That's so clean and professional looking. You are making the rest of us (except Chris) look like crude hackers. We're going to have to step up our game.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Magnets & Copper Wire: A Pickup Building Thread
- Thread starter Freekmagnet
- Start date
slowburnaz
Commercial User
Right on. I've always just used EasyEDA for making my PCBs, but there isn't a good way of importing an image to use as a stencil to cut out any of the solder mask.
If you don't mind me asking, how do you do that in KiCAD?
Not sure how Jeff does it exactly (as there are more ways to do it).
In KiCad 6.0 you can import graphics in .svg or .dxf format through the "Import graphics" menu. Then you can select the scaling if needed, and on which technical layer the drawing will be.
You could also create a component from the image with the "Image converter" tool, make it appear on the layers you want and insert it as a component.
In KiCad 6.0 you can import graphics in .svg or .dxf format through the "Import graphics" menu. Then you can select the scaling if needed, and on which technical layer the drawing will be.
You could also create a component from the image with the "Image converter" tool, make it appear on the layers you want and insert it as a component.
slowburnaz
Commercial User
Yeah, see, in Easy EDA you have the option of importing an image, but as far as I can tell, you can only really apply it usefully on a silkscreen layer... I can't figure out how to use that image as a pattern to remove the solder mask.
KiCAD has way more features, but I'm a total noob.
KiCAD has way more features, but I'm a total noob.
Thanks, but I'm still just a crude hacker that happens to have spent more time than I should have figuring out how to import a logo!
I wish I could remember, but I did that years ago and have honestly forgotten
Having said that, I am pretty sure @Kinkh has it right. What I do know is that I made the image into a footprint in my own library. As such, I can place it, rotate it, etc. like any other footprint. However, like any other footprint, it cannot be scaled directly. I just made a few different sizes of images and made them separate footprints and then pick one that fits closest into the space I have. I also made a couple of different versions on different layers (copper and silk) too so I don't have to edit the component to change layers later. Then I use the flip command to move it between front and back sides.
I found getting started in KiCad was pretty straightforward, but then I wasted a lot of time messing around with fiddly things so YMMV.
Last edited:
Passinwind
I know nothing.
- Dec 3, 2003
- 23,054
- 45,952
- Disclosures
- Designer/Toaster Tech @ Passinwind Electronics
26320652[/URL], member: 286020"]Thanks, but I'm still just a crude hacker that happens to have spent more time that I should have figuring out how to import a logo!
I wish I could remember, but I did that years ago and have honestly forgotten
Having said that, I am pretty sure @Kinkh has it right. What I do know is that I made the image into a footprint in my own library. As such, I can place it, rotate it, etc. like any other footprint. However, like any other footprint, it cannot be scaled directly. I just made a few different sizes of images and made them separate footprints and then pick one that fits closest into the space I have. I also made a couple of different versions on different layers (copper and silk) too so I don't have to edit the component to change layers later. Then I use the flip command to move it between front and back sides.
I found getting started in KiCad was pretty straightforward, but then I wasted a lot of time messing around with fiddly things so YMMV.
The bitmap import feature got some much needed improvements a few years back but it still takes some trial and error to get exactly what I want out of it a lot of the time. Not all short run board fab services have as high a print resolution spec as OSHpark offers either. Lookin’ good Jeff!
Last edited:
Never worked in Easy EDA so I wouldn't know the details, but when manufacturing a PCB there are layers called Front Mask and Back Mask. They tell the manufacturer where not to put the coloured solder stop mask, so you can have pads exposed to solder components.
Normal footprints have it on pads/holes by default so you probably don't see it that much or don't pay attention normally.
Anyways, try searching for such a layer in Easy EDA and anything you put on that layer will expose the copper beneath.
EDIT: While not directly bass related, here is an example of how we imported a .svg graphic to the Silkscreen layer in Kicad. It could have easily been done on any other layer.
Last edited:
Speaking of crude hacking of custom pickups, here's something I did recently.....
I added an outer shell onto a prototype set of my SSB Extra Hot pickups. The outer shell is a hand wrapped coil of heavy gauge bare copper wire, encased in a clear epoxy outer shell. It's mostly for decoration. A steampunk sci-fi look, like some old heavy electrical gear. Or a copper cooling coil.
The heavy copper coil is connected to ground, so it is a functional shielding shell. But it doesn't generate signal. Although it looks like it could!
The top cap is 1/16" thick ebony, as I usually do.
Here's what they look like, sticking up through the pickguard.....
On the left is the real pickup coil, wound and potted, and its two aluminum brackets. On the right, the upper half of the coil is pre-cast in black epoxy, retaining the aluminum brackets and creating a form for the heavy outer coil.
