|
Post by antigua on Jun 18, 2017 20:20:22 GMT -5
Here is another Super55 test, for this one I made the polarity of all six magnetic south up.
pole____offset__raw_____adjusted ________0.5_____-40_____2__** E_______1_______-33_____9__********* ________1.5_____-34_____8__******** A_______2_______-33_____9__********* ________2.5_____-36_____6__****** D_______3_D_____-34_____8__******** ________3.5_____-42_____0__ G_______4_G_____-31_____11_*********** ________4.5_____-36_____6__****** B_______5_______-30_____12_************ ________5.5_____-34_____8__******** E_______6_______-29_____13_************* ________6.5_____-36_____6__******
Even with this configuration, there is a big drop at dead center, and it even seems to me that it's a more acute drop than with the reverse polarity configuration in which they come stock. There is not as steep of drop off over the D and G poles, compared to the neighboring pole pieces.
It looks like the freshly charged AlNiCo pole pieces increased the overall strength of the pole pieces by 100 gauss. Pole pieces that had read around 1,000 now read 1,100. They had been sitting for a half hour between charging and testing. That might account for the overall higher output as well, and it might account for larger valleys in between the pole pieces, which is especially evident between the G B and E strings.
This configuration is still humbucking, because the coils are still out of phase with each other. Of course there is still a dead spot in the middle, because even though the magnets are the same polarity, each coil generates voltage out of phase with the other, so the string is canceled out in the same manner that noise is cancelled out.
Once again, I tried the pickup through an amp with the pickup mounted over the guitar, and I think it sounds better, and I think the reason is that the G and D strings are now a little more even with all the other strings, making for a more full sound. The fresh charge on the AlNiCo 5 poles might be brightening up the tone as well.
When I do a string bend, I'm hearing what the numbers are showing, and that's that the drop in volume at the center is a) more severe, and b) comes on more abruptly. The configuration turns the dead spot from a wide valley into more of a deep, narrow canyon.
Overall, this is a lose-lose situation, because one way you trade string balance for usability, and the other way you trade usability for string balance. With all the magnets all in the same orientation, it really does sound like a proper Strat pickup while humbucking, more "Strat like" than a stacked humbucker, or a blade design, such as "Vintage Rails". If someone never does String bends in their playing though, this might be the closest anyone can get to a true humbucking layout, which still genuinely sounds Strat-like.
|
|
frankfalbo
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 74
Likes: 1
|
Post by frankfalbo on Jun 19, 2017 10:14:51 GMT -5
Evans pickups made bridge-only single width linear humbuckers. That's okay I suppose, but the tonality of the G and D are being altered quite a bit by entering the other coil (in either polarity) The middle two strings always sound combed. Less so in the offset G&L Z-Coil arrangement.
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Jun 19, 2017 11:07:49 GMT -5
Here's a design that might work, have one coil around the low E and A poles, and another coil around the D G B E poles. The smaller coil around the low E and A would need more winds in order to achieve humbucking with the larger coil, and that might cause the low E and A to be louder than the D G B E, unless something is done to de-emphasize them. You could possibly use A5 in the larger coil and A2 in the smaller one, the A2 would also boost the inductance somewhat, while reducing the Br strength relative to the A5s in the other wise. Since you rarely bend strings in between the A and D, that should be much less of an issue. It might be worth a try.
I'd also suggest having all the pole pieces oriented in the same direction, because if you have to choose between a magnetic valley that sucks energy away from the A and D strings, or an abrupt drop off at dead center, the abrupt drop off is much better. IMO, this renders a genuine Strat sound, where as the magnetic valley caused by a flipped polarity creates a string to string balance that is not Strat-like.
|
|
|
Post by ms on Jun 19, 2017 12:07:46 GMT -5
Evans pickups made bridge-only single width linear humbuckers. That's okay I suppose, but the tonality of the G and D are being altered quite a bit by entering the other coil (in either polarity) The middle two strings always sound combed. Less so in the offset G&L Z-Coil arrangement. That is why you use six coils and alternate polarities between every coil for a bridge pickup. The total inductance is lowered a bit my the mutual couplings, and so you get a bit higher resonance that might be expected. But it is easy to wind a few more turns if you like.
