Leesona 102 Updated

[kevinT]

I was thinking the same thing since they are setup to wind 3 coils at a time...if it were designed to make pickups then why wouldn't it be designed to make 2 or 4 bobbins so that each cycle would at least make an even # of sets?

You can pretty much set your machine up anyway you want to wind more than 3 bobbins. However, there are issues that may come up. In my case for example, if the tooling and the bobbins are too spread out they would start to sag in the middle of the axis between the tailstock and spindle. I could bare down on the tailstock to apply enough force to support the longitudinal rotary axis so it wouldn't sag. However, then it may start wearing out the machine's motor because it would have to work harder to turn the spindle because of the amount of pressure between the tailstock and spindle.

My tooling interlocks with one another and it helps with any saging issues. I can wind 3 bobbins at a time, but for now I only wind one at a time. You may also have to deal with wobbling when the tooling and bobbins are too spread out and then your bobbins wouldn't be consistantly accurate.

Bottom line is that it can be done, but you may run into some snags based on your equipment.

To add, most commercial winders are setup with a traverse, tailstock, controller,, etc. The Leesona is a different animal. Because each peice of tooling that is holding the bobbin is a separate componant... when it's all linked together.....the pieces will have the tendency to sag as opposed to remaining straight like one solid piece of wood in a lathe.

[JGundry]

The Leesona 102 has no tailstock. It is not meant to do stackable bobbins. Each of the 3 stations have their own start lever, counter and auto stop solenoid. The only thing they are are a common drive shaft, and traverse shaft. But you can run 1, 2 or all three stations at the same time and in any sequence.

[kevinT]

I'm speaking generally about CNC models and how they are set up. The Leesona is a totally different animal as mentioned. Winding multiple bobbins is only limited to the limitations of the equipment one is using.

[JGundry]

Cool machine Kevin!

[Possum]

...

I think winding too many bobbins at once would cause problems and bad coils. On old PAFs you once in awhile see coils that are all stacked up against one end, obviously the operator lost control of the process. Just winding one bobbin is enough to keep track of, not every bobbin will mount exactly identically the same so if you walk away and come back 2 minutes later you might not be able to recover from what happened. I set my end limits really close to the wall to avoid having a round coil which wastes space and makes the coil too big in the middle. With that tolerance set its easy for the coil to go off on its own :-) I have a free floating traverse mechanism anchored at one end so correcting off-centeredness is as easy as a minor tilt on one end instead of stopping to adjust the software, low tech is king with me :-)

[kevinT]

Just winding one bobbin is enough to keep track of, not every bobbin will mount exactly identically the same so if you walk away and come back 2 minutes later you might not be able to recover from what happened.

You got this right Possum. ...so true.

Some bobbins are warped which can create a wobble and load more wire on one side than the other which is not necessarily a bad thing as long as, like you stated, you can recover and get the coil back on track.

Also not getting all the excess plastic off of the bobbins(there is a name for this and I can't think of it) from the injection molds will also create this issue.

You can see that I have the adjustment knobs on my wire guides where I can move them to even out the coil if it is lopsided. I monitor the coil as it is winding as well as have programmed a few stops during the winding process so that I can check the coil to see if I need to make adjustments.

I guess some folks believe that you just push a button and walk away and when you return the coil will be complete ...For me, there is much interaction when the coil is being wound.

[JGundry]

3 of the 4 machines that I know Gibson used to wind PAF's did not have a provision to adjust the traverse during the wind. The one machine that did allow for it would not have really been practical adjust mid wind from a production standpoint. The machines were set-up and only tweaked periodically when they drifted out of adjustment. As a result you get a variety of coil shapes. Gibson was not making adjustments during the wind to end up with a uniform finished coil. Personally I think some of the most compelling tones come from mismatching coil shapes between the slug and screws side. I think part of the sort of swirly tone you get from PAF's can be attributed to this. I think the phase relationship between the slug and screw bobbins can be fooled with by say making treble side of the screw coil a little top heavy on one end and the slug coil a little bottom heavy on the other end. This would have happened randomly with PAF's. But it is one more tweak that can be manipulated by the boutique guys.

[Possum]

...

I think you could get the same effect by changing the turns per layer. PAFs and the Leesona were set at a certain turn but due to the slop factor they often went over this amount, and I see in alot of the big commecial winders that they use a higher number. Mixing diameters of wire would probably do this also. MWS's nom-min 42 changed size several months ago and threw me for a loop for awhile because the current stuff is really clear sounding and makes bigger coils.

[JGundry]

I think all of this stuff adds up and provides a pretty rich range of tones to work with. Variation in wire tolerance within 42AWG. Turn per layer count, which was different with each of the 4 different machines, all has an effect and is all within the original PAF framework.

