What other things are you looking for?

I'm afraid that at some point, you'll have about all the data you can collect on an item. At that point it becomes a matter of the individual finding ways to use that data in ways that are helpful to him. If you still can't derive the information you want from that data then it's likely that you need to reach for a new tool - one designed to do what it is you need to do.

..............

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What other things are you looking for?
>
> I'm afraid that at some point, you'll have about
> all the data you can collect on an item. At that
> point it becomes a matter of the individual
> finding ways to use that data in ways that are
> helpful to him. If you still can't derive the
> information you want from that data then it's
> likely that you need to reach for a new tool - one
> designed to do what it is you need to do.
>
> ..............

So at this point the test is a static test based on deflection of the rod via some mass. It is also very specific on how to deflect the rod and where to deflect it. It's not a bad thing, but the number is very determined by very controled data points about the blank. This is not a bad thing, as it is simple to do, and provides a wealth of info about the rod.

But something that shows rod recovery based on various locations would be a useful thing. Right now we have the resonant frequecy test that I've seen mentioned in your magazines, but I'm not certain how to run such a test. So indeed, the dynamic characteristics are things that seem to be what folks are after. Granted, it's not something that is easily done, but that's why I was hoping for a discussion on how to improve CCS. Now, if you feel that the CCS is perfect, you are totally entitled to that opinion :) Or it could be that you feel the CCS system has no real need to enter that realm, and that this is the job of another system. But in general, I'm of the opinion that just about anything can be improved on! :)

On a side note: Tom, since you have what appears to be good rapport with Dr Bill, are there things that he's concerned about with the CCS system? Does he have plans on tweaking or changing it? What does he feel is the strengths and weaknesses of this system?

And just as important, what do you feel about the system? Do you yourself feel it's "complete" or do you also have dark desires like I do! :) :) :) LOL!

-- Cheers
-- James

-- Cheers
-- James

James,
"On a side note: Tom, since you have what appears to be good rapport with Dr Bill, are there things that he's concerned about with the CCS system? Does he have plans on tweaking or changing it? What does he feel is the strengths and weaknesses of this system? "

Let me respond to that. I have no intentions of changing any of the previously published definitions or descriptions of how to make the measurements. That would just mess up everything. I do have the intention of adding more tests to further characterize rods. Some of these will be explained in my next article in which I introduce TP (Tip Power) and PR (Power Reservoir). These are properties which must be addressed—especially with the advent of very fast action rods. I am certain that others will be added later if deemed useful. I am also certain that some of these may prove to be less than useful and/or practical and consequently will drop out of sight. If they need amending, that will be done by the introduction of a new test with a new acronym in order to avoid confusion.

As for the strengths, I believe it is better than nothing and even better that what rod builders had to work with previously.
As for the weaknesses, It requires the ability to read and comprehend what has been written and the common sense to not expect it to do that which it does not claim to do.

Some day, Emory and I will wrangle about frequency. It's all a matter of definitions and how one looks at the matter. It should prove interesting to onlookers.

Bill Hanneman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> James,
> "On a side note: Tom, since you have what appears
> to be good rapport with Dr Bill, are there things
> that he's concerned about with the CCS system?
> Does he have plans on tweaking or changing it?
> What does he feel is the strengths and weaknesses
> of this system? "

thank you for the direct response :) I do appreciate the feedback! And to both you and Tom, sorry if I've been a PITA!

> Let me respond to that. I have no intentions of
> changing any of the previously published
> definitions or descriptions of how to make the
> measurements. That would just mess up everything.
> I do have the intention of adding more tests to
> further characterize rods. Some of these will be
> explained in my next article in which I introduce
> TP (Tip Power) and PR (Power Reservoir). These are
> properties which must be addressed—especially with
> the advent of very fast action rods. I am certain
> that others will be added later if deemed useful.
> I am also certain that some of these may prove to
> be less than useful and/or practical and
> consequently will drop out of sight. If they need
> amending, that will be done by the introduction of
> a new test with a new acronym in order to avoid
> confusion.

So I've been pressing you for a lot of answers. Based on this info, are there things as rod builders that we can do (me specifically) to help you out with new test methods? I'd be more than happy to contribute if you need!

>
> As for the strengths, I believe it is better than
> nothing and even better that what rod builders had
> to work with previously.

No doubt!

> As for the weaknesses, It requires the ability to
> read and comprehend what has been written and the
> common sense to not expect it to do that which it
> does not claim to do.

Which based on the responses I've gotten, seems to be what I was trying to do!

>
> Some day, Emory and I will wrangle about
> frequency. It's all a matter of definitions and
> how one looks at the matter. It should prove
> interesting to onlookers.

Cool. I look forward to this in the future!

-- Cheers
-- James

You would probably want to read the last installment where the CCF (common cents frequency) is discussed. I think that it going to hit on those dynamic characteristics you mention.

.........