|
Post by geo on Sept 4, 2012 14:21:09 GMT -5
Why aren't the pole pieces on a pickup individually wound and connected in parallel? Shouldn't that provide the same result with far less noise?
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Sept 4, 2012 14:42:59 GMT -5
Individual winding would work, but I don't know that it would be an improvement. Six times as many winding operations and multiple connections.
How do you reckon it would result in "far less noise"?
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Sept 4, 2012 14:49:26 GMT -5
The closest thing I've seen to what you're asking about comes from Mayes pickups. As RT points out, adding additional steps to the fabrication process will also increase the cost for said item. As Mayes is one of the few suppliers to Jesselli Guitars, I'd bet that never becomes much of an issue for them... HTC1
|
|
|
Post by geo on Sept 4, 2012 14:49:38 GMT -5
Noise is generated because the winding of a pickup is essentially a magnetic antenna. By reducing the area of the magnetic antenna you cut back on noise.
Also, could you invert the polarity of every other magnet and winding direction of every other pole's winding and essentially create a noiseless pickup?
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Sept 4, 2012 15:22:05 GMT -5
Noise is generated because the winding of a pickup is essentially a magnetic antenna. That's a rather fast and loose analogy. More like the winding is the secondary of a transformer. But let's not dwell on this. We'll roll with your analogy. By reducing the area of the magnetic antenna you cut back on noise. Okay, so it's area you're concerned with... By reducing the area of the magnetic antenna you cut back on noise. Have you actually reduced the area? Seems like you've just redistributed it. Multiple areas connected in parallel rather than series. You might get less noise, but you'll also get a helluva lot less signal. The coil for one string will have less resistance and inductance. This is good. But you'll have five loads (the resistance and inductance of the coils that aren't sensing the string in question) in parallel with it. This is not good. That's going to decimate the amplitude of the string signal. Also, could you invert the polarity of every other magnet and winding direction of every other pole's winding and essentially create a noiseless pickup? Yep.
|
|
|
Post by geo on Sept 4, 2012 15:27:51 GMT -5
The cross-sectional area of a traditional single-coil pickup includes the space around and between the pole pieces rather than just the pole pieces themselves. By winding just the pole pieces, you "cut out the fat". Your area now includes only the pole pieces.
In theory, by swapping every other pole & reverse winding swapped poles, you should get something quieter than an air-coil but louder than a stacked-coil. I'm sure there are complications I'm not accounting for.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Sept 4, 2012 16:27:42 GMT -5
The cross-sectional area of a traditional single-coil pickup includes the space around and between the pole pieces rather than just the pole pieces themselves. By winding just the pole pieces, you "cut out the fat". Your area now includes only the pole pieces. You seem adept at recognizing things that support your hypothesis but oblivious to things that contradict it. 1 - You haven't cut any fat. You've just repositioned it. 2 - Being adjacent to the pole-piece doesn't prevent hum from being induced the winding. You still have to connect the neck-most segments of the windings to the bridge-most segments. And you have to do this 12 times per wind instead of 2 times per wind. 3 - The new "connections" on each side of the string still add to the hum. But there will be a marginal increase in signal. However the greatest influence will still be the region of the coil that is directly under the string. In theory, by swapping every other pole & reverse winding swapped poles, you should get something quieter than an air-coil but louder than a stacked-coil. You don't even need to flip adjacent coils/poles. Just an equal number, regardless of position. I'm sure there are complications I'm not accounting for. To start with, you might consider the number of windings and how that affects the diameter of the coil. The outer diameter of a coil can't exceed the spacing between strings. Else the coils would need to be staggered. Not necessarily a bad thing, but if you were thinking of keeping the poles in a straight line, plan on fewer windings.
|
|
|
Post by geo on Sept 4, 2012 16:46:25 GMT -5
Okay, so here's how it works:
A coil of wire is an antenna. EM flux through this loop gives you noise.
-The larger the area of your antenna, the more noise you pick up. -An antenna of opposite orientation picks up noise of opposite sign -Combining noise of opposite signs, you get back to zero. -Only changing fields contribute to noise.
So we clearly see from this that we can reduce the amount of noise by reducing the area of our magnetic loop antenna. Fantastic! So we just put the antenna around our pole pieces, which is the only area we care about the signal from. Now we get stronger signal from our pole pieces and less noise! Phenomenal!
