software

For those of you led astray by errent advice... here is a post from another forum that should dispel any doubts about quot;smaller strings being less likely to breakquot;

Well, I went to the D'Addario website and downloaded their string tension guide. It gives you string characteristics and an equation to use that tells you how much string tension there will be for a given pitch and scale length.

I used the numbers in a spreadsheet to calculate E string tension for different gauges from .007 to .013. . For example, a .007 string needs 7.9 pounds of tension to reach a high-E string frequency while a .013 needs 27.4 pounds, about 3.5 times as much tension as the .007.

Certainly a smaller string is under less tension, but a more relavant number is the amount of tension (pounds) for a given amount of area. The smaller string has less tension but if this smaller area is under more force per unit area, it will be more likely to break, and if it is under less tension per unit area, it will be less likely to break. I calculated how much tension there was per unit area by dividing the string tension by the string area (pi*r^2). It turns out that the total tension per unit area is the same regardless of string gauge! Maybe one kind of string is less likely to break than another, but it can't be due to the amount of tension per unit area on the string because it is the same for all gauges.


Originally Posted by CharlieNCFor those of you led astray by errent advice... here is a post from another forum that should dispel any doubts about quot;smaller strings being less likely to breakquot;

Well, I went to the D'Addario website and downloaded their string tension guide. It gives you string characteristics and an equation to use that tells you how much string tension there will be for a given pitch and scale length.

I used the numbers in a spreadsheet to calculate E string tension for different gauges from .007 to .013. . For example, a .007 string needs 7.9 pounds of tension to reach a high-E string frequency while a .013 needs 27.4 pounds, about 3.5 times as much tension as the .007.

Certainly a smaller string is under less tension, but a more relavant number is the amount of tension (pounds) for a given amount of area. The smaller string has less tension but if this smaller area is under more force per unit area, it will be more likely to break, and if it is under less tension per unit area, it will be less likely to break. I calculated how much tension there was per unit area by dividing the string tension by the string area (pi*r^2). It turns out that the total tension per unit area is the same regardless of string gauge! Maybe one kind of string is less likely to break than another, but it can't be due to the amount of tension per unit area on the string because it is the same for all gauges.

So therefore, it's as easy to bend an .008 gauge string a full step as it is to bend a .12, and thus, equally as prone to break.dude, what doesn't make sense about that? the tension placed on each string strung to pitch is proportionate to its diameter. nobody's saying a .12 is as easy to bend as an .008, only that the greater tension is in no way relevant to whether or not the string is going to break.

If the errant info you're talking about was mine, it was based on real world playing for 25 years, not data taken from a site, which doesn't account for how a player plays against the higher tension. A player who uses the higher tension 12's is more likely to have a more aggressive touch than one who plays on 9's, therefore snapping more strings. Because the player is more heavy handed, there's more chance that the extra abuse will snap a higher tension string.
It has more to do with that factor than it does the ratio between tension and diameter.

Think of a thin guy and a fat guy running on a track. The fat guy's shoes will wear out quicker, even though all the technical data suggests that the soles can withstand 1000 laps around the track. LOL

Charlie, You have left out one very important factor. That's the scale length. The longer the scale length in your guitar, the higher the tension you have to put on the string in order to get the note in tune. That means more force per cross sectional area of the string. In engineering terms, we call it stress.

Also, according to mathematics, the assumption is that the string breaks from being stretched to it's breaking point....like bending a string two or three notes up. If that's the case, the mathematics make perfect sense, since it's a tension/diameter ratio.

The reality is that strings break at the bridge, from the striking force of a pick. Therefore, the more tension there is (thicker strings), the easier they break when a pick comes down on that area. A thicker string may seem stronger, but it's the same concept of bending a piece of plastic. If it's thinner, it flexes more. If it's thicker, it just snaps.

I never had any luck with 8's or 9's.
I was always snapping the high E or B string.

I've used 11's now for years.
I rarely ever break a string.
And if one does, it's usually the wound D or A string. Go figure.

I like a low action, have a light touch, and use Floyds.

Kent



interesting. although i understand clearly the concept of scale length. that's why, for some people, it's harder to play a strat vs a les paul. so from what i can gather this is what the forum is going with here:

smaller strings are more stretchy, so they're stronger. bigger strings are weaker because they play stiffer and are more likely to break under normal pick attack.

i guess that's why all the players with light strings have to develop quot;a light touch.quot;

this is interesting to here so many different points of view, i luckily don't have string breaking problems but found it fascinating to hear so many forum members touting the quot;small string gospel.quot; it has also sparked a poll on one of my other forums. later fellas, and take it easy on those 10's

How about you just don't beat the hell out of your guitar when you play, and keep it maintained so you don't get any burrs/sharp edges. I haven't broken a string in years, and I play 9-46s on all my guitars. Using a little common sense can take all that math out of the picture .


Originally Posted by GearjoneserAlso, according to mathematics, the assumption is that the string breaks from being stretched to it's breaking point....like bending a string two or three notes up. If that's the case, the mathematics make perfect sense, since it's a tension/diameter ratio.

The reality is that strings break at the bridge, from the striking force of a pick. Therefore, the more tension there is (thicker strings), the easier they break when a pick comes down on that area. A thicker string may seem stronger, but it's the same concept of bending a piece of plastic. If it's thinner, it flexes more. If it's thicker, it just snaps.His point, however, was that all strings have the same tension to diameter ratio (assuming equal pitch and length). You also would have to assume that we're actually quot;stretchingquot; these pieces of metal when we play them, which just isn't true. If your strings are breaking at the bridge it's likely a problem with the hardware itself, and not just because you're plowing through the strings with your pick. Your pick would break before the string in that scenario.

From the other thread:

Originally Posted by The Golden BoyDo you really not understand this? Really? When steel is under tension (stress) it breaks easier. A thicker gauged string takes more tension to get it to pitch.

Originally Posted by The Golden BoyFrom the other thread:

Yes, but he's talking about a RATIO, not just comparing tensions. His first post is saying that the ratio of tension with respect to diameter is the same for any string. Of course a thicker string will require more tension.