Santa Cruz Guitar Statement

[Kim]

mind you even scientists can taylor their views depending on who's paying for their 'research'.

I thought that was the only way they got paid a decent income these days...tobacco springs to mind, so to does research into the the link between mobile phone use and certain cancers and any number of environmental impact studies ranging from those done for local councils and developers (I grouped them together because they fit like spoons...bet they even sleep that way) right the way through to big oil and gas (yeah sure we can drill in 5k of water and get the crude to flow its just that we don't know how to turn it off short of 2 month if there's a stuff up and plan "A" don't work...but we won't tell them that cause it will never happen) and yes even the global warming debate and the creationist v evolutionist nonsense.......as they say, 'you only get what you pay for' and in the case of much research it would appear that enough money or blind faith can produce anything you want..."anti-science" I call it...its when you start out with a desirable answer to a question, and then rake the matter over exhaustively to find ANYTHING, no matter how improbable, that will place a ? mark within an idiots eye shot off the facts....no, doing this does not prove the desirable answer or give it credibility in any way...but as long as the 'facts' are still being question by enough to make it politically notable, nobody will be paying any attention to the fiction that allows business as usual..all you need is an agenda and cash to make it happen, pity they're both property of the greedy ruthless bastards who cause the problems and so rarely available to those who would seek to solve them.....So, I wonder what sort of glue Santa uses in his dovetail neck joints? My guess is elf sperm.

Cheers

Kim

[Clancy]

I recently did my first neck reset on a (chinese made canadian brand) guitar with a dovetail neck joint.
Found all these shims already in place.
But it's OK, it's a dovetail joint so it must be the best!

23052011899 (Small).jpg (51.85 KiB) Viewed 12883 times

23052011904 (Small).jpg (41.05 KiB) Viewed 12883 times

[kiwigeo]

I thought that was the only way they got paid a decent income these days...tobacco springs to mind, so to does research into the the link between mobile phone use and certain cancers and any number of environmental impact studies ranging from those done for local councils and developers (I grouped them together because they fit like spoons...bet they even sleep that way) right the way through to big oil and gas (yeah sure we can drill in 5k of water and get the crude to flow its just that we don't know how to turn it off short of 2 month if there's a stuff up and plan "A" don't work...

A few points of clarification from one employed in the oil and gas industry and with a bit more inside info on the Deepwater Horizon disaster than the average layperson.

The Deepwater Horizon blowout wasn't simply the result of a bunch of scientists on the take covering up the truth. The disaster was the end result of failure of multiple systems and procedures. The Blow Out Preventer failed to shut the well in because it hadn't been properly maintained, maintenance records weren't shared outside the rig's Subsea Department and modifications had been made to the stacks ram setup and not properly documented...when the ROV sub went to stab in and attempt a manual operation of one of the bag preventers they were in fact stabbed into a redundant set of casing rams. Not alot of scientists involved in maintenance of a subsea BOP.....its the responsibility of the rigs maintenance department which is dominated by tradies. The decision to displace the well and riser from drilling mud to water without doing a proper inflow test was made by the BP Rig Supervisor...no scientists involved. The decision to divert the displaced mud directly to a workboat thereby removing any means of monitoring volumes of fluid coming out of the well was a decision made ultimately by the BP Rig Supervisor and with the agreement of the OIM and Barge Master....again no scientists involved. When the well blew out and the gas was hurtling up the riser the decision to divert the flow through the rig's degasser (they should have gone overboard via the diverter) which then vented the gas over the deck from where it quickly entered the engine rooms and ignited was a decision made by people in charge on the rig floor...again no scientists were involved in this decision. The decision to put the the rig alarm system in the accomodation into override was made by the Barge Master in response to complaints about frequent false alarms by BP executives visiting the rig at the time. The Barge Master made a bad call on this one.....he's not a scientist...hes a master mariner, the rig equivalent to a ships captain.

Some of the blame for the Deepwater Horizon disaster must also be shared with the government regulatory bodies who failed to do their job.


The Deepwater Horizon was operating in 1500m of water...not 5000m. Modern deepwater rigs are quite capable of working in this depth of water and so are many of the older rigs. The well control systems in use on these rigs are quite capable of operating in such water depths.....if theyre maintained and operated properly. BTW I'm currently working off the NW shelf WA in similar water depths and we're using a rig built in the 70's. Our rig and our BOP are quite capable of handling this sort of water depth.

I'm a scientist and I'm directly involved in the day to day operation of a rig drilling for hydrocarbons. I'm a consultant paid by the operating oil company but that doesn't absolve me from my legal responsibilites to ensure that nobody gets hurt and the operation doesn't harm the environment. If I stuff up and someone gets hurt, equipment gets damaged or the environment gets damaged as a result of my actions/decisions then its ME that gets hauled up before the client's risk management department to explain myself and its ME that gets to appear at the government investigation.


