I am new here, but I did do a search using Common Cents and Big Picture to see if my questions have been answered already. I did not find such posts. I'll ask my questions and if they are answered already, I apologize and ask that you direct me to the threads so that I can read the answers and not take up too much bandwidth here.

Anyway, I printed off and read through all the material at CC site (the same one that is on the left side of this webpage) and still have some questions about the Big Picture article. I see that Dr. Bill visits here and answers questions, but it may not be necessary for him to answer these questions.

One question is in regard to the picture that shows how Dr. Bill supports the rod for BP testing. My question is, because it was not clear in the article, while performing the BP testing of the rod, do you support the rod back at the butt end, as you do for the original CC testing for ERN and AA or, as it looks in the photo of the BP testing, is the rod held closer to the test area. For ex., for pt. 1, which is the first 1' of tip length, where would the rod be supported? Way back at the butt end or ?

If the rod is supported closer to the area tested, again, say the first foot of rod, where do you support the rod? It was not clear in the article, but the best guess based on the CC article, for me would be to take the distance (first foot, or two feet, etc.) and add 10% to that length and support the rod from that point back. Is this correct? As I said, I base this on the CC article which states that only the last 10% should be supported (i.e. toward the butt end of the rod, the tip assumed to be the "first" portion of the rod) and if the rod is to be supported closer to the points being tested, then I assume that the 10% must also move forward so that the assumption is that we're dealing with a 1' -1.2" or 2'-2.4" rod, etc., until we get to the point that we're dealing with the entire rod.

Next question, I understand what Dr. Bill was trying to accomplish because he says outright that the BP is supposed to help the rodbuilder with a customer who wants a duplicate rod, but the rod may no longer be available. It seems that this is meant more for a commercial rodbuilder than a hobbiest because, and correct me if I am wrong, but the implication is that the rodbuilder can try to duplicate the rod using various pieces of rod blanks, am I right? I mean, if the rod is no longer available, chances are the blank is not available, and a direct off the shelf replacement may not be available, therefore, it seems to me that the rodbuilder would have to piecemeal a rod blank that can approximate the rod the customer brought to him. I.e., say the original is a 4 piece, the rodbuilder could end up using a tip from TFO, the butt section from St. Croix and the middle sections could come from the same Rainbow blank, is this kind of what the BP is supposed to do to help rodbuilders? If my understanding is correct (it probably isn't, I am willing to admit), wouldn't it be necessary to include the BP data for each blank and rod on the CCS data site? Another thought comes to mind, since it appears that the CCF came later than the other articles, shouldn't the BP also, now, test the CCF for each 1' section of rod or does it only matter what the final CCF is?

I am asking these questions because I am seeking a better understanding of the Big Picture article and based on reading and re-reading it, I have some assumptions, as you can see, that may not be true and I want to try to get rid of assumptions and know how the BP is accomplished and for my own curiosity how it was intended on being used in practice.

Sorry for a long-winded post and thanks to anyone who reads and provides answers,
Paul

The Big Picture component is intended to allow you to take measurements of specific sections of a blank or rod. The rod is support just aft of the section you are working with, not necessarily from the butt.

Yes, using this part of the system probably would require you to have additional blanks or blank sections to use for matching and few builders are going to have a lot of this type inventory lying around. But it is just one more way the system can be used to dial in the specific traits of blank sections..

Paul,
If you will look at Figure 1, you will see the rod is supported on two pegs (about 9" apart) and held by rubber bands. At the center, there is a rubber protected guide which brought to bear from above in order to keep the rod from bowing upwards. The measurement of the length of the rod tip being measured is made from the tip to the support nearest the tip. Thus, readings are arbitrarily made at even foot intervals measured from the tip. Consequently, one should, if possible, remove the heavier sections of the rod when making measurements nearer the tip.

