Ok Dennis/Eugene (if you are indeed two different people) <> Let's put your hypothetical theories to practical application.

I am presently building a 9'9" fly rod specifically designed by my shop to deliver advanced grain weight forward shooting heads in the 30' to 35' head length range.

This is a two handed over head delivery tool.

Engineered factor of delivery for this rod has an optimal grain window of 650 to 850 grains ... Use of grains is dependent on tip or butt loading

I would classify this rod flex as a top 2/3 power with a slight regression (reduced flex from true progressive) in the bottom 1/3.

... Not a tip action rod.

It has an extra fast speed of recovery.

My client chooses to use two handed overhead deliveries to eliminate the physical burden of the single hand double haul ... But it is still (never-the-less) a fly rod, and falls within all blank design parameters required and typical of a fly rod.

Maximum OD of the shooting head taper will reach 3.20 mm ... We custom build correctly married shooting heads for our clients that are balanced specifically to the rod, and specifically to the clients targeted fishing applications.

The client that I am building this rod for will be pursuing shallow water Tapon to 200 pounds <> Not Flats fishing ... Primarily search casting to non sighted targets from a shallow walled craft.

My question to you is:

1. What would your step by step process be to determine the optimal guide system for this particular tool ?

2. Do you need more information from me to determine this <> And if so ... What would that be ?

Bob Meiser

Bob,
Never tried a big game rod but let's see if the science works that far up. Would run a 10 guide stategy on this rod length and action
Locations #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10
117.0 112.5 107.4 101.7 95.2 87.9 79.6 70.3 59.7 47.8 34.3

From Tip
0.0 4.5 9.6 15.3 21.8 29.1 37.4 46.7 57.3 69.2 82.7

Fuji big game tip top, Recoil #3 heavy titanium double foot fly for top 4 guides remainder (3) #4 fuji big game, #12, #16,#20 fuji stripper guides you should see approx a 35% increase thru reduced inertia.
To refine the guide placements some blank specs would be helpful but if unavailable this is where I'd start. You're probably going to tell me I'm off a mile but if you can tell me where, I can find the flaw in my spreadsheets.
Good test.

Denis is much more tolerant and certainly more eloquent than myself. I prefer to be a pain and am not particular fond of games or politics.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2008 12:00AM by Eugene Moore.

If anyone can organize this thread into sub topics and filtering there is good stuff present.

Subtopic R Rated XXXX Micro Guides

The issue of friction of line moving through guides. Everyone has assumed a constant angle of incidence at points of contact with the line and the guide ring. Line coming off of a casting reel spool through a non traversing fixed small guide located at the face of the reel at extreme angles of incidence creates a situation for creation of cyclic standing waves in the line. Larger and variable sized guides which allow more lateral line movement create more pronounced waves resulting in increased angles of incidence at guide points which disrupt the forward force vector. This disruption can decrease casting distance and cause instaneous cyclic inertial forces that will cause the rotating centrifugal braking system in reels to behave erratically. It appears that "taming" the line with micro guides is not only allowing the lure to travel a longer distance but reel settings can be backed to allow longer casts off without backlash.

Cook

There is nothing new here. Gene is rehashing things that many others here have said over the years. No offense to Gene, but he may want to search the archives on this topic. It has been discussed to death and there is nothing new being brought out here. This entire thread is a repeat of a dozen previous threads.

Bill,
You make some good points. I do think that this “micro guide” designation has gotten some people confused. The “micro guides” are simply smaller guides that have recently been made available to us. I don’t know why its being labeled as a “system” in itself. I know that there’s one or two individuals that have been touting them…and perhaps using them as their “claim to fame”. They certainly deserve credit for making us all aware of their advantages in certain applications. IMO, they are beneficial, as they do certainly save weight toward the tip of the rod as is advocated in this thread. I’ve incorporated them in the guide systems on my rods and I really like them.

Eugene,

Thanks for taking the time.

Those are very defined guide placements ... Can you tell me how you came up with them?

Care to share the process you used ?

Denis <> You seem to have knowledge of building tools for pursuing big game fish ... Any advise ?

