Seymour's new cryo-silver pickup

[Xaar]

But Duncan doesn't have to document anything for the public. Neither does DiMarzio or Bill Lawrence. That's proprietary R&D.

David, this is intriguing, because, first of all it's true that it would be completely unheard of to have designers put flat on the table all their ideas, concepts, applications, tweaks and tricks. Secondly, you cited L. Dimarzio who remains silent as a tomb and lets artists under contract boast the merits of his new products. Anyways, I read all of Dimarzio's patents up to now so it palliates for his lack of explanations, and from what I've read, besides a few mildy innovative ideas, there's a lot of bull in the air as well (reading patents can be fun sometimes).
Bill Lawrence aka Willy Stich, sure he doesn't tell you why and how he engineered his samarium-cobalt pu's for fender, but he certainly did DEBUNK a whole lot of nonsense like "handwinding" , and a few tips for beginners like "DC resistance means sh*t all, we're talking impedance and frequency response " etc etc.
A short FAQ that isn't seen on SD's site, oddly.

That has nothing to do with pickup making. Have you designed and made any original pickups yourself? If you have, show the goods. If not, you don't have a foot to stand on. You can cite all the websites you want, but none of them had anything to do with pickup making.

I should remain silent and refrain form asking questions or criticizing unless I show my pickups? Hell no. That's a personal choice. It's a "guitar pickup contest" here or what?

This means that cryogenic treatment will incrementally change the sound of a guitar pickup if it has alnico and/or a soft magnetic alloy such as steel or 440 stainless.

Whether or not the change is desirable or practical ($$$) is up to the builder.

Search on "cryogenic treatment, magnetic permeability" to confirm that this has been studied and confirmed in the laboratory.

@Salvarsan

440C steel is not a standard as a soft magnetic. If it's magnetic properties are altered through cryogenics anealing, there are hundreds of other steels already available that would correspond as a perfect equivalent in pickup use. Why? Because you can already bar from the list unimportant properties such as magnetostriction, heat dissipation, etc, which gives a list with much more equivalencies.

What I was "fighting" was the thought that cryo would instill some kind of unknown property (apart from crystal lattice mods) in PU slugs, akin to what some sites faked to explain concerining cryo treated hifi parts. But here you're merely telling me that a martensitic alloy has it's permeability augmented . Hooray. A true novelty.

I call poor engineering taking a common stainless and passing through an expensive treatment when you could choose an alloy taylored for transformator use, with the exact amount of whatever magnetic value you'r looking for. Mumetal is a misnomer, there are many variations of mumetal, different purities and grades of nickel and so on.

Salvarsan, all this steel business is in fact unimportant, since I've repeated MANY times on this same forum that cryo treatment is a reality in the steel industry (especially for grain refining.. bis repetita placent) . Ferromagneti materials ALWAYS see their magnetic properties modified along with ccrystaline/phase modifications. It's firts year level once again.
Even uneducated swordsmiths perform magnet-sticking tests to test phase changes
while heating the steel (instead of relying on visual heating color).

The problem with cryo treatment is not the steel or the nickel, but the so called effects on cryo treated silver. And THAT and only that is what I pointed ou in my posts.


Of course, I'm still waiting for you or your friends to point out to me a paper showing these supposed radical conduction and still unexplained modified properties in cryo treated silver (and please donot give me links pertaining to superconductors, they're not cryo treated, everything remains at cryo temp) .
Ive seen non up to now.
Unfortunately I have to justify myself with long speeches because some people call me close minded or deform my point of view.

But of course you start with something you like. Then you let people try it, and get feedback. Then you make changes. That's how I work. But I start with something I like and would use. How else are you going to do it?

I could not agree more, you're resuming all history of science and discoveries, basically. and repeating what I've said earlier: scientists always started their research with a personal idea or goal in mind, and sometimes to confront opposing theories as a challenge.
But pickup making is about taste, so theory can lie back if the result is good. Sure, but lying to the customer and telling him that the sound could be achieved only by putting the product through expensive finishing processes and exotic materials is misleading.

From our conversations here I can say that Mike doesn't feel that oddly shaped pole pieces matter, or that the flux is coming from the pole peices, and instead they merely magnetize the strings.

David, are you joking? Flux NOT coming out the polepieces? It comes out of the whole pickup (because true magnetic shields do not exist, all materials let magnetic flux pass through more or less ) ... but the polepieces channel most of it!
anyways, this FEMM program Mike cited seems an interesting soft to "have an idea", I'm not going to model entire pickups, these softs are usually intended for the transfo industry aka designs with little or no human appreciation involved. I have a few ideas to check by simulation . Why? to link different flux paths and shapes to different sounds obtained on the same design (apart from that detail) by changing the shape with the the polepiece (s) . I must verify if it is truly a negligible mod or worth investigating further (I always left that detail out of the equation and it's time to see if I'm wrong or not, especially with the weird shapes/array of polepieces I have in mind)

[WolfeMacleod]

Even uneducated swordsmiths perform magnet-sticking tests to test phase changes
while heating the steel (instead of relying on visual heating color).

