| Author |
Topic: Fender PS210 |
Russ Wever
From:
Kansas City
|
|
|
|
Russ Wever
From:
Kansas City
|
|
|
|
Russ Wever
From:
Kansas City
|
|
|
|
Russ Wever
From:
Kansas City
|
|
|
|
Russ Wever
From:
Kansas City
|
|
|
|
Russ Wever
From:
Kansas City
|
|
|
|
Russ Wever
From:
Kansas City
|
|
|
|
Russ Wever
From:
Kansas City
|
|
|
|
Russ Wever
From:
Kansas City
|
|
|
|
Russ Wever
From:
Kansas City
|
|
|
|
richard burton
From:
Britain
|
Posted 18 Feb 2010 10:02 pm |
|
The changer fingers are a very clever idea, I wish that I'd thought of it 
I had to look closely before I understood how it lowers, but once I had twigged it, it's beautiful in its simplicity
What holds the fingers in place during string changing? |
|
|
|
basilh
From:
United Kingdom
|
Posted 19 Feb 2010 2:21 am
|
|
| richard burton wrote: |
What holds the fingers in place during string changing? |
A spring at the bottom of the lowering finger and the retaining bar that has the two magnets on it.
 |
|
|
|
basilh
From:
United Kingdom
|
Posted 19 Feb 2010 2:42 am
|
|
The changer consists of these components.
 |
|
|
|
Danny James
From:
Summerfield Florida USA
|
Posted 19 Feb 2010 6:27 am
|
|
That changer basically works on the same principal as the Multi-Kord changer that Jay Harlin invented and patented. 
Very neat and much improved that's for sure. |
|
|
|
Ken Byng
From:
Southampton, England
|
Posted 19 Feb 2010 11:23 am
|
|
I had the opportunity to look at Basil's guitar close up. It is extremely heavy for such a compact guitar, but I bet that cabinet drop is either very minimal or non existant. 10/10 to Gene Fields for originality.
_________________
Show Pro D10 - amber (8+6), MSA D10 Legend XL Signature - redburst (9+6), Sho-Bud Pro 111 Custom (8+6), Emmons black Push-Pull D10 (8+5), Zum D10 (8x8), Hudson pedal resonator. Telonics TCA-500, Webb 614-E, |
|
|
|
basilh
From:
United Kingdom
|
Posted 19 Feb 2010 12:20 pm
|
|
| Ken Byng wrote: |
| I had the opportunity to look at Basil's guitar close up. It is extremely heavy for such a compact guitar, but I bet that cabinet drop is either very minimal or non existant. 10/10 to Gene Fields for originality. |
NON existent, I'll show this when I manage to re-assemble the guitar and record a couple of tunes..
I took it to bits just to show the community the component parts..(And it needed new strings so the full reason is a little more self centred) |
|
|
|
Murnel Babineaux
From:
Mermentau, Louisiana, USA
|
Posted 20 Feb 2010 12:25 am
|
|
One of those 15 guitars is in New Iberia, LA.
Murnel
_________________
Rittenberry D10 E9/C6 Session 400 |
|
|
|
basilh
From:
United Kingdom
|
Posted 20 Feb 2010 2:16 am
|
|
| A directory of know owners, location, serial number and condition would be informative... |
|
|
|
basilh
From:
United Kingdom
|
Posted 20 Feb 2010 4:44 am
|
|
| Paul Redmond wrote: |
On Gene's personal guitar, yes, the front neck is fretted, has eight strings, and is played "Thumbs-style". His rear neck has 12 strings and is tuned either to a D6th or G6th...I forget now.
The thing I find most amazing about these guitars is the shift mechanism which moves all the pulling linkage from one neck to the other, also switching one pickup on and the other off. There is an over-ride switch underneath if both pickups are to be on at the same time.
On the guitar I have (#11), the pull travel can be stopped either at the drawbars on the endplate, or via a strong metal stamping containing #8-32 adjustment screws. The latter allows all the drawbars on the changer to then "float" rather than bottom out.
The various components in the pulling linkage have a large number of holes which allows for an almost unlimited number of leverage/travel settings on each pull. The short pullrods, according to Gene, were made of re-threaded bicycle spokes which are threaded into round sleeves for length adjustment. In short, the guitars are almost limitless in adjustment capabilities.
IMO these guitars would still be very viable today more than four decades after they were first conceived. Despite their diminutive overall size, the little buggers are pretty heavy, but I'm confident that with some changes in design, the weight issue could be overcome.
The changer itself is awesome in design with one cast finger riding "knife-edge" inside the other, then the assembly itself riding on a knife edge plate on the body...zero friction!!!