|
|
frankfalbo
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 74
Likes: 1
|
Post by frankfalbo on Jun 19, 2017 15:51:47 GMT -5
That is why you use six... That's why who does what? I don't make or advocate for any linear humbucker designs for any position, nor do I believe something is to be gained from individual string coils aside from polyphonic output. The crosstalk alone, as evidenced by one of the "one pole in a coil" experiments on this very board illustrate that there is more lost (altered from the user expectation) than gained.
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Jun 19, 2017 16:10:55 GMT -5
Well, looking at the Zexcoil with this new awareness, it appears that it cleverly arranges pole pieces in a way that makes magnetic nulls a non-issue by reading the string twice, with different polarities, when you perform a string bend. When the string is standing, it bisects a single pole piece, but as you bend it, it crosses over the adjacent blade with an offset distance. It looks like the Zexcoil does, across all size poles, what this Fralin design does in the middle: The Zexcoil gets good reviews, but I still have questions about the Q factor and flux density at the pole tops, due to the use of steel pole pieces with neo mags below. The real promise of the Super55 is that it got those details correct. This design actually looks pretty good, from that perspective. I'm curious to know how much drop off there is in the center.
|
|
frankfalbo
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 74
Likes: 1
|
Post by frankfalbo on Jun 19, 2017 16:15:59 GMT -5
I'm curious to know how much drop off there is in the center. As I alluded, in a design like Salo's it's optimized but not totally eliminated. Fralin's, also very good, still exhibits anomaly across the center.
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Jun 19, 2017 16:20:41 GMT -5
I'm curious to know how much drop off there is in the center. As I alluded, in a design like Salo's it's optimized but not totally eliminated. Fralin's, also very good, still exhibits anomaly across the center. I don't think it's important that the effect be totally eliminated, only that it be reduced enough to not bother the average guitarist.
|
|
|
Post by ms on Jun 19, 2017 16:24:34 GMT -5
That is why you use six... That's why who does what? I don't make or advocate for any linear humbucker designs for any position, nor do I believe something is to be gained from individual string coils aside from polyphonic output. The crosstalk alone, as evidenced by one of the "one pole in a coil" experiments on this very board illustrate that there is more lost (altered from the user expectation) than gained The "you" is not you, Frank F, but general purpose, as in "that is why one uses.." The cross track is not really an issue in making a six coil in line bridge pickup. The purpose of the six coils is to allow the polarities to be reversed in a way that avoids problems. (A reduction in the permanent field value is not an issue since you can make up for that.) You can believe what you want, but it is the facts that matter. (For me, the six cols is also a way to make it convenient to get a high Q pickup.) So you do not "believe" that the Zexcoil "original" with six slanted blade coils avoids the "DG" problem to a useful extent?