Bob Meiser

Bob,
Pretty much irrelevant was taken with offense.
Water under the bridge.
I assume my preliminary was pretty close or you wouldn't request more.
I don't wish to share my equations. The data I've already posted is capable of recreating them if you choose.
I still require a titanium tip top if anyone knows where to find one.

Bob;
I answer to your question of “Ok Dennis/Eugene (if you are indeed two different people)”?

I would tend to think that Dennis and Eugene are two different people as Dennis is from Australia and posting from there and Eugene is from Missouri - USA and formally or maybe still employed by a Very credible tool and die manufacturer located in Washington Mo. It would be a far fetch that either one of them would be jumping back and forth across continents just to post info on rods

JimS
Thanks Jim
My apologies to Steve Rushing...........have no idea where the S came from

Steve G ( got that one right Jim )
Its probably a perception issue for some ( a common issue of establishing the correct context to consider things in ) & my reason for putting these posts together..............most of it has been said by others before...........maybe not all of it and maybe not to the same extent, but numerous posts seemed to be getting things into an incorrect context so I thought I would stick my neck out & have a go.

The sensitivity thing I feel is that many people are thinking of it in terms of a rod flex oscillation like in the cast , where there is some impact in damping from the grip material in the effort hand on the butt , and the reelhand & butt hand are locking & absorbing the 'whole of rod' vibration .
The key there is that essentially the rod is taking the shape of the maximum wavelength and is flexed from tip to butt in sort of a single wave form ( half a wave ).

In the fishing situation there is typically only one hand on the rod ( the other is on the reel handle & is not locked to the rod either ) and the little taps from fish are simply of such short duration and small deflection that they set up a vibration that does not deflect the whole blank but has the very small amplitude & short wave length that I referred to earlier............this essentially travels down the blank like waves on the water ( the water does not move the wave moves thru it ) so the vibration we are referring to in our desire for sensitivity is a one way transmission tip towards butt & basically dissipates in the butt. We are feeling it in our hand on the way thru & absorbing a lot of it in the softness of our hand as a major damping point.

A simple test of this is to take a bass or trout rod in hand and deflect the tip & let it oscillate ..............what do you feel - a lengthy pulse which repeats & diminishes.
Now take the handle of a toothbrush & get someone to tap the tip very very lightly..........JUST ONCE................what do you feel -a very short light pulse
What you feel with these two tests is very very different
Now compare that to what you feel in your fishing sensitivity issue.......................does it feel a long pulse and repetitive or a very short duration pulse.
You should be able to conclude that the whole rod is not flexing in the taps you feel while fishing so the vibration can reasonably be assessed as being transmitted down the blank in a wave not flexing the whole blank..
Having done that you should be able to accept that the handle behind the reelseat plays no significant part in the sensitivity issue.
If you still have doubts try those tests during construction of a new rod with the butt grip off & then on & see if you feel anything significantly different with the grip on.

Now to an attempt at an answer to Bob Balcombe's request for an explanation about vibration in a fishing rod & a broom handle.
I'll start from another example
Remember the 2 tin cans with a bit of string between them as a kid & talking into one with your mate hearing you at the other end.
What happened if you didn't have the string tight...................you heard nothing
What happened when the string was tight - it worked ; your mate could hear you & nothing came back to your end again that you could hear
The vibration in your voice transmitted into the tin and down the string & into the can at the other end your mate heard the vibration in the can at his end as your voice ,and the voice vibration dissipated in that can.
If the string started to lose tension the voice became a whisper & then stopped when the string was slack
The point here is that the more rigid the medium the more efficient that vibrations are transmitted in that medium.
This is an example of the mode of transmission of vibration in a rod when fishing - from one end to the other & dissipated at the far end.
In Bob's examples the rod is less rigid than the broom handle so the broom handle is more efficient.
The short wavelength vibrations bounce around down the rod & the broom handle inside them , but the rod can move itself and some of the energy of the vibrations are absorbed in the blank setting up a sympathetic vibration itself. That vibration takes energy & it comes from the energy of the original voice vibration & the strength of the voice vibration is reduced. Whereas the broom handle is more rigid so the energy losses are smaller & the vibration at the other end stronger.
Hope that helps Bob.
You're doing OK for a self proclaimed farmboy Bob. You know enough to ask questions & enough to assess the answers you get back.
and sort the Wheat from the Chaff.