We've now got 6 inductors. We connect them in parallel and presto! It operates basically the same as if we had one giant inductor with all 6 pole pieces inside, except it's probably a little bit quieter and has significantly less noise. Flip adjacent coils/poles and the noise should go down even further. (We flip adjacent coils/poles for best noise-cancellation since we can't guarantee a uniform spatial distribution of RF interference.)
You might also try connecting them in series, but that would get a little loud. (Think about how close your poles are to the coil.)
Side note: Repositioning the fat would be to include the same cross-sectional area in a different configuration. By this method we've reduced the cross-sectional area to the bare minimum, thus trimming the fat.
|
|
|
Post by newey on Sept 4, 2012 18:02:09 GMT -5
No, both "antennae" pick up the same noise, we then invert the phase of one of the two noise signals.
I don't know what "uniform spatial distribution" means in this context. An inductor (such as a guitar pickup) will certainly pick up differing amounts of noise depending on its position, but this is a function of the position of the pickup, and this wouldn't change in the least whether we had one coil or six,since they are all oriented in the same plane.
I thought this was the proposition we were trying to prove. Certainly, the basic electrical principle upon which it operates is the same, but whether your proposed 6-pole setup results in a magnetic field of the same dimensions and of the same string sensing properties is, I think, questionable.
RT is predicting just the opposite- minimal if any change in the noise level but a significant drop in output. I tend to agree with RT on this point.
I don't see this as a "side note" but as a major issue, and your reasoning on this doesn't make sense to me. Winding all around 6 individual pole pieces is bound to take more wire than wrapping around all 6 together. And, as RT notes, winding size matters if all six pole pieces are to reside underneath their respective strings- one would have to have either fewer windings and/or thinner wire; either choice will affect both the output as well as the tonal properties (since the resulting field will differ).
But I doubt that this is a new idea- Cyn1 has already pointed to a similar idea already in production. I'd suggest doing a patent search, you'll probably find some antecedents, and maybe more info on the workability of the concept.
|
|
|
Post by geo on Sept 4, 2012 18:25:47 GMT -5
No, both "antennae" pick up the same noise, we then invert the phase of one of the two noise signals. EM radiation passing in the opposite direction generates opposite signal. This is what I mean by opposite orientation. Hooking a meter up to a magnetic loop antenna you get the opposite reading if you invert the leads. That is all this statement is meant to say. I don't know what "uniform spatial distribution" means in this context. An inductor (such as a guitar pickup) will certainly pick up differing amounts of noise depending on its position, but this is a function of the position of the pickup, and this wouldn't change in the least whether we had one coil or six,since they are all oriented in the same plane. Uniform spatial distribution means exactly what you would expect. Imagine you're under a fluorescent light with a long, metal lampshade blocking the sides. If this hood is shining directly at your high poles and your low poles lie in shadow then you'll have a non-uniform spatial distribution of noise. Hence, we wind adjacent pickups opposite. I don't see this as a "side note" but as a major issue, and your reasoning on this doesn't make sense to me. Winding all around 6 individual pole pieces is bound to take more wire than wrapping around all 6 together. And, as RT notes, winding size matters if all six pole pieces are to reside underneath their respective strings- one would have to have either fewer windings and/or thinner wire; either choice will affect both the output as well as the tonal properties (since the resulting field will differ). Assuming you don't change the wire you wind with and that you use equal turns as before (we'll connect them in series since we're not agreed on the signal gain versus load from connecting them in parallel), you've decreased the noise significantly. The flux due to noise is proportional to the cross-sectional area.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Sept 4, 2012 18:29:08 GMT -5
So we just put the antenna around our pole pieces, which is the only area we care about the signal from. Now we get stronger signal from our pole pieces and less noise! Phenomenal! That all seems wonderful if we're making a pickup for one string only. But we need to sense all six strings. So you'll end up with 5 more sources of noise. And none of them will add anything to the signal from the original string we're looking at. Doesn't seem all that phenomenal to me, unless you want to ignore the big picture and just focus on a local difference. We've now got 6 inductors. We connect them in parallel and presto! It operates basically the same as if we had one giant inductor with all 6 pole pieces inside, except it's probably a little bit quieter and has significantly less noise. Nope. 6 parallel inductors of 1/6 the original inductance wouldn't be anything like the original inductor. Inductances don't add in parallel. You'd end up with 1/36 of the original inductance. But you're right about it being quieter. A LOT quieter. The loading effect of the parallel coils will decimate the signal from any one of the coils. (We flip adjacent coils/poles for best noise-cancellation since we can't guarantee a uniform spatial distribution of RF interference.) It's gonna have to be an awfully high frequency before the spacial distribution of the external noise becomes a factor. Maybe if you're concerned about the noise from a leaky microwave oven or smth... You might also try connecting them in series, but that would get a little loud. (Think about how close your poles are to the coil.) You'll get a modest improvement because of the additional region of windings parallel to the strings. But I rather doubt it will "get a little loud". Series is the only way that makes sense at all. Leo found that out when he made the P-bass pickup. And he only had two coils to combine. The loss incurred in parallel connection of two coils is minor compared with the kind of losses one would suffer with 6 parallel coils. While a bit less output in parallel mode, a P-bass pickup is still somewhat reasonable in parallel. With 6 coils, parallel is a sure-fire loser. Side note: Repositioning the fat would be to include the same cross-sectional area in a different configuration. By this method we've reduced the cross-sectional area to the bare minimum, thus trimming the fat. Same cross-sectional area = reduced cross-sectional area? Yeah, makes perfect sense to me...