|
|
frankfalbo
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 74
Likes: 1
|
Post by frankfalbo on Jun 19, 2017 18:01:06 GMT -5
You can believe what you want, but it is the facts that matter. (For me, the six cols is also a way to make it convenient to get a high Q pickup.) Sure, and the facts are that even antigua posted an experiment on off-axis crosstalk that he conceded produced more amplitude than he anticipated. That dB delta, between the under string pole and the neighboring pole, simply has no option but to manifest itself as combing in some way. You can say its not enough to hear, it doesn't matter, I don't care because I want a target Q or noise cancelling, or even that the anomalies it imparts are beneficial and you prefer them. And that's totally fine. Agree to disagree, hold hands, kumbaya, whatever. What you can't say is that it's an exact match to the vintage strat pickup's magnetic engagement. That would be silly. Something different is occurring in the signal of an inverted/summed individual string pickup vs one master coil. We're not arguing whether its marketable, affordable to produce, or has some other desirable net gain, just that it's not the same, which brings me to the following: So you do not "believe" that the Zexcoil "original" with six slanted blade coils avoids the "DG" problem to a useful extent? I figured this might come up. I'll try to unpack it best I can. Everything I'm about to say about Zexcoil should be interpreted positively. This is not a dis thread. The Zexcoil pickups succeed at what they attempted, which is a new and different pickup that has some salient features and benefits unavailable elsewhere. Your distilled question is whether it avoids the D/G problem to a useful extent. They DO in fact avoid the crossover issue, to whatever degree he found acceptable. And for the sake of the discussion lets say he 100% solved the D/G crossover issue within the context of his design. It's not relevant. I need you to park that to the side a moment. As a player, I've always been able to tell the difference between the feel of different pole piece types and materials. It's not about the resonant peak. It's about how the pickup communicates transients and polyphony. I think Scott would even agree, even though he might consider his magnetic circuit an improvement over a Vintage Strat. Let's for a second say that you might think that's nonsense, antigua might think blades vs poles are insignificant because the dB drop isn't that much...again, agree to disagree if that's the case. In fact, let's say people are hearing with their eyeballs! What Salo and Zexcoil fail to do is put the same magnetic interaction beneath the strings that the die hard Strat fan wants, or thinks they want, or simply demands cosmetically. In that way, and only in that way, I am saying neither are "useful" to someone in the engineering department at Fender, who is calling out for a traditional looking Strat pickup. The stack designs (although I'm not a fan of the sound of Fender's offerings) succeed in this regard, and their market acceptance validates Fender's design requirement. In the same way, stacks from Dimarzio, Kinman, Duncan, et al succeed at this as well.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Honkmeister on Jun 19, 2017 19:42:24 GMT -5
You can believe what you want, but it is the facts that matter. (For me, the six cols is also a way to make it convenient to get a high Q pickup.) ... Something different is occurring in the signal of an inverted/summed individual string pickup vs one master coil. We're not arguing whether its marketable, affordable to produce, or has some other desirable net gain, just that it's not the same, which brings me to the following: So you do not "believe" that the Zexcoil "original" with six slanted blade coils avoids the "DG" problem to a useful extent? ... As a player, I've always been able to tell the difference between the feel of different pole piece types and materials. It's not about the resonant peak. It's about how the pickup communicates transients and polyphony.... What Salo and Zexcoil fail to do is put the same magnetic interaction beneath the strings that the die hard Strat fan wants, or thinks they want, or simply demands cosmetically. In that way, and only in that way, I am saying neither are "useful" to someone in the engineering department at Fender, who is calling out for a traditional looking Strat pickup. The stack designs (although I'm not a fan of the sound of Fender's offerings) succeed in this regard, and their market acceptance validates Fender's design requirement. In the same way, stacks from Dimarzio, Kinman, Duncan, et al succeed at this as well. Frank, you're right about the die-hard Strat fans. Many of them actually put up with the hum because they are convinced that nothing replaces a "vintage" type Strat single-coil and don't want to change anything, including even the vintage pole piece stagger (which we know isn't optimum for modern strings and fingerboard radius) and bevel. The current crop of top-shelf stack designs starting with Kinman about 15 years ago, is very good as you say, but if you are talking about dynamics, attack, and some subjective "response" qualities that the "die hard" Strat single coil player is looking for, all stacks AFAIK are just a little bit sonically different in small but noticeable ways to a certain percentage of players. Fender has come out with several generations of "noiseless" stack designs and if something along the way pleased everyone, they most likely would not have had to continue R&D on stacks. But they all look conventional, or have just a plain cover without pole pieces on purpose, as you are pointing out. Your other implied point is well taken, that even if the design were better in every way, that any difference at all , either visually, or dynamic response/tone wise, from the subjective view of what a "vintage" Strat pickup should be, would be singled out and picked upon by a certain percentage of players. Scott Lawing acknowledged in an interview at Winter NAMM that the original Zexcoil visual appearance, with slots in the cover, was polarizing and turned a certain percentage of the players off. The new Z-Series has a solid cover with an embossed "Z" pattern that disappears at more than a foot or two away. Solid covers are probably more acceptable to a larger percentage of players than slots or "odd" pole piece configurations.