I first tried to make the outer coil from 14 ga copper wire. That would look really cool. But I had trouble forming the coil neatly. I need to work on that.
I tried winding it on a maple form....
I ended up going with 20 ga bare copper wire, hand-wrapping it directly on the pickup, and holding in place with CA glue......Still not perfect, but better.
Then outer-casting it in clear epoxy....
This pickup is kind of sloppy looking, but it's going in a one-off prototype bass. I need to work on better technique of making these.
But I like the concept, and I plan to use it on an upcoming new production model.
I added an outer shell onto a prototype set of my SSB Extra Hot pickups. The outer shell is a hand wrapped coil of heavy gauge bare copper wire, encased in a clear epoxy outer shell. It's mostly for decoration. A steampunk sci-fi look, like some old heavy electrical gear. Or a copper cooling coil.
The heavy copper coil is connected to ground, so it is a functional shielding shell. But it doesn't generate signal. Although it looks like it could!
The top cap is 1/16" thick ebony, as I usually do.
Here's what they look like, sticking up through the pickguard.....
On the left is the real pickup coil, wound and potted, and its two aluminum brackets. On the right, the upper half of the coil is pre-cast in black epoxy, retaining the aluminum brackets and creating a form for the heavy outer coil.
I first tried to make the outer coil from 14 ga copper wire. That would look really cool. But I had trouble forming the coil neatly. I need to work on that.
I tried winding it on a maple form....
I ended up going with 20 ga bare copper wire, hand-wrapping it directly on the pickup, and holding in place with CA glue......Still not perfect, but better.
Then outer-casting it in clear epoxy....
This pickup is kind of sloppy looking, but it's going in a one-off prototype bass. I need to work on better technique of making these.
But I like the concept, and I plan to use it on an upcoming new production model.
Last edited:
Ahh okay cool, options. They really turned out nice
Yeah, that was a suggestion over on the Scroll Basses thread too. Wind the heavy copper wire on an aluminum form, heat it with a torch, flow some plumber's solder on it, and let it get some of the blue tarnish. That could look really cool. Or hot.
Yeah, the heat staining would be a good look:
The perforated brass shells you use look pretty steampunk IMO, particularly with a bit of heat tarnish.
The perforated brass shells you use look pretty steampunk IMO, particularly with a bit of heat tarnish.
slowburnaz
Commercial User
I recently started playing around with "flame painting" on some titanium. I'm not sure yet if it's something I wanna do on a regular basis, or if it'll hold up well over the long term, but... it sure looks cool!
I've found it likes to collect fingerprints, if nothing else.
I've found it likes to collect fingerprints, if nothing else.
@Bruce Johnson, I like the steam punk aesthetic.
One thing that might look cool if you haven't tried it yet - to use flat copper wire. It can probably be bought and definitely made at home with a simple jig.
Then you could also try some "simple" home solutions to turn the top layer of the wire into brass to get that golden look
One thing that might look cool if you haven't tried it yet - to use flat copper wire. It can probably be bought and definitely made at home with a simple jig.
Then you could also try some "simple" home solutions to turn the top layer of the wire into brass to get that golden look
I've been messing around the last couple of days trying to copy an old T40 pickup. I bought a dead one a while back, and I did my best to come up with a wind count based on weight. I basically cut the wire off of one of the bobbins and weigh it on a digital scale. But before all that, I had to make some bobbins.
I used some pieces of chipboard. The steel poles were left over from another test build. They're .07" thick and the Peavey poles were .06" thick. The height and length are roughly the same. The magnet on the Peavey is a .25" thick ceramic magnet that measures about 2.6" x .9375". This is a weird size, but fortunately I had a pair .20" x .26" x .5" magnets laying around. So, slightly wider but slightly thinner.
Here's my coils. By weight, the wind count came within a a few dozen turns of 6000. I just kept it at 6000.
I found it strangely reassuring that my test coils didn't look any worse than Peavey's final pickup.
Anyway, the pickup sounds pretty honking massive! It's a little less bright than most of the pickups I've designed and made. I'm not sure if that's because most of my pickups have had a much narrower aperture, or if the tiny amount of extra steel has drastically affected the sound. I don't have a working original to compare it to, but it has a nice, warm, beefy sound I remember from the T40's and the Forum basses I've played. Overall, I love how it sounds! I have it placed in the "P" position, and I might try it in the "MM" position. Maybe I'll test it out with a couple of preamps I have laying around.
I dub thee Faux-40 Ferrite.
I used some pieces of chipboard. The steel poles were left over from another test build. They're .07" thick and the Peavey poles were .06" thick. The height and length are roughly the same. The magnet on the Peavey is a .25" thick ceramic magnet that measures about 2.6" x .9375". This is a weird size, but fortunately I had a pair .20" x .26" x .5" magnets laying around. So, slightly wider but slightly thinner.