The pedal rack is held to the front legs with an underwater camera enclosure locking device containing a cam-type lock. These locks are mounted on their own hinges...just twist the cam loose and rotate the "hook" out of the way for rack removal. Adjustment of the pedal rod length is made easy using some sort of commercially-available, spring-loaded connector which then couples onto a lathe-turned nylon sleeve screwed to the side of each pedal. If you want to change the rod length, you just uncouple the swivel and screw it in or out to alter the rod length, then re-couple it...no wrenches needed.
AND it DOES sound like a Fender!!!
PRR |
Paul's comprehensive description brings to light some interesting points. One thing is that there are TWO prototypes so I believe, one the original #0 and the other is SUPPOSED to be between #12 and #13. See:- http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/FenderPS210/message/56
Mine is # 12 and DOESN'T have the "strong metal stamping containing #8-32 adjustment screws."
I think I know why it was dropped!
With the system Paul describes, the tuning would then be susceptible to variation if the linkage expanded or contacted with temperature change. (Thermal expansion coefficient 12.6X10^-6/°C approx)I'll calculate and physically test how much the variations from ambient norm would be and post the result later.
(If my knowledge in this subject of steel seems unusual for a STEEL player see this :- http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=175563)
Also the pedal bar (rack) is secured in position by "Butterfly Catches" the same as are used on flight cases etc.
The spring loaded connector on the pedal rods is identical to those used on the Short Scale 400/1000 and the 800/2000 models.
I would doubt that the connector is a "Commercially Available" part it has all the earmarks of being specific, as are the bell cranks and cable parts on the respective models. It's the very same case hardened EN-34 as all the others I've seen and tested.
I don't any longer have the facility to test brinell or dpn,(Diamond Pyramid Number), but a grinding wheel "Spark Test" is a semi accurate substitute and the sparks were deep blood red, indicative of "Quite Hard to Damn Hard or even  " |
|
|
|
Danny James
From:
Summerfield Florida USA
|
Posted 20 Feb 2010 6:55 pm
|
|
[quote="basilh"]
| Paul Redmond wrote: |
On Gene's personal guitar, yes, the front neck is fretted, has eight strings, and is played "Thumbs-style". His rear neck has 12 strings and is tuned either to a D6th or G6th...I forget now.
The thing I find most amazing about these guitars is the shift mechanism which moves all the pulling linkage from one neck to the other, also switching one pickup on and the other off. There is an over-ride switch underneath if both pickups are to be on at the same time.
On the guitar I have (#11), the pull travel can be stopped either at the drawbars on the endplate, or via a strong metal stamping containing #8-32 adjustment screws. The latter allows all the drawbars on the changer to then "float" rather than bottom out.
The various components in the pulling linkage have a large number of holes which allows for an almost unlimited number of leverage/travel settings on each pull. The short pullrods, according to Gene, were made of re-threaded bicycle spokes which are threaded into round sleeves for length adjustment. In short, the guitars are almost limitless in adjustment capabilities.
IMO these guitars would still be very viable today more than four decades after they were first conceived. Despite their diminutive overall size, the little buggers are pretty heavy, but I'm confident that with some changes in design, the weight issue could be overcome.
The changer itself is awesome in design with one cast finger riding "knife-edge" inside the other, then the assembly itself riding on a knife edge plate on the body...zero friction!!!
The pedal rack is held to the front legs with an underwater camera enclosure locking device containing a cam-type lock. These locks are mounted on their own hinges...just twist the cam loose and rotate the "hook" out of the way for rack removal. Adjustment of the pedal rod length is made easy using some sort of commercially-available, spring-loaded connector which then couples onto a lathe-turned nylon sleeve screwed to the side of each pedal. If you want to change the rod length, you just uncouple the swivel and screw it in or out to alter the rod length, then re-couple it...no wrenches needed.
AND it DOES sound like a Fender!!!
PRR |
Paul's comprehensive description brings to light some interesting points. One thing is that there are TWO prototypes so I believe, one the original #0 and the other is SUPPOSED to be between #12 and #13. See:- http://launch.groups.yahoo
(If my knowledge in this subject of steel seems unusual for a STEEL player see this :- http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=175563)
I'm not at all surprised at your knowledge of steel for a STEEL player. I don't claim to be a Steel player, but I do attempt to play steel once in a while. I'm not a metalurgist either but having retired from Cummins Diesel Eng. Company and also worked as a Special Quality Assurance Tech there and at Essex Foundry in Columbus Ind. I did work closely with engineers and various technicions who worked with metal all the time.
This is a very interesting and informative thread from people in various walks of life who love the steel guitar. Thanks for your input Bazilh. |
|
|
|
Paul Redmond
From:
Illinois, USA
|
Posted 24 Feb 2010 11:03 pm
|
|
According to Gene at the time I bought #11 from him, the "strong metal stamping" that allows the linkage to be stopped and adjusted ahead of the changer instead of at the endplate with the tuning screw drawbars, was only featured on one or two guitars as he recalled at the time. The expansion/contraction coefficient due to temperature changers would not be nearly as pronounced as it would be if regular, full-length pullrods would have been used. This is due primarily to the "stampings'" close proximity to the changer....it would take a lot of temperature difference to affect the adjustments on the pulls.