|
|
|
Post by ms on Jun 19, 2017 19:46:02 GMT -5
You can believe what you want, but it is the facts that matter. (For me, the six cols is also a way to make it convenient to get a high Q pickup.) ... That dB delta, between the under string pole and the neighboring pole, simply has no option but to manifest itself as combing in some way. From your use of that term on this forum before, I think by "combing", you mean periodic changes in the frequency response, as implied in the term "comb filter". Such a response can be generated by the summation of two versions of a signal where one has been inverted and delayed with the respect with the other. There is no physical mechanism in this situation that can cause a delay that is long enough in duration to produce a such a response. There is no comb response.
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Jun 19, 2017 20:36:48 GMT -5
... That dB delta, between the under string pole and the neighboring pole, simply has no option but to manifest itself as combing in some way. From your use of that term on this forum before, I think by "combing", you mean periodic changes in the frequency response, as implied in the term "comb filter". Such a response can be generated by the summation of two versions of a signal where one has been inverted and delayed with the respect with the other. There is no physical mechanism in this situation that can cause a delay that is long enough in duration to produce a such a response. There is no comb response. I don't think there is any way for comb filtering to be present. When talking about comp filtering as it related to pickups, the issue isn't a delayed signal overlapping itself, instead it's the physical fact of having the same signal inputted twice at two or more locations along the length of the guitar string, and these inputs are not in phase with each other, and the degree to which they are out of phase is frequency dependent. These designs all interact with the guitar string at a single location along the length of the string. What is happening is purely signal cancellation, with no respect top frequency, hence no comb filtering.
|
|
|
Post by ms on Jun 19, 2017 21:18:20 GMT -5
From your use of that term on this forum before, I think by "combing", you mean periodic changes in the frequency response, as implied in the term "comb filter". Such a response can be generated by the summation of two versions of a signal where one has been inverted and delayed with the respect with the other. There is no physical mechanism in this situation that can cause a delay that is long enough in duration to produce a such a response. There is no comb response. I don't think there is any way for comb filtering to be present. When talking about comp filtering as it related to pickups, the issue isn't a delayed signal overlapping itself, instead it's the physical fact of having the same signal inputted twice at two or more locations along the length of the guitar string, and these inputs are not in phase with each other, and the degree to which they are out of phase is frequency dependent. These designs all interact with the guitar string at a single location along the length of the string. What is happening is purely signal cancellation, with no respect top frequency, hence no comb filtering. In the case of the six coil in line bridge pickup that I mentioned, the pickup is slanted, and so adjacent poles are located at a slightly different location along the string. But it is less than the diameter of a pole piece.
|
|
frankfalbo
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 74
Likes: 1
|
Post by frankfalbo on Jun 19, 2017 21:26:35 GMT -5
The current crop of top-shelf stack designs starting with Kinman about 15 years ago, is very good as you say, but if you are talking about dynamics, attack, and some subjective "response" qualities that the "die hard" Strat single coil player is looking for, all stacks AFAIK are just a little bit sonically different in small but noticeable ways to a certain percentage of players. Exactly. I'm not saying they're nailing it either. Just that in criteria most important to the mainstream market, they are better than a linear design, whether we're talking about straight pole alignment, or angled, or blades. There is no comb response. Okay there, champ. These designs all interact with the guitar string at a single location along the length of the string. What is happening is purely signal cancellation, with no respect top frequency, hence no comb filtering. You sure about that? How far away from a given pole did the string have to get before it stopped producing any audio? You're contradicting your own published results. Not to mention,you're telling me that on the Super55, as you bend the G string into the void between the coils, that the tone doesn't change AT ALL? You're telling me that the only thing that happens is a straight volume reduction? If you can't hear it, get your ebow out and record a note, then bend it into the void while drop tuning so it's the same pitch. Then look at the frequency content.