................ " I'm just a dumb fisherman".............. DenisB

Eugene,

We have generated extensive benchmark spreadsheets as well for all of our developed tapers <> My partner does apply Bill Hannemans process to aide in this.

Just curious as to what process you use to determine your spreadsheets.

I understand if you consider this confidential.

I will gladly forward you our basic linear benchmark for the the blank mentioned if you wish.

I am still curious as to how you could come up with an accurate and beneficial guide placement recommendation for this blank without a relatable means by which to determine benchmark flex and power first ?

Bob Meiser

Bob,
Like I said "good test"
My approach has always centered on castability and the comfort and "feel" of the angler. Dynamic loads being the major component. That said the playing of the fish was not placed as a high priority.
You however are tasked with playing the fish as the major priority.
Can the two be combined ?
I strongly believe they can and achieve a rod that is both capable of playing the fish and be enjoyable to cast. Dynamic (casting) loads are highest in the top third of the rod where the rod tip also has the lowest spring rates. Static loads should be highest in the next third of the blank due to high loading and reduced blank dia.
Have you run an FEA of the proposed blank to evaluate where major stresses are concentrated. Should take an hour or two but will verify if my first assumption is correct. From there I could reposition guide start and end points to reduce dynamics without overstressing the blank in it's high load area. I believe my preliminary placements can be tweaked to achieve the results you're after. Componet selection probably will need rethinking, but I believe titanium is still your best choice for the top three guides. May need ceramic for the tip top and SIC for the stripper guides. The center third will need to be looked at very closely.
What tippet strength will be required ?
Does this look like a reasonable approach ?

Eugene,

This is a rod taper that has been in our inventory for nearly 10 years, actually based one of Dick Kantner's designs from the old GUSA days.

We have generationally changed her a bit over the years, but is basically still the same rod in overall performance.

Her performance in the field is well estabilished in all regards, and is a very fine two handed over head fly rod for search casting.

She tip loads at +- 600 grains and butt loads at 850 + grains

Will deliver flies in excess of 60 grains wet ... Tippet strength determined by the targeted gamfish and fishing conditions.

Blank weighs +- 3 oz.

Upper grip 9.0" to 9.5"

Lower grip 3.75" to 4.0"

Reels will generally weigh 10 to 12 oz. with only the running line and backing on board <> The shooting head will generally be beyond the rod tip at delivery.

This counters the butt nicely.

This is not a Spring Creek rod ... More of a fist fight in a phone booth kind of a rod.

We use Mildrum style carbide strippers and heavy wire snakes ... 20/16/12 <> 6/6/6/4/4

Fuji TPST Titanium SIC or heavy wire tip tops.

All day consistent deliveries well in excess of 90' are the norm ... No double hauling.

Totally minimal expended energy required to acheive maximum performance, as the rod does all of the work.

I beleive form should follow function: For a rod like this <> Durability for the fish fight and balance in hands for the delivery are paramont.

Certainly guide placement is VERY important, and why I asked about your approach to this aspect of the rod build.

As for your suggestions so far?

Sorry <> But nothing mind boggeling, in fact perhaps missleading in some respects if I did not know better.

The use of Titanium frame ceramics and Titanium recoils would certainly be OK ...

... But in truth they would simply not add significant delivery efficiency and fish fighting capability to this particular rod ... Nor would they improve durability over the guide systems that we presently use.

What WILL however maximize distance and ease of delivery will be a well balanced rod to line marriage, and efficient casting technique.

Bob Meiser



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/17/2008 10:56PM by Bob Meiser.