|
|
|
Post by geo on Sept 4, 2012 19:09:45 GMT -5
Quick corrections to RT: 1) You'll have the area of 6 pole pieces contributing to noise, rather than the area of 6 pole pieces and all the space in-between them. And, of course, the noise from RF going through each of these loops is felt at 1/6 strength in your signal. So 6 * 1/6 winds up being as before. 2) Each has 1/6 of the original inductance, but each inductor feels a much stronger field from the pole piece. See photos and reason it out yourself. It's easier to picture the field lines if you consider your pole magnet to be a solenoid. (Confusing at first, but this way you can see the field lines both inside and outside the magnet.) upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Solenoid_with_3_loops_%281%29.pngupload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/Finite_Length_Solenoid_field_radius_1_length_1.jpgEven if you observed only the original magnetic field, you would have 1/6 the original inductance, not 1/36. Think that through again. 3) Again, think of a UV lamp with a metal lampshade. Feel free to try this at home with a humbucker, only hitting the bottom or top half of the pickup. 4) Again, refer to the solenoid diagrams from wikipedia. If a flux line is entirely inside your winding, no signal is received from it. If half is inside, half is outside, then you'll get signal. Since we're now seeing many more flux lines, the signal will be much louder. 5) Okay, think of it this way. I take six bricks, line them up, and stand them up vertically on my front step. Clearly, when I look down on them, just the bricks have much less cross-sectional area than the entire front step. You can take a piece of chalk and outline just the bricks or the entire front step. If you outline the entire front step, you've clearly got much more cross-sectional area than if you go around the bricks alone.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Sept 4, 2012 21:11:15 GMT -5
Quick corrections to RT:
1) You'll have the area of 6 pole pieces contributing to noise, rather than the area of 6 pole pieces and all the space in-between them. And, of course, the noise from RF going through each of these loops is felt at 1/6 strength in your signal. So 6 * 1/6 winds up being as before. If you're saying that the external noise is roughly equivalent in both cases, I agree. You're partially right. But the strength of the magnetic field isn't the determining factor. You'd have the same inductance if the polepiece wasn't magnetized. Since the geometry and proximity to the pole pieces has changed, it won't hold to a 1/6 ratio of inductance between the individual coil and the original coil. The resistance of the windings will still follow the 1/36th ratio if the coils are all in parallel, but the inductance won't. Regardless, the loading of the other 5 windings is still going to decimate the string signal from any one coil. 3) Again, think of a UV lamp with a metal lampshade. Feel free to try this at home with a humbucker, only hitting the bottom or top half of the pickup. wut?4) Again, refer to the solenoid diagrams from wikipedia. If a flux line is entirely inside your winding, no signal is received from it. If half is inside, half is outside, then you'll get signal. Since we're now seeing many more flux lines, the signal will be much louder. Oversimplification. Signal is generated by moving those magnetic lines of flux through the windings of the coil. You can have all the lines of flux you want. If they are stationary, no signal will be generated. The string has its greatest influence in the region of the coil along its length. The regions to the left and right of the strings are weakly influenced. You will get some additional signal. But calling that "much louder" is a bit of a stretch. 5) Okay, think of it this way. I take six bricks, line them up, and stand them up vertically on my front step. Clearly, when I look down on them, just the bricks have much less cross-sectional area than the entire front step. wut? How does this relate to anything in this discussion? We haven't stood any of the windings on end. You can take a piece of chalk and outline just the bricks or the entire front step. If you outline the entire front step, you've clearly got much more cross-sectional area than if you go around the bricks alone. Oh, I get it now! For a string signal, we're concerned with magnetic lines of force moving through the windings. For the external hum and noise we can ignore all that and just concern ourselves with the boundary defined at the perimeter. We get to include all the free space in the middle as part of our "antenna". How convenient. Wouldn't it be great if reality worked that way?