Here's my coils. By weight, the wind count came within a a few dozen turns of 6000. I just kept it at 6000.
I found it strangely reassuring that my test coils didn't look any worse than Peavey's final pickup.
Anyway, the pickup sounds pretty honking massive! It's a little less bright than most of the pickups I've designed and made. I'm not sure if that's because most of my pickups have had a much narrower aperture, or if the tiny amount of extra steel has drastically affected the sound. I don't have a working original to compare it to, but it has a nice, warm, beefy sound I remember from the T40's and the Forum basses I've played. Overall, I love how it sounds! I have it placed in the "P" position, and I might try it in the "MM" position. Maybe I'll test it out with a couple of preamps I have laying around.
I dub thee Faux-40 Ferrite.
Last edited:
I still regularly play a T-45. Last thing I'd call that pickup is "bright". You might've nailed it.
I was thinking kind of along the same lines. I’ve only played a couple of T40’s and my nephew has a Forum, which supposedly has the same pickup. Just going from memory, it sounds about right. Besides, in order to make any real difference in brightness, I’d have to knock the turn count down by about 1000 turns. 1000 turns would be way off in terms of weight.
No, the wire spool in my winding machine is just sitting there, and doesn't turn or move. The wire is pulled off the end of the spool. The wire is wound onto the spool by the manufacturer, so that it can be wound off the spool like this. If you try to let the spool spin and pull the wire off of the side of the spool, the wire will get all tangled and kinked. I actually tried that, when I was first building my machine, and it doesn't work.
Here's another little pickup experiment for the day. I'm designing a pickup for one of my basses.
It's a split coil HB. 3/8" A5 cylinder magnets and 7/16" tall coils with 10,000 turns of #44 wire. The pickup has decent output, it's bright sounding with a definitely mid-ranged voice. The wider slugs give it little extra transient attack, and the fine gauge wire a really tight bottom end. In fact, the bottom end is almost too tight.
One night while dorking out watching a YouTube teardown of an old Kay pickup, I saw that they'd added a steel back plate to increase the inductance. It made sense to me, so I initially experimented with a .020" thick piece of 430 stainless I had laying around. It definitely increased the low end - not by a lot - the difference was subtle - but it was enough for me. Most importantly, it seemed to bring up some of the lows without affecting the highs and the midrange much. However, after playing it for a few days, I started noticing that the pickup had kind of a harsh attack curve that I didn't really like very much.
Next, I swapped out the 430 stainless plate with a .125" thick piece of 1018 steel I had, and it definitely sounded better to me. It increased the depth of the lows and smoothed out the attack significantly. I really liked it! Next I went down to the shop, cut out a .06" thick piece of 1018 steel and swapped it out with the thicker piece. The attack was about the same, but there was something I liked more about the thicker piece. I'm not going to say that there were more lows, but they felt more "present" to me. I dunno. It's hard for me to say for sure, because I'm using my highly subjective ears to judge a scientific experiment. It kind of freaks me out to use a hugely thick plate of steel as a backplate, however if it sounds better I suppose I should stick with what works.
It's a split coil HB. 3/8" A5 cylinder magnets and 7/16" tall coils with 10,000 turns of #44 wire. The pickup has decent output, it's bright sounding with a definitely mid-ranged voice. The wider slugs give it little extra transient attack, and the fine gauge wire a really tight bottom end. In fact, the bottom end is almost too tight.
One night while dorking out watching a YouTube teardown of an old Kay pickup, I saw that they'd added a steel back plate to increase the inductance. It made sense to me, so I initially experimented with a .020" thick piece of 430 stainless I had laying around. It definitely increased the low end - not by a lot - the difference was subtle - but it was enough for me. Most importantly, it seemed to bring up some of the lows without affecting the highs and the midrange much. However, after playing it for a few days, I started noticing that the pickup had kind of a harsh attack curve that I didn't really like very much.
Next, I swapped out the 430 stainless plate with a .125" thick piece of 1018 steel I had, and it definitely sounded better to me. It increased the depth of the lows and smoothed out the attack significantly. I really liked it! Next I went down to the shop, cut out a .06" thick piece of 1018 steel and swapped it out with the thicker piece. The attack was about the same, but there was something I liked more about the thicker piece. I'm not going to say that there were more lows, but they felt more "present" to me. I dunno. It's hard for me to say for sure, because I'm using my highly subjective ears to judge a scientific experiment. It kind of freaks me out to use a hugely thick plate of steel as a backplate, however if it sounds better I suppose I should stick with what works.