I just wanted to point out that starting when I was 13 or thereabouts, I became a swordmith and worked daily at it till 1994. About ten years.

[Xaar]

I just wanted to point out that starting when I was 13 or thereabouts, I became a swordmith and worked daily at it till 1994. About ten years.

That's great! you're lucky to have started so early.
When I meant uneducated I mean that some swordmiths are self taught and some repeat procedures without knowing the intrinsic implications (while others who started later in their life have a more or less solid scientific background ) , but that doesn't make them stupid, far from it. After all we're asking for reliability and mastery from a swordsmith, not crystallography and metallurgical dissertations!

I always wondered how long lasted a permanent magnet that was continually stuck onto a heated steeel bar to check it's transition temperature ...but that's off topic.

Cool to see an experienced swordsmith on the forums though!

[David Schwab]

Remember that everything you read in textbooks was brand new information once upon a time.

And much of it was argued against when first proposed!

[salvarsan]

Remember that everything you read in textbooks was brand new information once upon a time.

And much of it was argued against when first proposed!

...and some of it was irrefutable, allowing forward progress.

Every time Science advances, the Art moves that much farther.

[David Schwab]

I just wanted to point out that starting when I was 13 or thereabouts, I became a swordmith and worked daily at it till 1994. About ten years.

You should have some pickups named after swords.

[David Schwab]

...and some of it was irrefutable, allowing forward progress.

Every time Science advances, the Art moves that much farther.

Yeah, but often you have to get past the dogma. Like when Galileo was on trial, and wanted them to look through his telescope to see the four moons orbiting Jupiter, and they wouldn't even look! You still get that in science, unfortunately. Instead of following the data, you get "well that's not possible so it can't be happening". They really mean "I don't believe it's possible, so I can't accept it". Real change often comes as the older scientist die off and are replaced by new ones.

[salvarsan]

Actually, I had accepted your explanation that it was likely that the permeability of the stainless changes with cryo treatment on your say so...

Mike,
I apologize for my grumpiness toward you. No excuse.

Thesis: alloy permeability changes from cryogenic treatment because of pervasive microscopic changes in crystalline structure. S'truth, mate.

Introduction:
Steel alloys are toughened by tempering, a process in which austenitic iron carbides transform into martensitic carbides. On one level, this is a recrystallization of carbides dissolved in iron solution. Both heat tempering and cryogenic treatment give a more complete precipitation of martensite, finer crystal structure, and a more homogeneous distribution of the carbides.

A plausible search string is "martensite, cryogenic, magnetic permeability", more or less.

It surprised me to find that the more you look at it, the farther back you can find evidence.
The effect isn't just proven, it's older news than any of us expected.

Pay dirt:
This one is from NIST when it was still called National Bureau of Standards in 1971, a mere 40 years ago.

Martensite transformation detection in cryogenic steels: (magnetometer development).

Amazon wants $14 for all 40 pages, but you may be able to find it free online at U.Mich.
Their server is v.slow.

[salvarsan]

Yeah, but often you have to get past the dogma.

Arf.

It is a natural human tendency to take stubborn refuge in absolutes.
That doesn't mean we must like it.

As great a scientist as Galileo was, he was equally a flaming asshole and a loudmouth. The Church had been aware of new developments in celestial mechanics for decades but wanted a gentle dissemination of the science so as not to afright the softly lowing herd of populace. Galileo made that impossible by a direct attack on ingrained religious faith.

Galileo villainized the Church and made them hate him with predictable results: torture and house arrest.

Note the subtle differences in the following sentences:

"Your flat stationary Earth belief is stupidly evil. The Earth, it moves. It is round, rotates on axis, and revolves around the Sun. You, the Church are venally oligarchic"

"The science can no longer be ignored that God's Universe is vaster and more complicated that we once thought -- the Earth, it moves. How can we say this without scaring the masses?"

[FunkyKikuchiyo]

Arf.

It is a natural human tendency to take stubborn refuge in absolutes.
That doesn't mean we must like it.

As great a scientist as Galileo was, he was equally a flaming asshole and a loudmouth. The Church had been aware of new developments in celestial mechanics for decades but wanted a gentle dissemination of the science so as not to afright the softly lowing herd of populace. Galileo made that impossible by a direct attack on ingrained religious faith.

Galileo villainized the Church and made them hate him with predictable results: torture and house arrest.

