curtisa

Pot in down position, bottom lug connected to centre lug: Pot in up position, centre and bottom lugs disconnected: To the best of my knowledge those push-pull pots have never operated differently.

Mechanically the bottom lug has to be engaged when in the down position. The motion of the contact 'shuttle' inside the body of the switch has to follow the motion of the pot shaft when pushed or pulled.

Try this (click to enbiggen): Pickup wire colours are as per Seymour Duncan, so if you're using a different brand of pickup you may need to transpose accordingly. I didn't have a model of a push-pull pot so you'll have to use your imagination a bit. In case some details are a bit hard to make out: red and white wires from the pickup are tied together green and bare (grey) wires from the pickup are tied together the cap is 0.022uF (adjust to taste) the pot is 500k

Pretty sure there have been builds featured here before where bocote was used for the fret board. The high oil content may necessitate the use of epoxy when gluing it to a neck, as regular PVAs might struggle to get a grip on it.

BTW, if you're wanting to attach pictures to your posts, New Members have an upload limit of 500kB per post. Provided the total upload attachment size (which includes multiple files summing up to 500kB) is less than 500k you should be OK. That restriction gets lifted once you exceed 25 posts on your account.

That doesn't verify that the fret or bridge placement (or intonation adjustment, if any) is correct. The open string will always be the same pitch as the 12th fret harmonic, no matter how you tune it or how long the scale length is. All the 12th fret harmonic shows is that the midpoint of the string is exactly an octave above the open string pitch. Its the comparison of the 12th fret harmonic vs the 12th fretted note that matters. If you're using a 23" scale as the basis of your build try taking a measurement from the nut to the 12th fret - you should get 23"/2 = 11.5". The distance between the 12th fret and the bridge should also measure 11.5" (actually a little more than 11.5" to account for any intonation compensation built in to the instrument, but it should be close). If fretted notes are coming in sharp no matter what position you'll probably find that the 12th fret appears to measure less than 11.5" to the bridge.

I suspect there's some missing detail here. How are you determining the accuracy of the twelfth fret position exactly? The quick-and-dirty method of checking intonation accuracy is to compare the twelfth fret harmonic to the twelfth fretted note and check that they are as close to the same pitch as each other as possible. The 12th fret harmonic by itself doesn't reveal anything important regarding the accuracy of the fret positions. Most all fret positions being sharp up the neck (up the neck past the 12th fret? The whole way from the nut upwards? Starting off OK but progressively getting worse the higher up you go?) suggests there's an error in the placement of the bridge or frets, but a bit more information will help us guide you to some things to try out.

Can't be done with that kind of switch unfortunately. You really need the specified switch shown in the first diagram (ie, an ON-OFF-ON configuration)

I couldn't say one way or the other whether the electrolysis process would have any impact on the magnetism of the pickup components. A magnet may be de-magnetised by applying an alternating current through it, but your 12V battery charger and electrolysis process is DC. If you can guarantee that the magnet is electrically isolated from the pickup (or at least arrange the two electrodes such that the current gets no opportunity to pass through the magnet) before it gets dunked maybe you'd eliminate the possibility that the electrolysis process could strengthen or reverse the polarity of the magnetic field in the pole pieces? Dunno... With a moderately powerful soldering iron I personally don't consider de-soldering the case from the base such an onerous task compared to any unknown risk of ruining a set of pickups by dropping the whole thing in, but that's just me.

I'd be more concerned about dunking them in a saline solution for a couple of hours and allowing all that electrolysis mess to get anywhere near the windings. I reckon you're better off removing the covers and performing the etching process just on those parts.

Yes - in a sub-article on the same website Liutaio mentions that while the tension doesn't change if the length beyond the nut/saddles increases, the 'stretchiness' of the string may change, which may give rise to the perception that the feel of the string becomes more elastic. He mentions a study done by Bob Benedetto where he constructed several 'necks' of varying scale lengths and overall string lengths, but the results indicated that most people couldn't feel any perceptible difference between the strings with long overhangs and the strings with short overhangs. I suppose if you had access to two guitars with the same scale length and same strings, one with a roller nut and one with a double-locking Floyd Rose, you could test it for yourself. In theory the guitar with the roller nut should feel more flexible when bending strings than the Floyd, as all the extra string length behind the roller nut becomes part of the overall bit of steel that must stretch when pushed. The Floyd having practically zero extra string length behind the nut should feel stiffer.

That's not actually correct. String tension has nothing to do with the overall length of the string. The only things that affect string tension are the mass of the string (gauge), the vibrating length (scale length) and the pitch it is tuned to. Any additional length behind the nut or saddles plays no part in the string tension for a given pitch. If you strung two Strats with the same gauge strings tuned to the same pitches and one neck had a reverse headstock, the tensions of each string would be identical. You can read more than you care to know about the subject here.

What about if instead of making the neck removeable you make it such that it can swivel around on the tongue that it attaches to on the body? You'd need to redesign your body a little to make room for the neck to fold over onto the bass-side shoulder, but it would save you having to come up with a method of screwing/unscrewing the neck to the body. All you'd need is some kind of pin to insert through the body into the rear of the neck heel so that it wouldn't swing left or right once it was in the 'playing' position.

Based on your description it seems you're needing to wire it up as per the SPC installation instructions shown here: https://www.emgpickups.com/pub/media/Mageants/s/p/spc_rpc_0230-0106rb.pdf Have a look at page 4, titled '3 Pickup Guitars using a selection switch'. It shows a master volume, tone and SPC connection diagram.