|
|
|
Post by geo on Sept 4, 2012 21:46:01 GMT -5
I've explained this plenty of times, but you're not reading it through. It's a simple geometry problem and you don't seem to get the explanation; there's nothing else to explain that hasn't been said already.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Sept 4, 2012 22:41:07 GMT -5
I've explained this plenty of times, but you're not reading it through. It's a simple geometry problem and you don't seem to get the explanation; there's nothing else to explain that hasn't been said already. I think the problem is that I did read it through. Your "simple geometry problem" has one set of rules for current induced in a coil by string and magnet and a completely different set of rules that ignore those principles for current induced by external noise. Not sure exactly what's in that kool aid pitcher, but you'll have to pardon me if I don't want to drink.
|
|
|
Post by geo on Sept 5, 2012 0:18:44 GMT -5
Okay, one last try. Since taking the argument to tiny proportions isn't helping, we'll stretch it out.
Imagine you have a mile radius coil winding.
Assuming it has the same resistance as your small winding (same total resistance, not linear resistance) and that both windings consist of one loop for simplicity's sake, you'll get MUCH MORE noise than a regular-sized winding.
You also won't hear your magnet at all; few flux lines go around the solenoid; most are entirely contained within it.
The trend of shrinking that loop down continues to reduce noise and increase output until it starts going inside the magnet, which is physically unrealistic so let's not concern ourselves with that.
When you wire them in series, you add the outputs and you get a hell of a lot of sound. You get very little noise.
The reason that signal and noise react differently to the shrink in winding radius is that the flux lines for your pole piece originate WITHIN the solenoid whereas the RF interference's flux lines originate from without (specifically: at infinity).
The laws are entirely self-consistent. I highly recommend you look into Griffith's book on Electricity and Magnetism if you've been having this much difficulty with my explanation. It's a fairly simple book that's easily accessible with only a high school education in calculus. He'll walk you through the vector calculus in the first chapter and from there it's all learning.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Sept 5, 2012 2:28:54 GMT -5
Okay, one last try. Since taking the argument to tiny proportions isn't helping, we'll stretch it out.
Imagine you have a mile radius coil winding.
Assuming it has the same resistance as your small winding (same total resistance, not linear resistance) and that both windings consist of one loop for simplicity's sake, you'll get MUCH MORE noise than a regular-sized winding. This is a conveniently absurd extrapolation. With that length of wire, it DOES act like an antenna. When the length of wire is on the order of 1/4 wavelength, the signal induced is because of the wave traveling along the length, rather than the lines of force cutting across numerous windings. Different processes entirely. But somehow we've moved from "area" to "length". Your previous benchmark was area. What happened to that? When you wire them in series, you add the outputs and you get a hell of a lot of sound. Nope. Not even close to reality. For any given string, the additional 5 coils in series aren't adding anything to the signal. They're much too far away from that particular string. Fortunately the series configuration doesn't cause severe losses the way parallel loads will. But your "hell of a lot of sound" by adding outputs just isn't going to happen. The reason that signal and noise react differently to the shrink in winding radius is that the flux lines for your pole piece originate WITHIN the solenoid whereas the RF interference's flux lines originate from without (specifically: at infinity). Unless you live in next door to a radio station, RF isn't your major concern. It's low frequency EM fields from current in your house wiring, transformers, florescent light ballasts, electric motors, and somewhat higher frequencies from CRT monitors. The one grain of truth here is that the signal from the string is locally strong and drops off dramatically with distance. And the change in distance from the external EM source from one coil to another is moot. But all that does is explain why the string generated signal has little effect on the other coils. The process of magnetic lines of force moving across windings is the same for both the string signal and the external hum and noise. Considering the only the "area" of the actual windings and ignoring the "dead space" in the interior is all well and good. But you have to do the same for external EM influences as well. You simply can't call it an "antenna" that is only affected by how much area is defined by the perimeter. That dog won't hunt. The laws are entirely self-consistent. I heartily agree. I only wish you would apply them consistently in your analogies.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Sept 5, 2012 2:46:05 GMT -5
Pretty sure that gumbo hasn't seen this yet, or he woulda beat me to it..... Here we go: Roland's GK-2A hexaphonic pickup: (Apologies for the slight fuzziness.) One need Google the 'webs for only a moment to see that this pup, and it's later updated versions, is exactly what's been called for here. The only difference is that each "section" (one per string) is actually a miniature humbucker. That's right, 12 coils under one cover! The whole thing comes with a required set of pre-amps (six, one per Hb pair) in order to obtain usable tone and output levels. Be forewarned though, tonal results vary, and are highly subject to the listener's discretion. HTH sumgai
|
|
|
Post by geo on Sept 5, 2012 17:52:41 GMT -5
Ignorance, mantras, and nit-picking at acceptable approximations You're killing me, Smalls.