Re Bob M's Query about his Big game flyrod.
Firstly Bob , Eugene is far gamer than I am to make a specific recommendation.
Everyone should note that I do not often make any specfic recommendations , my posts are nearly always about principles and compromises of competing parameters to be considered in different applications.
My heaviest flyrod is a Loop Saltwater 9wt ( which probably casts towards a 10wt ) & I have never tried to fish for anything as comparatively heavy as 200# Tarpon with it, or anything like that.
Further, I have never seen your blank actions & take your description as a mental picture at my end.
You don't identify the tippet class to be used so I don't have any idea of the loads the gear will be fished at.
My experience with fighting decent sized hard fighting fish on fly ( gotta be the hardest way to fight a fish ) led me away from conventional wire form fly guides a long time back for most of the guides on the rod.
Step by step for the application my process in the Loop 9wt was ............and would be for your application.
1.
starting with the intended fighting power required ..................come up with the blank for the job .
2.
Develop the flyline to load the rod effectively & therefor cast effectively .
- 1 & 2 are the competing compromises between fighting mode & casting mode.............you need a workable compromise.
- I would not want the blank too long as that is counterproductive to fighting efficiency.
- to get decent fighting power for 200# fish the blank would be +12wt. ( I haven't bothered to back calculate your grain wt to see where
it lays )
- If the physical effort to cast the package is too high for single handed casting I would go to a spey style construction.
- this would be a natural design progression towards fighting efficiency with a longer butt grip and high reel position for improved
leverage in the fight anyway.
3.
My preference to optimise fighting efficiency and minimise friction in fighting mode would be Ti SiC single foot guides for most of the guide train ...........its a +12 wt so it can carry some guide weight without damping the casting action too much. Double foot #16 TiSiC for the stripper and probably a double foot for the guide next to it. A large wire diameter TiNi alloy fly tip .
What size guides :
Based on pure interference theory the minimum ID would be 2 1/2 times the maximum line diameter & I would like more if I thought the blank could handle the guide weight. so the smallest I would probably contemplate would be #8 ( Ti SiC ) & #10 where the blank could handle it.
4.
Tape it up & take it to the park. ( no static test board for me in this phase ) .If I wasn't happy with the casting action of the rod & the tip had too much inertia I would progressively replace the top 3-4 guides of the tip, first with single foot TiNi guides for weight reduction & aesthetics .
I would expect ( based on experience ) that changing out any more guides than that is not going to have any significant improvement in casting action & I would only be changing out those guides in the straightest part of the tip at the loaded fighting deflection.& no more.
( so don't take 3-4 as gospel .............it would depend on the loaded curve of the blank & I would prefer to keep as many TiSiC guides in the guide train as the blank would carry & would compromise on more rather than less . I would change up in TiSiC ring size where the blank would carry it in the guides near the tip.
5.
I would then dynamically test line running thru the guides in a simulated fish fighting exercise.
- If I wasn't happy with the friction in the single foot TiNi guides in the tip section & they were vibrating too much from excessive friction and their inherent shape I would try TiNi snakes ( & forget the aesthetics ).
6.
As for spacings , well, its your build and the rod is in your hands not mine ...............its a +12Wt so I might be able to get away with 9, but would probably be 10. It would depend entirely on what I saw with the loaded blank.

BTW .............. whats on my 9wt Loop 993-3 blank;
Starting from the stripper TiSiC #16 - #12 - #10 - #10 - #8 - #8 & 4 x single foot TiNi Recoils which have just a bit bigger ID than the #8 TiSiC
( because the next size down Recoils were too small in ID to my mind & smaller than the ID of the #8 running guides.
Tip is a Recoil TiNi heavy wire.
We won't talk about the Butt - that's very special - and irrelevant to the question at hand ( but not a 9wt single handed rod )
Very nice in the hand, casts well ,& is very smooth with a running fish on the end at high load.......................I don't fish light tippet..
- Its an awful lot smoother & less jerky on a running fish at light load than an earlier 9wt which had all snakes on it with two double foot ceramics at the stripper end.
- the TiSiC single foots are much broader in surface contact than any wire guide and therefor the pressure on the guide is a lot less per area than a wire frame guide ( snakes included ).................the other thing is that the radius of the lead into the TiSiC guides is a lot larger than the radius of the wire frame guides so there is no tendency for the guide to grab the imperfections in the flyline coating & the braid backing like there is with the wire frame guides ( including snakes ...............with snakes having less issue in this regard than single foot wire fly guides ).

All I can say is I'm very happy with the feel & performance of this rod.

I don't know whether this 'step by step' from me is what you wanted Bob.......................but sight unseen ...........that's the stepwise approach I would take................... if you want guide spacings & exactly what I would use ....................send me a blank..............I'm not being cheeky there, I am simply not prepared to be that specific with something unseen & not to hand.
Regards to All
Denis B.

