: gauge (or mass), scale length (bridge to nut, not bridge to peg), and tension. Rearranging that, tension depends on three things: pitch, scale length (bridge to nut, not bridge to peg), and gauge (or mass). The lenght of string behind the nut or past the bridge is not part of that equation. Period.

[This message was edited by David Doggett on 02 July 2006 at 01:34 PM.]

Thats OK though. I still respect your opinions and consider you a friend, even though I disagree on this subject.

I'll have to hang with Sierra on their findings. After all, I have owned three Sierras myself.

quote:

---

New technology fulfills the 30 year dream of tone plus sustain. Remember the old beautiful rich tone and everlasting sustain of the long-scale steel guitars? Due to excessive string breakage, scale lengths had to be shortened when pedals were added to steel guitars. Even though this also reduced sus- tain and tone quality, it was necessary to keep the strings on the guitar. Sierra's advanced engineering and manufacturing quality of the 'Gearless Tuner' allows a 25-inch scale with shorter string length than a keyed or geared guitar with a 24 inch scale.

---

If you look on their website, they use bold italics on "shorter string length"

They realized that the keyhead portion was under the same tension, and was a factor in the breakage of strings. Thats why they say "allows a 25-inch scale with shorter string length than a keyed or geared guitar with a 24 inch scale."

Yes, my believe is that of Sierras. TSL must be considered in a strings tension, and thus a strings breaking point.

Carl Dixon and BE's posts are inline with this as well. I will not bore you with their quotes again.