Note the subtle differences in the following sentences:

"Your flat stationary Earth belief is stupidly evil. The Earth, it moves. It is round, rotates on axis, and revolves around the Sun. You, the Church are venally oligarchic"

"The science can no longer be ignored that God's Universe is vaster and more complicated that we once thought -- the Earth, it moves. How can we say this without scaring the masses?"

I always wondered how Galileo got shafted and Copernicus didn't get nearly as bad of treatment. One historic account I heard was that the main reason for not liking the Copernican universe was simply because Newton hadn't done his thing yet. No one could wrap their heads around the idea that the earth under our feet is actually moving. We take Newton's principles for granted today, but when he wrote Principia he wasn't just stating the obvious. New science does seem to often require a certain degree of faith: that the parts that don't make sense to us now or seem too bizarre to be true might make more sense the more we learn.

Of course, my pickups do weigh more than a duck and are okay as they are, but if cryo makes them float in water, then we DO in fact know that it is an evil process.

[bbsailor]

Arf.

It is a natural human tendency to take stubborn refuge in absolutes.
That doesn't mean we must like it.

As great a scientist as Galileo was, he was equally a flaming asshole and a loudmouth. The Church had been aware of new developments in celestial mechanics for decades but wanted a gentle dissemination of the science so as not to afright the softly lowing herd of populace. Galileo made that impossible by a direct attack on ingrained religious faith.

Galileo villainized the Church and made them hate him with predictable results: torture and house arrest.

Note the subtle differences in the following sentences:

"Your flat stationary Earth belief is stupidly evil. The Earth, it moves. It is round, rotates on axis, and revolves around the Sun. You, the Church are venally oligarchic"

"The science can no longer be ignored that God's Universe is vaster and more complicated that we once thought -- the Earth, it moves. How can we say this without scaring the masses?"

Salvarsan, and all interested,

Anytime science reveals something potentially uncomfortable to the status quo there is a tendency to "shoot the messenger". Just look at how slowly the scientifically proven global warming issues and oil dependency of a finite resource are causing any tangible movement in behavior or policy. Sometimes denial is the most politically expedient response. Therefore, how the messengers tell their story will have an impact on who listens or if anyone listens.

To have an intelligent discussion, the messenger must be aware of this social dynamic and establish a non-confrontational way to reveal new findings. Yes, there are politics in science!

I had to be very careful about how I revealed different current-transformer designs because many traditional pickup designers have a vested interest in fine wire and coil winders and all the magic that goes into making and marketing them. Science levels the playing field and tends to eventually neutralize the magic by objectivly explaining what is going on.

Pickups are complex electrical and mechanical filters that are best understood first in theory, then in the lab with trial and error with the ear being the final arbitrator. Most advances in knowledge occur with inductive flashes that motivate the experiments and data collection. Then, to prove that inductive flash to the larger scientific community, a clear deductive path must be laid to allow others to replicate the results of the initial inductive flash.

This is a valuable web forum because it provides the pickup community a way seek peer review of concepts, design ideas and finished products.

Thanks

Joseph Rogowski

[salvarsan]

I always wondered how Galileo got shafted and Copernicus didn't get nearly as bad of treatment.

The shortest story is that Galileo was a dick, and Copernicus was a well-connected diplomat, physician, and general polymath.

New science does seem to often require a certain degree of faith: that the parts that don't make sense to us now or seem too bizarre to be true might make more sense the more we learn.

Yeh. Usually it's just hard to wrap your head around a new idea.

Of course, my pickups do weigh more than a duck and are okay as they are, but if cryo makes them float in water, then we DO in fact know that it is an evil process.

Whoa, doggies! A duck is around two pounds. How big is the guitar those pickups sit inside?

[FunkyKikuchiyo]

You've never seen the Monty Python witch hunt scene? YouTube - She's a witch!

Disclaimer: watching this will turn you into a dork.

[Mike Sulzer]

Salvarsan, and all interested,
To have an intelligent discussion, the messenger must be aware of this social dynamic and establish a non-confrontational way to reveal new findings. Yes, there are politics in science!

Is there ever, but I do not see it quite the way you do. If there are powerful interests who feel financially threatened by your research, they will not be persuaded by a non-confrontational way of reveling new findings. They will not be persuaded at all, or at least not admit it. They will make sure that you have a horrible time persuading others; you cannot avoid controversy, and you will have to be confrontational.

I am afraid that that is the way it is with global warming. I do not know how it was with Galileo.

[David Schwab]

New science does seem to often require a certain degree of faith: that the parts that don't make sense to us now or seem too bizarre to be true might make more sense the more we learn.

This is very true. What happens is we think something can't be right based on our present understanding of the way things are. But then we find out our understanding has holes in it. And that's how it should be. These days every scientific statement should be preceded by "to the best of our knowledge ..." lol