P.S. As for this stupidity about me being maybe Eugene...................Tom K can vouch for the fact that I am in Australia - not just because I post from an Australian web address but because the Australian distributor of Rodmaker Mag knows me ( we live about 100Km apart & have met face to face a number of times & have a number of mutual friends ). - Andy Dear also knows me ( amongst others on that side of the pond - like one of the Shakespeare/ Pfleuger product managers in the US who is an Aussie from my home town ) & Andy has sent me a number of shipments over the years , so he knows my address. ....................... So lets stop the stupidity .......................Eugene is Eugene , you are you & I am Denis. ................ lets move on OK.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2008 11:28AM by Denis Brown.

Denis,
If you would like to analyze mass effects on PMI common tape can be substituted and placed on the blank in the predetermined positions Tape length can be adjusted to simulate titanium or steel and the effects observered by a simple waggle in a matter of minutes. Positions can be easily modified in a matter of minutes and material can be analyzed even quicker by adding or removing tape length.
The results may surprise you.

To explain a couple of things & the way I approach them

firstly the theory stuff.
I'm interested in practical outcomes, I'm interested in understanding the parameters involves and their relationships so I can make an informed decision when I change something to optimise a particular aspect of the package. there is trial & error involved still in optimising that aspect but I minimise the number of rebuilds & have to do to get a pretty good result & I don't waste my time changing something that has a bad effect on something else simply because I did'nt think about it.
If I can identify an effect that I know little about and can't find information about ..........then I do some grass roots testing to establish some knowledge about about what is producing the effect.
I do that where I believe the knowledge will make me a better craftsman.
I have no Interest in theory for theory's sake ......... it has to have a meaningful & practical outcome.
I don't confuse myth with theory either.....................and myths abound.

In this thread, where I give examples..................please don't think the example given is what the science & physics "theory" is based on
............the example is provided as an example of the effect described ( as simply as possible )...............merely for other people to get their heads around an issue they might be totally unfamiliar with .....................& particularly to place the practical outcomes in a proper context.

I particularly like Bob M's philosophy a post or 2 above that "form should follow function"......................the practical function is the most desired outcome............... we address the form ( the aesthetics ) as a secondary issue and again, where we have a clear understanding of the relationships of the components in our rod construction we can make informed decisions where form can be improved without affecting function.




A lot of the science is known in fields outside rod building & has to be adapted to rodbuilding ..........................the right context to apply pure scientific knowledge in for rods is a difficult thing & very easy to view the issue from the wrong perspective
ie use the information in the wrong context .
The way a rod behaves is quite complex & we rodbuilders are optimising particular aspects of different rods for different purposes. Because the behaviour of a rod is a package of a significant range of parameters ,changing one aspect affects others . The behaviour of a rod in its specific task is a compromise of effects in the package .So its extremely useful to have a good idea of what changing different things will do and if the practical result is not as good as you would like ................you know what to change
either straight away or next time to improve the practical outcome.
I have no personal interest in pure theory that has no significant practical outcome. I might go there to determine it is not significant or the circumstances in which it might be significant . All the science I personally apply to rodbuilding has its roots in hard, grinding. practical outcomes & performance testing.
The things we value rods for are all performance related ( other than the decorative art bits )....................practical outcomes................... we don't need any theory to identify a sweet feel in a rod or longer casts , or more accurate casts, or less effort fighting a fish.
The theory is simply extremely useful to understand how to get the desired practical outcome without wasting time on extensive trial & error.
relying only on practical outcomes by changing things one by one till you get the practical result that you want.
It can & certainly has been done by all of us in our rodbuilding as we evolved our craft ...................but its very time consuming.