As measurements approach the butt, the rod gets appreciably stronger and you will note that in Figure 2, readings are not make for points beyond 7 feet. If one wishes, one can extrapolate the line between point 7 and 0 (the full rod supported in accordance with the CCS procedure). All the points prior to 0 are measured in a slightly different manner from the 0 point and the user should recognize that fact.

One could, if one wanted to and if it were possible, measure the CCF of the shorter sections of a rod. However one would need to be able to measure frequencies greater than 100 cps and also find some way to use that information . The BIG already provides data on three dimentions (ERN, AA, and rod length). To include CCF would require a plot of four dimentions—not an easy thing to draw.

The CCS is intended to provide a method for making standardized measurements—like ruler. How one uses it is up to the individual.
I hope this helps,
Bill

Bill and Tom,

Thank you. You have answered my questions about this subject, I do have at least a couple more about the CCS but will start a new thread since they are not Big Picture related.

@ Bill
I did look at Figure 1 and that is when it occurred to me that you might not be supporting the rod at the butt section but at some other point to perform the test for different lengths of the same rod. I was able to see that the rod diameter *looked* to be smaller than the butt section should be, but then sometimes photos can be decieving if you do not have something to scale it to. Now that I know that you measured from the tip to the front of the support that makes a world of difference. I had thought that the final support, in keeping with the CCS procedure, would be at X + 10%X, where X is the length of the rod your are testing (say you are testing the point 3' from the tip, I had thought the support would be at 3'-3.6" away from the tip).

BTW, I understand that how one uses the system is up to the individual. However, there is only one right way to use a ruler, if you are looking to measure something. How many woodworkers have used a tape measure and instead of using the end of it, they start their measurement out on the 1" line and forget to take that into account when they want something 9" long and they actually cut the piece 8" long. Its frustrating for WW, but when there's a site collecting this data, such as the CCS data site, I would think that the info. there would be far more reliable if the data were obtained using the method you spelled out than based on other's interpretation of what's the correct method. And I was curious at how you thought this might be applied.

@ Tom
I figured that some of the commercial rod builders would have some blanks on hand from different manus that they might assemble into rods for shows to display and sell, or perhaps for personal use to build when they get some time. Plus, being rodbuilders I am sure they have their own rods afterall, they probably got into the rodbuilding biz by making their own personal rods and they might be able to dip into their own personal collections to mix and match a rod to meet a customer's demands, then buy the blanks necessary to assemble that special rod for the customer.

Paul

I think what Dr. Hanneman meant, was that just as a ruler can only provide data, so too the CCS. That's all it can do - it's up to you to determine how you will use the information it provides.

Now we'd like to assume that on a database such as what Bob Hesser is collecting for all of us, each person that has submitted that data has taken pains to use the "tool" in the correct manner. It's also reasonable to assume that a few haven't, and for this reason you like to see multiple submissions by different people so you can get an average that should more closely reflect the correct figures for any particular rod or blank. Let's also keep in mind that even blanks with the same model number will not be verbatim in length, power, action, etc. - blank manufacturing is a highly labor intensive process and any time you have that much hand labor involved, well... But those makers with an eye on good quality control can usually manufacture blanks of the same model with fairly close measurements.

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

Tom,

I understand that. Even when manufacturing is done via automated machines, there are still acceptable tolerances that the products are made to. Its impossible to get things "exactly" alike and can be expensive when you tighten the tolerances and make things closer to being alike.

As far as the data is concerned, I do believe that it is being compiled in good faith and that the people who are submitting data to it are more than likely following the procedure. I just hope that the data uploaded can continue being reliable and that those who stray from the acceptable procedure do so and use the data internally, unless it is found that another person's method is an acceptable deviation from Dr. Bill's (i.e. any differences in values for ERN, AA and CCF are negligible). I'm not against innovation, however, if bad or conflicting data is uploaded to the site people will start to lose faith in the system, not that the system itself is in error that's just how it would be perceived by those who do not understand it.

Paul