lamed
Apprentice Shielder
Posts: 33
Likes: 6
|
Post by lamed on Aug 14, 2019 8:52:08 GMT -5
While I was trying to understand how ChrisK's binary switching (described here) worked and scaled as coils where added, I draw a few diagrams that I think may be useful to someone following the same path. As they describe the binary tree node as a module, I thought I might post them in the modules board... Then it occured to me that it was quite possible that I made some mistakes, so it would not hurt to ask here first if anyone had the time to review them. I understand ChrisK did not like his work to be used without acknoledgement so let me first state that none of this design is my doing. It is a complete rip off of Chris design, only presented in a way I think makes it easier to understand its structure. I also reversed one of the switches and swapped toggle switches for slide switches to match the positions of the triple shot switches that I'm used to. Here is the module. Il represents one node or leaf of the tree, leaves having the coils connected to their A/B inputs/outputs instead of other modules. In the next drawings, the modules and coils are represented this way : Here are the internals connections made by the module in all configurations :
Finally, here are 4 examples with 2, 3, 4 and 6 coils (I don't think I ever saw a guitar with more, but it probably exists somewhere). It should be enough to understand how the tree could extand indefinitely. New nodes should always be appended on the leaf at the left of the diagram, in order to keep only one coil permanently grounded. Series positions would not work properly without this. Thanks in advance to anyone who will take the time to check my drawings.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Aug 14, 2019 11:31:16 GMT -5
lamed, First, let me say that what you've done is more than just a re-working of Chris's diagrams - you've correctly re-interpreted Chris's statements into something more easily understood by the non-Engineer. (Well, probably more easily... we don't all think alike. ) For this, you get one of my rare, non-returnable and non-refundable Likes - here ya go: The only question I'd have is, why did you put up-pointing arrows beside all of the coils in your examples? The confusion here is almost obvious - you also used arrows of the same color and nearly the same length for the switch positions.... how's a reader supposed to tell the difference - or more to the point, how can he/she tell what your intentions are with those coil-arrows? Let me suggest that you simply drop them, as they don't really add anything to the drawing anyways. If you were thinking "magnetic direction (as in, North or Start, etc.), then simply use textual labels for such details. I think you'll find that to be as clear to the majority of readers, if not more so. (Further suggestion/request - don't use colors. This is supposed to be neutral, adaptable to any pickup from any company. So far, you've done a great job of that.) In closing, your reasoning for not posting to Modules first was courteous and polite, but it wasn't required. Most readers will see the "New" icon, and go to it no matter where it's posted... and participate therein, as they wish. To be sure, I'll move this entire thread to Modules in a few days, after others have had a chance to chip in. Again, good job. I'd lay decent money on a bet that ChrisK would approve. sumgai
|
|
lamed
Apprentice Shielder
Posts: 33
Likes: 6
|
Post by lamed on Aug 14, 2019 12:47:03 GMT -5
l The only question I'd have is, why did you put up-pointing arrows beside all of the coils in your examples? The confusion here is almost obvious - you also used arrows of the same color and nearly the same length for the switch positions.... how's a reader supposed to tell the difference - or more to the point, how can he/she tell what your intentions are with those coil-arrows? Let me suggest that you simply drop them, as they don't really add anything to the drawing anyways. If you were thinking "magnetic direction (as in, North or Start, etc.), then simply use textual labels for such details. I think you'll find that to be as clear to the majority of readers, if not more so. (Further suggestion/request - don't use colors. This is supposed to be neutral, adaptable to any pickup from any company. So far, you've done a great job of that.) This confusions probably stems from some confusion in my mind about coil representation in diagrams.
What I was trying to do is to provide a representation of the direction in which the signal will go through the coil (thinking of the signal as something that goes from ground to hot, which I'm note sure is a correct way to think of something that is made of alternative current). I tried to clarify that in the second drawing : the arrow goes from the side of the coil you would connect to the ground side in a simple, static wiring diagram, to the side you would connect to the hot side. Off course, it's up to the reader to decide what wille be in/out oh phase and/or hum cancelling or not with what. But once he has decided that, I'd like him to be able to wire his pickup without having to redo simulation of the circuit behaviour to remember which side goes to ground/hot.
I guess I should swap for text labels, but I need your help to decide which one would be better. Here are some things that puzzle me regarding conventions around coil orientation. I seem to have a curious way to think about it. Hopefully you could help me learn to think about this in a more conventional way. 1) Seymour ducan ( Here) are talking about "coil start" and "coil finish", but when wiring a humbucker in series, they wire ground->south start->south finish->north finish->north start->hot... this makes no sense to me. I would call start the point of entry of the signal and south the point where it exits. This would mean wiring coil 1 finish to coil 2 start. 2) On his diagrams, Chris did mark one end of the coils with a dot, but the dot indentifies the two ends of coil that end up connected together and have nothing to do with the signal direction. Here, I realise my way of thinking is either unconventional or downright bogus... 3) You talk about "magnetic direction". I do not exactly understand what you mean. The magnatic field in a pickup is perpendicular to the coil, and it interacts with the direction in which the coil is wrapped. Even id we could represent clearly all that on the diagram, it's up to the reader to decide what he wants (in or out of phase, etc). I only wants to point what will be on the 'ground side' and what will be on the 'hot side' when the pickup is active. I don't know if If this post is very clear. Expressing things which confuse you is sometimes hard, especially in a foreign language. Please let me know if this makes no sense. I'll try to explain it another way.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Aug 14, 2019 15:40:07 GMT -5
lamed,
No worries, I'm on board with everything you said.