Bill S raises the perspective that "taming the line wave form" is the principle reason for less backlash in revolving spool reels.
I beg to differ Bill..................and very strongly so.
The wave form is irrelevant to the amount of line that passes thru the rod guides per millisecond and its relationship to the amount of line coming off the reel & its RPMs per miilisecond unless the wave form is changing & diminishing its amplitude at a rate faster than the energy loses from the revolving spool slow the spool down.
I don't often do this...............but I will state categorically that I have seen no hard evidence that the wave form in any guide train changes significantly enough that has any effect that changes the amount of line length in that wave form sufficient to exceed the amount of line being delivered by the rotating spool.
No ifs & buts.............................it is irrelevant...............done & dusted.
Every thing in guide train analysis & wave form analysis I have been involved in over 30yrs ago denies what you propose.
We were into guide train analysis & reducing guide size into "choking" points 30 yrs ago ............... decades before the microguide formats took guide size to another level. This involved different formats of levelwind ............from archimedies screw driven level winds to level winds disconnected from the drive gear & locked in the center position before the cast ( & put back on for the retrieve ) and level winds removed completely.
I regret I am going to need some damn good evidence to refute that data.

Show me images of the wave form change you propose as the cause ..................continuous footage indexed in milliseconds sufficient to calculate the line length change in the wave form and data on the degradation rate of the natural RPMs of the spool setup over the same period .....................& I will reconsider my position................. I'm pretty safe where I am cause I've done it................ not with a flipping stick, but the principles have been established & proved up.

We have been thru the choking guide concept & the trade-off in increased friction in the choke with less amplitude in the subsequent wave form & friction in the rest of the guide train & the reduction in guide size that enables .
We have been thru the faster response and less oscillation of the rod tip that this results in & the higher lure velocities that result at the release.
We have been thru the wave form of the line at the tip caused by the tip oscillation and the jet of air travelling with the line and that it is forced sideways thru the air for a bit outside the tip and this all has high friction inputs and energy losses that is lost from the lure momentum ( as velocity ).........................and we have identified that reducing cumulative guide weight is the major contributor to reducing these effects resulting in longer casts.

Now I owe Everyone a big apology in my earlier response about this issue of better backlash control & an ability to reduce spool braking.
Because I used that opportunity to lay a test to see if anyone was really on the page about this stuff & see if there was any critique & comeback on the explanation given.
I told only half the story.
Everything I said really explained why brake control on the reel could be reduced ............BUT ONLY HALF THE REASON WHY BACKLASH WAS REDUCED.
The lowered friction forces with microguides explanation & therefore reduced braking forces on the line exiting the tip is correct for that part.
I wanted to see if anyone could see the main reason and that it is at the very second instant after the release.

Wow................ this was several days ago & everyone failed the test.

Bill S is searching at the wrong end of the rod for the cause.........................bad luck Bill ..........better luck next time.................at least you're thinking about it.................... I've had the advantage of seeing all of this in highspeed imagery................that I doubt the rest of you have.
30 yrs later its making it into the forum & sharing.

Eugene talked about the parameter. Tom K identified exactly the right place & the right parameter ( & I sent a PM to Tom asking him to keep his powder dry. .............. but not why .............. So Tom was not in the room when the test was given OK )).......................nobody put 2 & 2 together about the backlash thing.
There is a significant change in line length in a timeframe that significantly affects the balance of line exiting the rod tip & line delivered by the revolving spool of the reel ......................its the oscillation of the tip.
- conventional setup; higher tip weight ; more momentum at the release; more movement of the rod past the straight point; the line is moved sideways to the direction of the cast; rod snaps back again & the amplitude of the wave form of the line path near the tip is reduced , but the reel is delivering the same amount of line & has not slowed by natural energy losses as fast as the tip oscillation is reducing.
More line being delivered by the spool than the lure is taking away.........................backlash territory.
- microguide rod , lower tip weight; less momentum in the tip at release, less movement of the rod past the straight point ; less line moved sideways to the direction of the cast, amplitude of the wave form of the line path near the tip is lower & reduced difference between the line the lure is taking away & the amount of line being delivered by the spool...............less backlash opportunity.

I really thought someone would have put 2 & 2 together on that.
Sorry for the sneaky test guys.................... I will not promise not to do it again....................keep your thinking caps on Guys...............thats what this thread is all about.

Simple test on the backlash bit .............. make cast & after release move rod back up to 90Deg slowly as soon as you can , snap the rod down about a foot....................get a bit of a backlash.............probably a few loose coils & then it came good.
Practical proof in the best way you can simulate.
All of the effects here were observed in the highspeed imagery 30 yrs ago .....................because they meant something to the competition casters involved , and they were looking for optimisation in their technique specific rods.........................but it has general application.

