Antigua did it again

[LtKojak]

Craig gave me the heads-up of his interventions on the Strat Talk Forum.

I told him: as long as he's not polluting our Forum, I'm fine with it.

Then this happened:

http://www.strat-talk.com/threads/me...7#post-2344038

Post #133 and up.

So I just couldn't let it go. I just HAD to intervene!

If you'd like to be entertained, watch for the s*h*i*t to hit the fan, LOL!

[big_teee]

Hopefully no one over here Cares!
I know I don't.
Hopefully you can keep the dissension over there on strat talk.
T

[ScottA]

What's wrong with what he's posting over there?

He did seem to be a bit belligerent when he was here, but he's basically just posting the progress of his process of trying to understand how pickups work. And he's doing it with quantitative measures. He doesn't seem to be fighting anyone either.

We should be applauding that, not crapping on it.

[mr fab]

hi scott

Pepe took offence to the comments he made towards the members of this forum.

the comments were unfounded and prejudiced against us here

fab

[LtKojak]

What's wrong with what he's posting over there?

Look at post # 133 and his answer, post # 134.

That's what motivated me to intervene. He, of all people, simply can not state that the fine folk of this Forum don't know how p'ups work.

HTH,

[ScottA]

Frankly, I don't remember what all went down and I haven't reread any of the stuff (if it even still exists?).

He seems to be behaving himself over there, and what he's doing is not invalid, in fact he seems to be on the right track.

Specifics, finger pointing and personal insults aside, the reality is that there IS a lot of misunderstanding about what is really going on in pickup physics. You see it here all of the time, and generally those threads devolve into shouting matches - which is a shame. Frankly, that's a lot of the reason I don't post more here about the work I've done.

I see that Pepe named-checked me in his post over there (I appreciate that). I'm not trying to get in the middle of a fight.

Aside from the raw feelings between some individuals, technically they guy's trying to do the right thing.

[ScottA]

Look at post # 133 and his answer, post # 134.

That's what motivated me to intervene. He, of all people, simply can not state that the fine folk of this Forum don't know how p'ups work.

HTH,

Yeah, I just saw that. I don't support rude behavior. I think you can report and educate without going there. But, the substance of what he's talking about is valid.

[Joe Gwinn]

The bluster to engineering coefficient of Strat Talk seems to heavily favor bluster, at least in this thread.

As for the business about strings distorting the magnetic field, that is a very common way to describe the operation of variable-reluctance pickups in industry. Electromagnetic guitar pickups are a form of variable reluctance pickup. (Piezo pickups are not based on variable reluctance.)

The other electromagnetic model is that the static magnetic field from the magnets in the pickup induce a magnetic field in the strings, and it is the motion of these induced magnets that induces music voltage in the coil.

Wars have and continue to be fought over which of these models are correct.

There is a problem - they are both right. Under the basic assumptions of reluctance pickups, the two views are mathematically equivalent. One chooses which view to follow according to mathematical convenience in the problem to be solved, at the moment.

But it's amusing to watch, for a few minutes anyway, but is soon devolves into name-calling. Pretty soon there will be accusations of Nazi sympathies.

Which is pretty lame. A proper Victorian gentleman could curse a man for twenty minutes straight without using bad words or repeating himself. How far we have fallen.

[salvarsan]

Which is pretty lame. A proper Victorian gentleman could curse a man for twenty minutes straight without using bad words or repeating himself. How far we have fallen.

Quibble: a Victorian gentlemen of such rhetorical skills would have been expensively educated before the fact. Modern folk of similar education/expense tend not to be deeply interested in pickups or guitars, and when they are, we surely won't see them squandering time online in the berating of internet fools.

. . . which is a shame because it would certainly be highly instructive and entertaining.


We can all agree that Antiqua's absence is appreciated.

-drh

[Mike Sulzer]

The bluster to engineering coefficient of Strat Talk seems to heavily favor bluster, at least in this thread.

As for the business about strings distorting the magnetic field, that is a very common way to describe the operation of variable-reluctance pickups in industry. Electromagnetic guitar pickups are a form of variable reluctance pickup. (Piezo pickups are not based on variable reluctance.)

The other electromagnetic model is that the static magnetic field from the magnets in the pickup induce a magnetic field in the strings, and it is the motion of these induced magnets that induces music voltage in the coil.

Wars have and continue to be fought over which of these models are correct.

There is a problem - they are both right. Under the basic assumptions of reluctance pickups, the two views are mathematically equivalent. One chooses which view to follow according to mathematical convenience in the problem to be solved, at the moment.

But it's amusing to watch, for a few minutes anyway, but is soon devolves into name-calling. Pretty soon there will be accusations of Nazi sympathies.

Which is pretty lame. A proper Victorian gentleman could curse a man for twenty minutes straight without using bad words or repeating himself. How far we have fallen.

1. The moving magnet approach is close to the physics, and allows calculations to be performed in a straight forward, if not necessarily simple, way. It also allows correct deductions about how a pickup works because it is close to the physics. The academic calculations of pickup behavior that have been discussed in this forum use this approach.

2. The variable reluctance method takes advantage of an analogy that exists between the mathematics describing certain aspects of magnetic and electric effects. In certain simple cases a solution to a magnetic problem can be obtained in a very simple way by applying the analogue of Ohm's law. Guitar pickups are not one of those cases; their description cannot be reduced to a one dimensional case for which an electrical circuit analogy applies. However, that does not stop people from making deductions about how a pickup works by attempting to apply the analogy incorrectly.