|
|
|
Post by darkavenger on Sept 6, 2012 0:57:46 GMT -5
>_< Ok, there are a hell of a lot of 'partial' truths here. On both sides. Yes, you will have less noise because of the smaller space your 6 coils will take up. But not much. You probably wouldn't notice it in a side by side comparison to an SC. No, your parallel wiring is not a good idea. No it's not. Idea = bad. Stick with series which will be compatible with a normal guitar amp. Yes, you could flip any of the magnetic poles and with each pair flipped opposite the noise will be reduced. The reason for flipping them in order would be to accommodate a design that has a much smaller magnetic field which WILL have a noticeable drop in noise because the field is smaller. As an added bonus you'll be humbucking which makes the biggest difference given your coils are wound similarly(at least in pairs) This thread sounds very familiar to 4real's BEPP thread, if you haven't seen it go take a look guitarnuts2.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=wiring&action=display&thread=6411Did I say parallel, wired in series of course! Also, try researching hex pickups, it takes your 6 coil proposition one step further in being able to output 6 signals separately (or combined). You could learn quite a bit from the subject
|
|
|
Post by geo on Sept 6, 2012 1:14:00 GMT -5
I don't have the benefit of experience here, but just from theory:
If a magnetic flux line crosses the solenoid, it should contribute to the signal. If it crosses twice (i.e. a flux loop is entirely enclosed by the solenoid) it shouldn't contribute. Since all flux lines originate at the magnetic pole pieces, wouldn't the signal get significantly louder if you wrap the wire right around the pole pieces?
We're assuming your total resistance remains the same, for simplicity's sake.
|
|
|
Post by darkavenger on Sept 6, 2012 1:53:51 GMT -5
Start with a basic formula... Inductance = (# turns(squared) x permeability of core x are of coil) / length As a simple approximation, this can answer many questions you might have. The more inductance you have, the more output you get. Another useful tool is FEMM to simulate magnetic fields in 2D, although there is a small learning curve it can help you to visualize and approximate many basic magnet designs. If your familiar with the program, be aware the number of lines it shows by default(20?) is small and should/could to be increased(50-100) when dealing with pickup designs to really see whats going on. Here's a small example of 'pickup' with two opposite polarity magnets. Can you guess which is AlNiCo 5 and which is Ceramic 5?
|
|
|
Post by geo on Sept 6, 2012 2:02:12 GMT -5
I'd have to assume it's a ceramic on the left, alnico on the right, but the picture only really helps us see the relative strength of the magnetic fields.
If the windings are closer to the pole piece where the flux lines are more tightly packed, shouldn't you see a greater current from a small displacement in the pole piece?
|
|
|
Post by darkavenger on Sept 6, 2012 3:34:17 GMT -5
On the right, AlNiCo. The left is Ceramic.