DenisB



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2008 11:37AM by Denis Brown.

Now THAT Denis is solid information ...

Thank you.

In regards to my questions ...

I simply wanted to hear it said: "Send me the blank" <> Because in truth that would be the only means by which to answer my questions with accuracy.

That answer gave credibility.

This thread began with a rather harsh note.

If not constantly monitered <> It is somewhat easy for one person to acheive tag-team muitple forum personalities in an internet format .

I am releived to hear that this is not the case, as I consider this forum very much part of my home and relates strongly to my daily work and daily life.

I'd not call my suspitions stupid <> I'd call them cautious.

You are a fun read Denis ...

When I was in High School we had an annual Science Week, and all were required to do a presented "Science" project ... Your probably familiar with this, as most schools have similar things.

Every year we would have a student body assembly for the event that would be visited by a a regional university proffessor/speaker.

He called himself Mr. Wizzard ... Somewhat of a personality as for many years he had a Sunday morning local TV childrens show as well.

His primary intent was to create interest and understanding of the sciences with clever and entertaining examples that could be easily understood by all.

He was humorous, yet enhanced thought about his subject matter.

My guess is he was influential into leading many young minds into the various fields of science with his approach to education ...

And if not <> He sure was fun to listen too.

Your analogy to the soup cans and string was the sort of thing he'd do ...

So thanks for that as well.

Bob Meiser

Denis - I appreciate your opening comments regarding the "theory stuff" and understanding the parameters and relationships in order to make informed decisions. I do think however based on your posts there's more to it and "it" might best be described by Richard Feynman's (Nobel Laurette in Physics) title to his collection of essays: "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out". If you haven't read it I would encourage you to, he captures the "pleasure" of discovery. (There is also the video of the BBC interview covering essentially the same material [www.youtube.com]).

As to how this relates to this thread, this site and rodbuilding I think this quote says it best: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
-- Richard Feynman, Report of the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident

I believe I have followed most of this thread. However I may be wrong and would appreciate it if someone would correct me. Is the following a reasonable summary, or did I miss the whole point?

Its all about frequency. Given two "identical" rod blanks, the finished rod which feels better or can cast farther for most anglers is that one which exhibits the higher frequency. Reduction of weight towards the tip simultaneously decreases the PMI of a rod and increases its frequency. Use of micro guides are about the last best way to reduce weight. Therefore micro guides are good.

I feel quite honored to have been thoroughly trampled by Godzilla of the Blank Waggle!

At least you admitted that I had the ability to .........."think about it"........ and be able to recognize that the use of micro guides had an effect on the operation of the reel.

I am now wondering if the "taming of the wave form" could be replaced with the "taming of the blank" ...... would that have been a better choice of words?

There will be times in the near future when I will be trying to sell one of these crazy looking things. I will look a guy straight in the eye and tell him it will cast furthur with fewer backlashes ...... What attitude do you think he will display ....... SKEPTICISM for sure ...... I will have excerpts from this thread handy and printed to show him as a proof source ........ and then take him on the water and prove it .......... I wish we had a thread like this on spirals to develop a logic to prove that a spiral would throw furthur as well!

Dennis those little micro guides are allowing me to move the same weight lure a longer distance with seemingly less effort and fewer backlashes. I will defer my intuitive reasoning as to why and fully accept your comprehensive explanation. I will build rods with the micro guides and enjoy using them to sail lures far past the other guys in the boat with no backlash! When they ask me how they work I will simply smile .............and send them your way!............how about an email contact!

I actually hate to see this thread move off the front page of this board ....... Anyone who can engage Bob Meiser and entice him to spend as much time away from his rods as you deserves an honorary medal!

What an informative and enjoyable ride ......... And the bumps really harmed no one!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/18/2008 08:59PM by Bill Stevens.

Bob M/ Steve R and Bill S

First class response. I agree and thanks for the thoughtful comments.

This is what makes this board worth the energy.

Good job Denis B

Bobby F (An 18 month vistior to your great country [Taralgan, Latrobe Valley]. Enjoyed every minute of it.)

Bobby Feazel

[www.shockwaverods.com]

Conventional wisdom will not open the box.