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Jun 19, 2017 21:40:42 GMT -5
Frank, you're right about the die-hard Strat fans. Many of them actually put up with the hum because they are convinced that nothing replaces a "vintage" type Strat single-coil and don't want to change anything, including even the vintage pole piece stagger (which we know isn't optimum for modern strings and fingerboard radius) and bevel. The current crop of top-shelf stack designs starting with Kinman about 15 years ago, is very good as you say, but if you are talking about dynamics, attack, and some subjective "response" qualities that the "die hard" Strat single coil player is looking for, all stacks AFAIK are just a little bit sonically different in small but noticeable ways to a certain percentage of players. Fender has come out with several generations of "noiseless" stack designs and if something along the way pleased everyone, they most likely would not have had to continue R&D on stacks. But they all look conventional, or have just a plain cover without pole pieces on purpose, as you are pointing out. I like the look or traditional staggered pole pieces, but something I haven't seen any alternative designs do is achieve a measured 1000 gauss at the pole tops. We can't prove it's necessary, but we can't really prove it isn't, either. Stacked designs to satisfy that criteria, although they do come up short in the opinions of many, including myself. It's a mystery why stacks sound "bad". As with the Super55 / Zexcoil, there should be no comb filtering, only signal loss. The sense I get with stacks is that, in addition to sounding quieter than true single, due to amplitude loss, they have a muted attack, and seem "compressed". They remind me of Lace Sensors to some extent. I have a few stacks on hand, I think I ought to try some test with and without the lower coil in circuit so see if any difference emerge. The difficult thing about these tests is that I don't even really have a hypotheses, so I don't know what I should be looking for, and what I should be trying to isolate. One thing that confuses me about the pick attack is whether or not there is an increase in output when the coil is closer to the string, because the string comes physically closer to the coil. With an exciter coil, you can crank up the output, but the exciter never moves. With a regular guitar string the "exciter" guitar string is not stationary, and immediately after being plucked it gets closer at certain stages of its cycle, as as the string's energy decays, it slowly returns to a stationary position. I wonder if for that reason there is a difference in attack characteristic based on the distance between the coil and string. If this is true, it could factor into a stacked humbucker, because that lower coil is set to a difference from the strings than the upper coil.
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Jun 19, 2017 21:44:37 GMT -5
These designs all interact with the guitar string at a single location along the length of the string. What is happening is purely signal cancellation, with no respect top frequency, hence no comb filtering. You sure about that? How far away from a given pole did the string have to get before it stopped producing any audio? You're contradicting your own published results. Not to mention,you're telling me that on the Super55, as you bend the G string into the void between the coils, that the tone doesn't change AT ALL? You're telling me that the only thing that happens is a straight volume reduction? If you can't hear it, get your ebow out and record a note, then bend it into the void while drop tuning so it's the same pitch. Then look at the frequency content. As I explained, the string is bisected at a single point by the Super55. What mechanism do you believe can cause a phase shift? You need to achieve a phase shift in order to get comb filtering. With a humbucker you get it by sampling the string at two different points along its length. How would it work in this case? When I bent the string over the center, I didn't observe any overt changes in the tone, it sounded like a drop off in amplitude.
|
|
|
Post by ms on Jun 19, 2017 22:25:22 GMT -5
There is no comb response. Okay there, champ. I explained how I understood "comb". So you meant something else; no need too get sarcastic. The change in tone when the string is in the region between the pole pieces that have inverted polarity is interesting. Maybe the negative mutual coupling causes additional loss from partial cancelation. The effect of mutual coupling increases with increasing frequency.
|
|
frankfalbo
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 74
Likes: 1
|
Post by frankfalbo on Jun 19, 2017 22:47:48 GMT -5
I'm from Chicago, sarcasm is my jam.