Regards Martin

[kiwigeo]

I recently did my first neck reset on a (chinese made canadian brand) guitar with a dovetail neck joint.
Found all these shims already in place.
But it's OK, it's a dovetail joint so it must be the best!

23052011899 (Small).jpg

23052011904 (Small).jpg

And you dont use shims on your dovetail neck joints?

[J.F. Custom]

From dovetail necks to off-shore oil rigs!

That's some segway right there

Didn't see that one coming.

Jeremy

[kiwigeo]

From dovetail necks to off-shore oil rigs!

That's some segway right there

Didn't see that one coming.

Jeremy

Red rag to a bull mate. Not many people actually get out to offshore oil rigs and see what actually happens during a drilling operation. You can't pin the Deepwater Horizon disaster down to one single cause or even a small group of causes. Im a scientist and dont like it when people blame a disaster on the scientists when the decisions that led to the DWH disaster were made by people from many different proffessions.

Im not going to enter debate on the topic....Ive had my say and introduced a few facts into the equation. Back to dovetail neck joints.

[Kim]

With such focus upon 'your' red rag, you seem to have missed 'my' point completely Martin..

My post had addressed the suggestion of scientific outcomes tailored to the highest bidder and my reference to the oil and gas industry was directed squarely at environmental impact studies undertaken by those who own the rigs and those to whom they must seek approval in order to operate them in any given area. This is science which take place 'before' the bopping rig is anywhere near the well....Regardless of why the incident you are referring to happened, the plain fact of the matter is that it DID happen, and when it happened, plan "A" DID fail, and there was no plan "B"...

If you re-read what I posted without iterations that would fuel your assumption, you should be able to see that my REAL point had been that during the EIS, a process in which scientist ARE heavily involved, the question was not put nor fail-safe requested to address the 'unthinkable' (it was obviously not the impossible). Given the potential cost to the greater community, both economically and environmentally that eventually became a reality FOR WHAT EVER REASON, the fact that the answer to that single question, "What's ur plan "B" ? " had never been provided or requested 'before' approval had been given, clearly indicates that those who undertook the EIS, forgot to answer it, or ask it during their submissions and assessments.....or they were told not to mention it or ask about it, and considering that these people are scientist and that in itself would suggest they are in fact 'thinking' professionals and therefore should be most likely to be the first to identify the 'unthinkable', I suspect it was a case of the later rather than the former and I stand by my statement without apology.

But don't feel bad...where big money, politics and/or the law are concerned there have been many examples of tailored outcomes to all sorts of investigation..in fact that is pretty much what lawyers specialize in, tailoring the outcome of an investigation to favour their client and they seldom allow the facts to get in the way. By that I am not suggesting they are all lairs, I am simply say that the choose their questions carefully, and do what they can to assist their client to avoid revealing that which could be incriminating for them. i.e. It is not so much what is said, it is much more about what is not said.

Point in hand, does anyone remember the terms of reference set by Johnny Howard in his "Wheat for Weapons" Cole inquiry??? Err yeah Cole, bugger off and look into it for us we need to find out who was involved in this treachery!!. Ya got 6 months and ur time started back in December...Oh and by the way, under no circumstances are you to implicate any member of my government in ur findings...off ya go now son..(chuckle, chuckle)..leave no stone unturned..(snicker, snicker) except the ones I've told ya to leave alone.


youtu.be/

So Jeremy how's that, we now have a segway with training wheel



Cheers

Kim

[woodrat]

I recently did my first neck reset on a (chinese made canadian brand) guitar with a dovetail neck joint.
Found all these shims already in place.
But it's OK, it's a dovetail joint so it must be the best!

23052011899 (Small).jpg

23052011904 (Small).jpg

Craig...those are TONE ENHANCERS not Shims!

John

[Nick]

Craig...those are TONE ENHANCERS not Shims!

John

My thoughts exactly too John! They are each carefully calibrated to a tuned length & of a different wood, to accentuate the tones that were naturally getting attenuated in the neck by the time they got to the soundbox, they were a 'preamp' if you like.

[kiwigeo]

My post had addressed the suggestion of scientific outcomes tailored to the highest bidder and my reference to the oil and gas industry was directed squarely at environmental impact studies undertaken by those who own the rigs and those to whom they must seek approval in order to operate them in any given area. This is science which take place 'before' the bopping rig is anywhere near the well....Regardless of why the incident you are referring to happened, the plain fact of the matter is that it DID happen, and when it happened, plan "A" DID fail, and there was no plan "B"...

EIS's aren't normally undertaken by the companies who own the rigs or government regulatory bodies.....it's usually the responsibility of the operator of the well (ie the oil company). The root of this problem is not scientists printing what their clients want to see in their EIS reports. If the relevant government regulatory bodies were doing their job such reports wouldn't see the light of day.