[jonson]

Seeing as this machine "in antiquity" is so important I would still like to see it up and running and some finished pickups. Iv'e got an old 40s/50s machine which runs, but everytime it looks at me I just smile back.

[Possum]

...

Its not really important how old your winder is. The old ones yes had some slop so all they are doing is adding a little more scatter than a machine "perfect" wind. You can get pretty close to those old machine winds in your hand wind by keeping your eye on the counter as you wind and making sure you complete one pass across the pickup every same number of winds. With modern machine winders you just make each pass a little different than the last one. With this fatter wire I've had to mix it up more than I usually do or you get nasty treble peaks that don't sound so good...

[JGundry]

Its not really important how old your winder is. The old ones yes had some slop so all they are doing is adding a little more scatter than a machine "perfect" wind. You can get pretty close to those old machine winds in your hand wind by keeping your eye on the counter as you wind and making sure you complete one pass across the pickup every same number of winds. With modern machine winders you just make each pass a little different than the last one. With this fatter wire I've had to mix it up more than I usually do or you get nasty treble peaks that don't sound so good...

Honestly Possum you can't get close with hand winding even if you are very steady. One problem is a lot of the non uniform shapes lose their structural integrity very quickly even if you are hand winding very steadily. Plus there is just no way to hand wind with the relentlessness of a mechanical winder. Changing how each layer is put down with a modern machine is not the same either. The old mechanical machines layered consistently but with the quirks of the machine and set-up added to it. Of the 4 old Gibson machines I know were used for PAF's one used no cam at all but was mechanically controlled, another used no cam at all but was electronically controlled, another used one cam for all traverse sizes and the 4th a different cam for each traverse distance and had very little play at the ends. Add to this Gibson tweaked the traverse on these so they could do multi bobbins and differences in turn per layer counts, differences in wire guide distance from the bobbin and differences in runout and you end up with a pretty wide variety of coils.

The age of the machine is not important but the different makes of old mechanical machines can be radically different in how they lay down the wire. Plus Gibson sometimes modified these machines in a way that effects how the wire is laid down.

One other ingredient of the PAF mojo that I think comes into play is the mechanical resonance of the pickup itself. Since an unpotted PAF is to a degree microphonic the mechanical resonance of the coils themselves will mechnically transmit sound and effect tone. Turn per layer, wire sized, tension will effect the mechanical efficiency of the coil as will whether it was hand or machine wound. The machine wound coil is more efficient at transmitting sound for a given turn per layer count than a hand wound coil. It is a subtle difference in the finished pickup but with PAF's I think there are a lot of details that add up to important tonal differences.

[David Schwab]

Kevin, is that the Star Winder? Looks nice!

[Possum]

...

I don't buy into the vintage winder theory, current Gibson pickups are wound on vintage machines but they aren't considered all that good by anyone except a few out there. PAF technology is a combination of every part, not just one element. All the commercial copies I've analyzed and vaporized are all wrong, even the ones wound on the original Leesona that was used. I"m still learning more about the metallurgy of the time period and have vaporized virtually every vintage Gibson part I collected so far :-) Expensive hobby

[JGundry]

I don't buy into the vintage winder theory, current Gibson pickups are wound on vintage machines but they aren't considered all that good by anyone except a few out there. PAF technology is a combination of every part, not just one element. All the commercial copies I've analyzed and vaporized are all wrong, even the ones wound on the original Leesona that was used. I"m still learning more about the metallurgy of the time period and have vaporized virtually every vintage Gibson part I collected so far :-) Expensive hobby

Um. Well the old machines suck for if you are looking to make the most coils at the fastest possible speed. But for winding PAF's the old machines are the absolute best tools for the job. No way question about that.

Gibson only has one of the 4 original PAF machine models in use. And of those they messed with the traverse and tension to cram more bobbins on the machine. So if you think Gibson is winding PAF bobbins like they did in the 50's you would be wrong. It's sort of like when Coke switched from cane sugar to high fructose corn syrup. Coke still tastes sweet but the moment you have an out of the country Coke made with cane sugar you go WTF I remember this taste and it tastes way better. I want the old stuff back! But Coke says oh no we need that extra half a cent profit from each can so fuck off. In the case of Gibson they are using high fructose corn syrup when it comes to their one and only model of PAF winder. I'm using cane sugar.

It boils down to what details you think are important. I think all the details are important. Coils, wire, parts... Most of the details are spelled out right in the old parts themselves. That is why you me and others have paid to get metal parts, and magnets tested. It is easy to do and only requires the willingness to trash some vintage parts. But frankly the most enigmatic of the details is the coil. There is only so much you can deconstruct by unwinding if the goal is to wind a PAF bobbin. At some point you have to resort to some educated guess work. If you have the old machines the small details of how PAF coils were wound built right into the machine. It just makes for a more accurate PAF clone if you have the old machines. I'm trying to make the best PAF clone I can.