I know I come back to this often, but when you have the ability to "look at" every single layer of 1-100+ vertically stacked coils, whether a pole penetrates the entire core or just the ones you'd like to generate audio....what it looks like to invert coils at the bottom....they do not simply result in amplitude drop. Even a wire wound stack...even a wire wound stack that's actively buffered/blended so loading isn't a variable...even if they are wound dead equal...they do not sound the same, nor do they live in the same timespace.
Now, even if we divorce ourselves from timespace, any places where the frequency content of a top coil, or a neighboring coil, is not a 100% match with the other coil, whether by off axis flux disturbance (I know you love that word) results in what I can safely refer to a combing when the signal is phase inverted. Technically there are pluses and minuses, but since the overall volume drops when adding a bottom coil (even actively) they're all net losses.
You seem to believe a wire wound coil contains no smearing; no group delay, that everything down to the electron level occupies one space in time and is all immediate. That there is no rise time, for example. That's fine. Carry on.
I say none of these things with pride, I stand on the shoulders of giants. And I always believe there is something more to learn and understand about these matters.
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Jun 19, 2017 23:55:28 GMT -5
You seem to believe a wire wound coil contains no smearing; no group delay, that everything down to the electron level occupies one space in time and is all immediate. That there is no rise time, for example. That's fine. Carry on. Look at it this way: for a single coil, at no point in time is magnetic flux increasing through one loop of a coil while simultaneously decreasing in another loop. Even though the displacement of flux is smaller at the farthest loop than the closest loop, the phase of this increase and decrease cycle is perfectly in tandem.
|
|
|
Post by ms on Jun 20, 2017 6:17:02 GMT -5
I'm from Chicago, sarcasm is my jam. I know I come back to this often, but when you have the ability to "look at" every single layer of 1-100+ vertically stacked coils, whether a pole penetrates the entire core or just the ones you'd like to generate audio....what it looks like to invert coils at the bottom....they do not simply result in amplitude drop. Even a wire wound stack...even a wire wound stack that's actively buffered/blended so loading isn't a variable...even if they are wound dead equal...they do not sound the same, nor do they live in the same timespace. Now, even if we divorce ourselves from timespace, any places where the frequency content of a top coil, or a neighboring coil, is not a 100% match with the other coil, whether by off axis flux disturbance (I know you love that word) results in what I can safely refer to a combing when the signal is phase inverted. Technically there are pluses and minuses, but since the overall volume drops when adding a bottom coil (even actively) they're all net losses. You seem to believe a wire wound coil contains no smearing; no group delay, that everything down to the electron level occupies one space in time and is all immediate. That there is no rise time, for example. That's fine. Carry on. I say none of these things with pride, I stand on the shoulders of giants. And I always believe there is something more to learn and understand about these matters. Oh, so I was right the first time. You do mean "comb" in the time delay sense. No, those effects you describe in your second to last paragraph do not exist. This is audio, not UHF. The complete analysis consist of finding the voltage around each loop of wire with the law of magnetic induction, putting them all in series, and then using circuit analysis to determine the total response. Circuit analysis requires the inductances, capacitances, and resistances, the laws connecting them together and to sources. You do not need additional parameters, such as group delay. Of course you can treat the pickup system as a filter and compute its group delay as a function of frequency, but that is further analysis of the result, not new information.
|
|
frankfalbo
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 74
Likes: 1
|
Post by frankfalbo on Jun 20, 2017 8:33:15 GMT -5
You were neither wrong nor right. I already said you can divorce this discussion from time and still have a net combing effect from phase inversion and the frequency content of summed coils, whether in line to the side, or bottom coils of a stack.
I know what I know; what I've seen. I don't really care to argue anything about the time constant with you or anyone. Bottom line, you can't make a 6-banger, even for the bridge position, that will sound and feel like a vintage single. If you think you can, send it to me and I'll give it a play test.