Only just caught up with this. Thanks for sharing, really nice to see and hear your instruments being used to create such beautiful music. Two thumbs up Oh, and tell Matt he's a showoff ...And you want your guitars back...

You need to be in the 'Member' group, which will automatically occur once your post count exceeds 25.

Probably more likely that the body and neck are 'real' timber and the top is an MDF laminate applied to the body. There seems to be photographic evidence to suggest that Epiphone have been known to do it in the past: https://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/epiphone-pauls-mdf-tops.515891/ There will be a neck joint in there, but in true LP fashion it will probably be glued in. Although I do note that in your photos at the top of this thread that there doesn't appear to be much of an Epiphone logo on the headstock, and the fret markers are unlike anything I've seen on an LP. Any possibility you've got a knockoff of an Epiphone LP on your hands? For the $50 you paid for it you'd have to decide what it's worth to you to do the work you're describing to sell it on again. A mark up of 4x what you paid for it originally without changing anything seems a little bit optimistic, particularly if it still has issues with fret buzz. You wouldn't be tempted to keep it just to experiment with? edit: Ah - Epiphone 'E' series, probably the Les Paul Nuclear Extreme model: http://www.epiphonewiki.org/index/E-Series.php

Pretty sure @ScottR used a Hannes on one of his masterpieces. Perhaps me hollering his name in here will get his attention

I think a covid-safe fist bump needs to be directed towards @komodo for taking out Guitar of the Year 2020. Well done, buddy

I'm clearly not across the US/Aus vernacular differences! Sink outlet? Drain? Water escapey thingy? I have a feeling we're heading towards classic ProjectGuitar thread derailment territory...

Ah. Gotcha. That extra flute should i(n theory) allow an extra 33% more chips to be ejected for a given speed compared to the equivalent 2-flute cutter. The idea being that you should be able to increase your feedrate by the same factor and not cause any more stress on the bit. I'd still be cautious on going all the way up to 45IPM, but that's just me. Cross-border differences in terminology maybe? Stepdown I would equate to the cutter moving down into the work piece in increments (eg stepping down the staircase). Stepover I'd consider the bit stepping over it's previous path to make the cut wider than it was on its last run (eg stepping over the skipping rope on the ground). Maybe the two terms are interchangeable depending on the software/country/time of day/direction the wind blows? Then again, I'm well south of the equator, water goes anticlockwise down the plughole and we're all standing on our heads

Had a quick look at my last job at it seems I used 0.3mm stepdowns between each pass, no ramps, plunge at 200mm/min, feed at 400mm/min, 24k RPM. In imperial land that equates to 0.0118" stepdown, 7.9IPM plunge, 15.7IPM feed. I was getting chips instead of dust, so it must have been within the 'zone' of correct feedrate at the time. Ramping would certainly ease the bit into the cut a bit more, but I'm taking such small nibbles at conservative feedrates I'm not experiencing any issues with the values I'm using. Single width slots are notoriously hard on the cutter though, so it pays to be gentle when you can afford to do so. Hmmm. I get 0.03 x 0.022 dia x 2 (I assume 2 flutes in your case?) x 23000RPM = 30.36IPM? Probably not unreasonable for the bits I've used up till now (I think I might have gone up to 600mm/min in the past, which is 75% of that feedrate), but I am only chomping at DOC = half the bit diameter. 45IPM seems pretty aggressive at depth of cut = 1x bit diameter, but I guess that's down to how willing you are to try and push Precise Bits for a warranty claim if/when their bits don't perform to their quoted speeds

To-may-to. To-mah-to. What's a decimal point between friends? That's actually not as silly as it sounds. You might struggle to cut them cleanly, but if any of your broken bits have snapped close to the shoulder where they start tapering up to meet the shank you might be able to press them in to service long enough to experiment with. I've used broken 0.4mm bits to complete engraving jobs in plastic where I just needed to complete the job rather than hold things up while I wait for new bits to arrive.

I think your bits are too long and spindly for that kind of work. In the photo you have above it looks like there's a good 0.5" of flute length exposed below the shank of the bit. It won't take much to break such tiny bits with that much flute sticking out. The ones I'm using (mentioned in your other thread) only have a flute length of about 3mm. The shorter the effective cutting length the stronger the bit will be. @MiKro's suggestion about the depth of cut is also worth noting. Your original at 0.3" is 25% larger than the diameter of the bit, and will be pretty hard to sustain for long without breaking. General rule of thumb is to not exceed a depth of cut more than 50% of the bit diameter, ie 0.236"/2 = 0.118" DOC maximum. You'll need as much spindle speed as you can muster with such small diameter bits too, as the rate at which the cutting edges engage with the material drops with smaller diameters (spin a bicycle wheel and think about how much faster the surface of the tyre appears to move compared to the axle).

I was aware there were differences, but I'm also aware that there are the occasional oddballs that don't quite fit the template. The Korina V near the bottom of this page makes an interesting example (assuming it isn't a forgery), as it has the short shoulders of the 58 but the narrow crotch as displayed in your plans. Again, I don't think there's anything particularly untoward in Gen One's plan service, other than the drawings offered are mostly similar enough that you can construct something that looks like a V. Maybe for a purist the slightly loose interpretation of some of the distinctive features of the V are enough of a problem to make them stick out, but I don't think purists are Gen One's primary market with their service. For all we know he's not doing them from measuring an actual Flying V, or even a physical instrument at all, but is 'vectorising' photos of guitars and filling in the details based off knowledge gleaned elsewhere on the web, such as the body thickness or the shape of the control cavity underneath the pickguard.