First, you are correct in that people learn the same basic theories in many different ways. I'm not always correct, according to some folks, but in point of fact, I'm suffering from a classic education as an Electrical Engineer. Thankfully, I've managed to grow old enough to not really care anymore about how someone thinks about a given topic. I've learned that there can be more than one correct way to interpret things. (Which should be a required learning experience in college!!)
Chris and I had more than a few go-rounds, way back when, about things like that dot. Some of our exchanges were public, but most were private. Up until he passed away, about half of the PMs I received were from Chris. Sometimes he pulled me around to his way of thinking, sometimes not. This is one of those times that he did, but for obscure reasons.
You rightly pointed out that using DC polarity (+ and -) for an AC signal seems to be wrong. But what's really happening is that the symbols are meant to be taken as "a snapshot in time". At one instant, the signal on one end of the coil is, for example, positive with respect to the other end of that same coil. Additionally, when we speak of more than one coil in some combination, we like to refer to "polarity" as a method of describing a single instant in time for comparing two (or more) pickups. In this manner, we can assure that they are in phase or out of phase, as desired.
For the above reason, I prefer + and - as labels for pickup wires. A dot usually denotes +, but as ChrisK showed us, that's subject to some discussion. The best thing I can tell you right now is that you should search around The NutzHouse, looking for threads/topics about "reverse wiring a humbucker" (or "inverted wiring"). This should give you insight as to polarity, and also to magnetic direction.
HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Aug 14, 2019 16:28:08 GMT -5
On diagrams with significant complexity or phasing, I like some kind of symbol to show which end would go to hot if that coil was in a normal, all-in-phase circuit. Could be an arrow, a + or a dot, with a note to explain. This is not consistently the same as start and finish.
Also, on the last diagrams, the switches with 5 lugs shown are a bit of a puzzle. Better to show them with 6 lugs (if that is what they have, as dpdt), with appropriate wire between lugs.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Aug 14, 2019 19:49:35 GMT -5
..... Also, on the last diagrams, the switches with 5 lugs shown are a bit of a puzzle. Better to show them with 6 lugs (if that is what they have, as dpdt), with appropriate wire between lugs. And there we have it, a potential problem in the running. John, I too was sorely tempted to holler "Bogus!", at first sight. Why didn't I? Well, you can take it as Gospel that I got burned too often and too thoroughly by angeIsbunny, calling out what I thought were ill-prepared shortcuts. And after being chastised, I realized that I was deeply misinterpreting 'bunny's drawings. So...... Applying that hindsight in foresight here, I took a second, closer look. Turns out that those aren't switches, they'are "black box" representations of the very first diagram. In that first diagram, the innards of the black box are clearly revealed, and appropriate labels are given for the external terminals. Now go back and trace each "multiple" diagram with the labels firmly in mind, and things start to gel. Quite nicely in fact. While this is what we Nutz might call unorthodox, it certainly is correct. And lamed is absolutely spot-on - we all tend to look at things slightly differently. If re-jiggering ChrisK's work helped him "get it", then who's to say no one else will be helped by this exposition. I'm glad for his contribution to the Lore, and I hope he lays more such on us Nutz. HTH sumgai
|
|
lamed
Apprentice Shielder
Posts: 33
Likes: 6
|
Post by lamed on Aug 15, 2019 3:30:14 GMT -5
I replaces the arrows by + signs on the hot side of the coils.
I guess my way of thinking about all this takes its origins in my training in computer science :
- usage of 'building blocks' that are defined by what they do rather by how they do it (the module here, procedures/functions in programming). Define the behaviour of the module, then forget about how it works when using it. Various internal implementations are interchangeable as long as they respect the specification (given here by the third drawing which shows the behaviour of the module in all input configurations);
- thinking of binary tree as large structures that are built and browsed by recursive/iterative procedures. Every node/leaf should share a common structure (in order to iterate a function on them, compare them to order or balance the tree, etc).
So I'm naturally drawn to define a common structure to all the nodes of the tree, thus adding a 'main output' pin rather than using ChrisK more elegant/economic wiring. Also, seeing a 4 coils exemple and knowing that a tree is involved, I can't help to wonder how that would look with ten humbuckers, even if the situation will never arise. I needed to find a way to represent this easily in my mind.
EDIT : I added a 3 coils example to show how the model handles odd numbers of coils. I tend to forget about strats...
|
|