The part that I find also unique about this arrangement is that you have total freedom in selecting which pulls will be stopped at the endplate, and which ones will be stopped at the "stamping". You could mix and match, make one neck one way and the other neck the other way. As I mentioned in prior posts, this guitar is almost limitless in the ways in which leverage and travel can be set and adjusted. Add to that the fact that you can "stop" the guitar like a ZB or Kline, or "stop" it like most other brands of guitars....well, it leaves little to the imagination. You can literally set up a PS-210 any way that you can contrive in your brain!!! I have never checked mine for cabinet drop, but I have never "heard" any so far in the 22 years that I've owned this guitar...it's very short and rigid, and has a welded frame structure. When stopping at the endplate, guitars tend to raise on the open strings rather than lower. By stopping at the stamping, the tendency would be to lower slightly. If there is any drop on these little guys, I would guess you'd be hard-pressed to find it.
This guitar was light years ahead of its time and is IMO a true credit to the genius of Gene Fields as a designer and idea man. Thank God for guys like Gene or we might all still be cranking our Model T's in the morning.
PRR |
|
|
|
Gary Cosden
From:
Florida, USA
|
Posted 25 Feb 2010 11:16 am
|
|
| While I am in awe of this design I am having trouble understanding one aspect of it. How do you balance the individual pulls? For example on the A pedal on a conventional design you could pull the top B string from one hole on the changer finger and do the lower B pull from another. You could also balance the pulls by using different holes on the 2 bell cranks. On this design it looks like on that pedal both B string pulls would activate the changer fingers in the same spot. I'm sure I just have not got my head around this one yet. |
|
|
|
Russ Wever
From:
Kansas City
|
Posted 25 Feb 2010 7:42 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| How do you balance the individual pulls? |
From what I can make of the drawings I don't
see a way to accomplish balancing the pulls.
Nor do I see how to accomplish 'split tuning',
which is combining a raise and a lower on the
same string with having a means of tuning the
resultant 'combination note'. Perhaps, with
altering or modifying the existing system
with additional parts both of those
functions can be accomplished.
At the time this guitar was
developed, neither of these
features were the major
concerns that they
currently are.
~Russ
_________________
www.russface
www.russguru |
|
|
|
Paul Redmond
From:
Illinois, USA
|
Posted 25 Feb 2010 11:57 pm
|
|
Russ - A split tuning can indeed be accomplished by doing just what you had mentioned...both raising and lowering the same string. This can easily be accomplished on a PS-210 by inserting a tuning screw in both the "raise" hole, and the "lower" hole, and then tuning the pulls exactly as if you were using conventional pullrods and nylon tuners. I have a G# to F# lower on one of my KL's that gives me an accurate G when used with FP 2. In reality, the F# drop would over-lower, so the "raise" tuning screw must be used to bump the too-low F# drop up a bit when that pull is used. I have never had to even tweak that pull.
No, you cannot "balance" tandem pulls. If I could find one solid fault with the PS-210, it's that you cannot do that within the confines of the design. Please remember that these guitars were made in the 1960's and balanced pulls were not an issue then. Most players were happy campers just to be able to alter string pitches at all. Bud Isaacs once told me that he, over the years, has used the "un-balanced" pull issue to his advantage in that he has intentionally used the resultant "bump" encountered with that type of setup as a poor man's 1/2-stop. His myriad of instrumental recordings from the early years would validate that. He claimed he would have been lost if his pulls would have been balanced.
While I always personally strive to balance pulls as closely as is mechanically possible, I have never found the unbalanced pulls on my PS-210 to be objectionable.
PRR |
|
|
|
Russ Wever
From:
Kansas City
|
Posted 26 Feb 2010 3:35 pm
|
|
Paul -
Thanks for pointing that out, regarding the
split-tuning capability - I stand corrected.
It sounds a bit like when we would add rod
to the lowering bellcrank in order to 'nudge'
the 'too low' lower back up to pitch.
I've encountered a few steels, ZB's come to
mind, that would combine a raise and lower
into a fairly accurate 'resultant note', but
still there was no way to truly 'tune' that
note.
So if the player wanted to tune, let's say, the
raise, to 440 rather than 436, the 'resultant'
note, not being tunable, would end up deviating
as a result.
I'm with ya regarding balanced pulls, in that when
I, as you, got involved with steel, we were happy
if the guitar would just stay in tune and and if the
pedals did the same!
I don't believe I heard much concern about
balanced pulls until hangin' around this board a
dozen years ago.
~Russ
_________________
www.russface
www.russguru |
|
|
|