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Jun 20, 2017 10:57:06 GMT -5
I the spirit of this being a forum about sharing data, I would like to see some experimental evidence demonstrating this group delay, or novel comb effect. Some forums are content to just talk wistfully about such things, but in a forum called "Pickup Testing and Modelling" our motto should be "data or it didn't happen".
If one doesn't have the tools on hand to conduct an experiment, a helpful alternative would be to describe a test setup that could theoretically allow for the data to be collected.
|
|
frankfalbo
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 74
Likes: 1
|
Post by frankfalbo on Jun 20, 2017 12:58:17 GMT -5
I don't know, wind a bunch of 5TPL microcoils? Conduct a test where you record transient signal independently from each one? Analyze them separately, as well as summed in and out of phase?
If disclosure is one of your rules, then just say you'd rather I deactivate my account. I can try to lead you places, point out wrong conclusions...but I work for people who provide for my family, that rightfully own their IP.
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Jun 20, 2017 14:52:12 GMT -5
I don't know, wind a bunch of 5TPL microcoils? Conduct a test where you record transient signal independently from each one? Analyze them separately, as well as summed in and out of phase? OK, keep going.. I have five little coils, I pluck a string above them, or induce a magnetic pulse, I records them all, perhaps with a multitrack recording setup, what do you hypothesize that I will find upon doing so? I even have some stacked humbuckers on hand, I could tap into each coil, and record their respective signals as a stereo recording. Even though this would be a relatively easy test to configure, I'm still reluctant to do it, because I have such little faith that it will do anything other than what physics dictates will happen. It's such an easy set up that even you should be able to find time to do it, if you really care about finding and sharing these truths.
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jun 21, 2017 5:34:24 GMT -5
ff-
We do not require this sort of disclosure. We do ask that, if someone comes to the Board looking for help solving a problem, that if the request is in connection with a person's commercial endeavors, that the person be up front about it. This is so that others who may decide to help the requestor don't end up feeling "used" when the requestor later markets a product based on advice they received here. This has happened on at least two occasions here in the past, and there were some hard feelings.
Even in such cases (which is not, apparently, the situation here at all), we don't ask a person to disclose any IP, just that the person states generally at the outset that "I plan to make and sell something using this idea" or some such, just to let others know the advice sought is not just for personal use.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jun 21, 2017 23:25:38 GMT -5
I don't know, wind a bunch of 5TPL microcoils? Conduct a test where you record transient signal independently from each one? Analyze them separately, as well as summed in and out of phase? OK, keep going.. I have five little coils, I pluck a string above them, or induce a magnetic pulse, I records them all, perhaps with a multitrack recording setup, what do you hypothesize that I will find upon doing so? I even have some stacked humbuckers on hand, I could tap into each coil, and record their respective signals as a stereo recording. Even though this would be a relatively easy test to configure, I'm still reluctant to do it, because I have such little faith that it will do anything other than what physics dictates will happen. It's such an easy set up that even you should be able to find time to do it, if you really care about finding and sharing these truths. It seems to me, that claims that apply to a broad category of devices can't fall under the disclosure restrictions of IP concerning a proprietary device. If a claim really concerns every device in a broad category, an experiment should be able to be constructed that will demonstrate it without the use of any proprietary technology. If it cannot be demonstrated without the proprietary technology, then it almost certainly does not apply to other similar devices at large. That would be an indication that the claim only manifests itself in the proprietary device. If a phenomenon can be demonstrated, it does not follow automatically that a technique to eliminate or enhance it must simultaneously be demonstrated. Thus a reticence to demonstrate such a phenomenon convincingly, has the appearance and character of hand waving.
|
|
|
Post by stratotarts on Jun 21, 2017 23:45:26 GMT -5
The inter-coil cancellation is very interesting. Where else is anybody digging into things like that an publishing it? Nowhere, that's where. Keep up the great work, I wish I could contribute but I'm too busy these days. I do always come back here to read up on what's going on.
|
|