For your question about flux lines, you need to think about how those lines move in AC conditions. This is not something FEMM can help with to my knowledge, at least for this application. Then again I had to figure out how to use most of the program by myself. Those lines will move based on the string's motions because we have magnetized the string with out magnet. I'm unsure of the math and some details about the amount of flux passing through the coil or near the poles, so I wouldn't be able to definitively answer your question. It's easier to think of the issue with the formula I posted above. It's an approximation of what is going on, and for both a traditional single coil and for a single string pickup your going to get an answer that is... close enough. That's the best I can do. Because only a small part of the coil will be in an area of 'denser flux' it is easier to look at the coil as whole thus we revert back to the simple approximation.
For a traditional single coil, some notable elements include air gaps which decrease the core permeability, as well as a coil design to pickup 6 strings.
For a single string pickup, you need something smaller with the capability of relatively high output.
Think about this, in a single coil, although the flux only goes through part of the coil and core, it is acting as a single large transformer. In a single string pickup, each string needs it's own transformer(the coil) to boost voltage. This is where volume is an issue and a hard part of hex projects. A single string may have less volume in hex projects than traditional pickups even if the sum output of all the strings together is the same. Someone here can probably elaborate on the this or correct me if/where I'm wrong or inaccurate. A possible issue in a guitar is space for these multiple coils.
|
|
|
Post by gumbo on Sept 6, 2012 5:03:47 GMT -5
For a single string pickup, you need something smaller with the capability of relatively high output. Think about this, in a single coil, although the flux only goes through part of the coil and core, it is acting as a single large transformer. In a single string pickup, each string needs it's own transformer(the coil) to boost voltage. This is where volume is an issue and a hard part of hex projects. A single string may have less volume in hex projects than traditional pickups even if the sum output of all the strings together is the same. Someone here can probably elaborate on the this or correct me if/where I'm wrong or inaccurate. A possible issue in a guitar is space for these multiple coils. Hence, take a look at the Roland GK-3 hex pickup as used for guitar synth applications...as an input source, it also requires its own set of 6 little buzz-boxes built into the on-board electronics in order to provide signals strong enough to work your GR-whatever synth or VG-whatever unit. VGuitar Forum has squillions of posts about hex pickups and how they work (or not!)...
|
|
|
Post by darkavenger on Sept 6, 2012 10:14:38 GMT -5
The best hex pickup I've seen had very long coils to help with volume. You could stagger the coils to get more room, but then your departing from a single coil replacement... A simple preamp with gain should be able to compensate the volume difference if you don't mind going active or in theory there would be a transformer capable of it(good luck finding it and at a reasonable price!)
|
|
|
Post by geo on Sept 6, 2012 11:41:01 GMT -5
Wait, the signal here is generated by the string's magnetic field not the magnet vibrating on a very small scale from the force between it and the string??
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Sept 6, 2012 17:44:15 GMT -5
Wow. Just ....... WOW. You were actually serious with that acoustic wave in the pole-piece business in the other thread. I thought you were just spattering the page with random BS to be flippant! Yes, it's all confined to the magnetic field and the string's interaction with field causing the lines of force to move relative to the coil. If the coupling between the string and magnet was strong enough to cause appreciable movement in the magnet, it would dampen the vibrations on the string almost immediately. Physical movement of the magnet, relative to the coils is something we want to suppress, not encourage. Else the pickup acts like a microphone, susceptible to any vibration not just the string. Hence we often "pot" a pickup in wax to immobilize the winding (and to a lesser degree, the magnet/polepieces). This must be quite a "eureka" moment for you, eh?
|
|
|
Post by asmith on Sept 6, 2012 18:50:56 GMT -5
ReTread,
I joined this forum because it was friendly, inclusive and educational. People seemed to be here to assist in education, not just teach -- a subtle difference. While you aren't the only reason, your attitude and it's prevalence in your frequent posting are things that heavily contributed to me becoming a lurker instead of a frequently active contributor to this board.
Once, just once, can you please lay off the smug, smarter-than-thou hubris? Try it, see how you feel. Some people need to be introduced to concepts gently so it can click further down the line, and everybody benefits by getting a little smarter. A self-important attitude, one that constantly reminds itself of it's own 'superior knowledge,' puts people's nerves on end enough to eradicate their open-mindedness. They focus less on improving their knowledge base and more on resisting the fact that you're being a passive-aggressive dick to them.
I'm drunk. Bed time.
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Sept 6, 2012 19:10:44 GMT -5
asmith,
Hope you have a restful sleep and feel better in the morning.
Sincerely, Dick
|
|