Why aren't the regulatory bodies doing their job? Simply because they don't have the resources...they cant attract people to work for them simply because the moneys better out in the oil and gas industry. Until someone wakes up to this the regulatory bodies in this country and in the US will never function properly and there'll be more disasters on the scale of DWH.

Anyway back to the original thread in which the propostion was put forward that the Santa Cruz claim that dovetail neck joints are acoustically better is the result of scientists providing the research their client wants to hear. Firstly (as Jeremy points out) there is no reference to the relevant scientific research and secondly as I've already pointed out this claim is obviously more a case of people who know nothing about science dressing up b.s claims as science. This has nothing to do with scientists working on the take.

Regards Martin

[DarwinStrings]

"Tone enhancers", "Elf sperm".......

My turn again from a less frivolous angle.

"The dovetail jointed neck allows us a considerable degree of control over the presence of the guitar."

Isn't he term "presence" a little bit ambiguous to start with? Like the presence control on a amp adds high end or boosts the higher frequencies. Do they mean they can, by using a dovetail rather than any other join control or add/boost high end in the sound. Maybe they mean that by using this join they can make the guitar more (or less?) present in a given environment because surly "presence" will change in different environments.

"The tonal advantage of the dovetail is not a matter of opinion"

"Tonal advantage", what is a tonal advantage, more highs? more low? more colour? more "presence"? Then to state something is "not a matter of opinion" when it come to tone or some sort of "tonal advantage" Hmmm I guess I just see things differently and always though that the reason some would prefer the tone of a particular Gibson J185 in preference to the tone of a particular Martin D35 was in fact a matter of opinion, that it was subjective and related to a individual perceptions and past experiences of music.

Oh and good thinking Jeremy, make it a Clydesdale please.

Jim

[Kim]

My post had addressed the suggestion of scientific outcomes tailored to the highest bidder and my reference to the oil and gas industry was directed squarely at environmental impact studies undertaken by those who own the rigs and those to whom they must seek approval in order to operate them in any given area. This is science which take place 'before' the bopping rig is anywhere near the well....Regardless of why the incident you are referring to happened, the plain fact of the matter is that it DID happen, and when it happened, plan "A" DID fail, and there was no plan "B"...

EIS's aren't normally undertaken by the companies who own the rigs or government regulatory bodies.....it's usually the responsibility of the operator of the well (ie the oil company). The root of this problem is not scientists printing what their clients want to see in their EIS reports. If the relevant government regulatory bodies were doing their job such reports wouldn't see the light of day.

Why aren't the regulatory bodies doing their job? Simply because they don't have the resources...they cant attract people to work for them simply because the moneys better out in the oil and gas industry. Until someone wakes up to this the regulatory bodies in this country and in the US will never function properly and there'll be more disasters on the scale of DWH.

Regards Martin

To quote Julie Andrews: And this will bring us back to doe, doe, doe, doe, doe.

mind you even scientists can taylor their views depending on who's paying for their 'research'.

I thought that was the only way they got paid a decent income these days...
Cheers

Kim

The root of the problem is very much scientist printing what their client want to read Martin. Regardless of who provides the report and who assesses it, the bottom line is that the outcome is tailored by money. The good guys are staved of it while those who know what side their bread is buttered do very nicely and that was the point being made from the beginning before your assumption led you to believe it had something to do with you working on an oil rig.

As for Santa's claim, we do not know upon what data they've based their statement upon. Therefore we cannot know if some wanker with a few letters after his name has provided 'outcomes for cash' or not. If your position is that 'no' scientist would sell his professional integrity, then you best take a closer look at what is happening all around. This is a day and age where money can make facts, don't blame me for that.

Cheers

Kim

[kiwigeo]

I thought that was the only way they got paid a decent income these days...
Cheers

Kim

[/quote]

You've made another assumption that most of the world's scientists make their living doing research. Not so, in fact you'll find that a majority of scientists make their money doing run of the mill jobs like mine. I do science and get paid for it...simple.

Anyway like I said Im off to work....this debate will have to sit for 3 weeks.

Martin

[Kim]

I thought that was the only way they got paid a decent income these days...
Cheers

Kim

You've made another assumption that most of the world's scientists make their living doing research.

In relevance to this discussion they do Martin, no assumption in that.

Anyway like I said Im off to work....this debate will have to sit for 3 weeks.

Have a safe trip mate


youtu.be/



Cheers

Kim

[Pete Brown]

this debate will have to sit for 3 weeks.

I'm wetting myself in anticipation.

Cheers
Pete

[Nick]

I'm wetting myself in anticipation.

Cheers
Pete

Have you tried incontinence pants Pete?

[kiwigeo]

Airline has lost my bags.......you lot can wait till the cows come home