Reluctance is analogous to resistance. Resistance implies a circuit model. A guitar pickup cannot be described in such a simple way. You need the magnetic equivalent of resistivity in a three dimensional medium. Perhaps we could call this reluctivity, and one could work out problems solving a three dimensional differential equation instead of applying Ohm's law. But this would be harder than applying method 1.

So the moving magnet and variable reluctance methods are not equivalent descriptions of the problem. The second is an oversimplification and cannot be used for calculations without extending it, and simple deductions made from a poor understanding of this are wrong.

[J M Fahey]

I read the full page of posts at StratTalk (no, won't read the 6 previous ones, thank you) and in NO post Antigua mentions MEF in any way, not even indirectly (such as the "other" Forum or whatever) , until in Post #133 a certain Gibsonaddiction guy (is he a member *here* ?) not only mentions MEF but claims it's the real deal and anything else is crap and they would easily destroy what Antigua is saying.
WTF?????

Antigua's answer in #134 is the only one possible given what Gibsonaddiction wrote .

Just as a side note, Antigua has over 1600 posts there, from what little I saw dealing with measurement and analysis .... what has Gibsonaddiction contributed with his meager 10 posts?
The only one I saw sounds like what a barroom brawler likes to talk.

And Lt Kojak is even worse, wrote just 1 (one) post (joined 2013, mind you) , just to add insults and menaces to the brawl.

Not surprisingly, the first answer from another forum member was:

That is a disappointing post, best ignored IMO.

Back to important stuff: the title of that thread is:

Measured electrical differences between a Fat 50 and a Texas Special


so anything different, including name calling , is absolutely out of meaning there.

I learnt a curious fact , so my time was not entirely wasted:

LK is relentless and proud of of it

Is that true?
Seems so, given that the only single post in 3 years was a vitriolic attack.

Also seems to prove:

they chased you down here

Oh well, maybe that leads to better pickup building ... who knows?

Pepe took offence to the comments he made towards the members of this forum.

He was answering previous aggressive posts from a MEF member.
If you don't want the finger, just don't start by showing yours to others.

And if you get one in response, just don't go crying to complain to Mommy.

Oh well [2]

[DrStrangelove]

This thread is satisfactorily self-moderated, requires no further comments, and despite a singular complaint as to off-topic content, will remain open.

I do not foresee the need for my usual arbitrary and capricious acts, venomous rebukes, bilious invective, and casual character assassination.

Hitler.

[Joe Gwinn]

1. The moving magnet approach is close to the physics, and allows calculations to be performed in a straight forward, if not necessarily simple, way. It also allows correct deductions about how a pickup works because it is close to the physics. The academic calculations of pickup behavior that have been discussed in this forum use this approach.

2. The variable reluctance method takes advantage of an analogy that exists between the mathematics describing certain aspects of magnetic and electric effects. In certain simple cases a solution to a magnetic problem can be obtained in a very simple way by applying the analogue of Ohm's law. Guitar pickups are not one of those cases; their description cannot be reduced to a one dimensional case for which an electrical circuit analogy applies. However, that does not stop people from making deductions about how a pickup works by attempting to apply the analogy incorrectly.

Reluctance is analogous to resistance. Resistance implies a circuit model. A guitar pickup cannot be described in such a simple way. You need the magnetic equivalent of resistivity in a three dimensional medium. Perhaps we could call this reluctivity, and one could work out problems solving a three dimensional differential equation instead of applying Ohm's law. But this would be harder than applying method 1.

So the moving magnet and variable reluctance methods are not equivalent descriptions of the problem. The second is an oversimplification and cannot be used for calculations without extending it, and simple deductions made from a poor understanding of this are wrong.

All true, Mike. But beside the point.

The "distortion" arises from vectorially summing the unperturbed field (as if there were no strings) with the magnetic dipole generated by the now magnetized strings. One can view this either way, and choose for convenience. All this follows from the linearity of the magnetic field - one can separate things, compute independently, and sum the results, and get the same (correct) answer. This doesn't work were the iron is saturated, but pickups are rarely saturated enough to matter.

[LtKojak]

We can all agree that Antiqua's absence is appreciated.

You've got that right!

[Mike Sulzer]

All true, Mike. But beside the point.

The "distortion" arises from vectorially summing the unperturbed field (as if there were no strings) with the magnetic dipole generated by the now magnetized strings. One can view this either way, and choose for convenience. All this follows from the linearity of the magnetic field - one can separate things, compute independently, and sum the results, and get the same (correct) answer. This doesn't work were the iron is saturated, but pickups are rarely saturated enough to matter.

You are missing (or not responding to) two key points here:

1. Reluctance implies circuit concepts, That does not cover the geometric complications of a guitar pickup.

2. Many are not embracing linearity; rather they are denying it. Many deny the magnetization of the string but claim it distorts the field of the permanent magnet nonetheless. How is never stated. This is the origin of the "belief" that you have to study the shape of the permanent field throughout the region near the pickup rather than find the field at the string and use it to compute the magnetization.

Sure, you can use the analogue between electrical and magnetic things: J = (sigma)E analogous to B = (mu)H in order to solve for the flux from the string in all space. But you still will have to use the law of magnetic induction to compute the voltage induced in the coil from the time varying flux. Why on earth would anyone look at something in a way that makes computations harder, and encourages others to make wrong deductions about how things work?

And why do you, time and again, claim that the term "variable reluctance" adequately describes a guitar pickup when the circuit concept implied does not cover the complexities?