Forgive me for preaching
PMI or polar moment if inertia is the resistance of an object to acceleration about an axis. Force = Mass times Acceleration is the calculation as to how much energy need be applied to change the velocity of an object in a straight line. Rotation of an object must be evaluated differently as all the components on the spoke of a wheel are moving the same number of degees but the distance of displacement is increased the further away from center you procede.
Fishing rods are rotating devices not linear. Basically as an object is placed further from the center of rotation not only is force required increased but the distance of displacement is increased. Simply expressed as weight times radius squared. A 1 lb weight at 10 inch radius returns a value of 100. If the weight is increased to 2 lbs at 10 inch radius the result is 200. If the 1 lb weight is at 20 inch radius the value returned is 400.
Guide size, guide weight and guide position all have an effect on changing how the rod deflects and "feels" but not all to the same degree.
The use of micro guides is an attempt to reduce weight near the tip of the rod to reduce deflection of the blank caused due to their weight. Deflection of the blank is the reason for the guides in the fist place. If the blank were always straight "Pool Cue" 2 guides would suffice one top one bottom. The heavier a guide is the more deflection it creates causing increased friction with the guide reducing casting distance. The more effective approach would be the use of lighter materials in the guide construction to reduce rod deflection and an increase in size to reduce line friction due to guide contact. Further if the profile area can be decreased by reducing ring thickness in the blank axial direction (Oval rings rather than round) this would reduce air friction at the same time. Rather than choking the line with the guides use them for simple direction correction resulting in increased casting distance.

Eugene I find only one fault with your treatsie. The use of micros is not an ATTEMPT at reducing tip weight which creates tip deflection. Their use "DOES SUCCESSFULLY" reduce tip weighting which allows a four or five power bass rod to behave as a "pool cue" when used in the pitching or flipping mode. This method of lure presentation does not load a blank. That is why the line flow is so smooth which allows more distance with less effort.

Eugene;
That is a nice theory, except it labors on a misconception

The thought that
“The use of micro guides is an attempt to reduce weight near the tip of the rod to reduce deflection of the blank caused due to their weight”.

Was not why I started experimenting with Micro guides.
I stated experimenting with Micro guides in an effort to reduce angler fatigue at the end of the day by reducing weight out near the tip of the rod, and moving the balance further back towards the handle with out adding weight to the rod’s butt section.

Now the effects or results have been lighter more sensitive rods, which routinely perform longer casting and pitching distances then rods with larger heavier guides. But those results were just a bonus.

That may not fit your theory.
But the results are the results regardless.

The rod is not deflected while line is paying out on the cast - the rod will be straight, or very nearly so. Thus, guides play very little role in choking line or causing friction.

The use of lighter guides, or micro guides, is simply to allow more of your imparted energy to be used in casting the lure rather than in starting and stopping the rod. The less mass you set in motion, the easier it is to start it and the less energy you waste in trying to bring it to a stop.

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

Did not say they didn't work. Only stated they could have been greatly improved upon thru the addition of lighter materials [ie Titanium with ceramic inserts] This would have enabled a larger diameter guide while still reducing net weight. Sooo defensive. Lighten up and I'll tell you how to get even more.

No one is being defensive, just pointing out some incorrect assumptions. Many fishermen, and even some rod builders, often incorrectly assume that the rod is flexed during the actual cast. It is not. Only just prior to the cast. The rod is straight while the line is paying out.

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

"and an increase in size to reduce line friction due to guide contact"

This is another point for which I have little information but there have been discussions about it on this board. Perhaps you could further expound on the subject. From what I understand, the traveling line will carry with it a boundary layer of air. Like the little divots in a golf ball, the small surface irregularities in the fishing line, especially braded line, will hold a layer of "trapped" air which acts as a nearly frictionless surface. This boundary layer of air is what contacts the guide ring when the line is being played out at casting speeds. At some point, increasing the size of a guide ring would have no effect on this boundary layer of air. Likewise; at some point, reducing the size of the ring too much may constrict the boundary layer and increase friction.

Some folks have had differences in results when using micro guides. I suspect some of the difference may be due to the surface characteristics of the line being used and its inherent boundary layer of air possibly being disrupted by the very small guide rings.

Tom,
Back off you're out of you're league.
The concept of the rod being straight is foolish to promote.
The fastest rod I own 7.8 ERN and 78 degrees AA clamped in a vice takes 15-20 seconds to stop oscillating after a small deflection. I can effectively stop only a very small percent of that. Maybe I've got the palsy. But I've observed the ripples going down the fly line.
My praise though if you've found some magical elixir that effectively absorbs shock.
Maybe shock absorbers in the rod tip ??
That rod continues to oscillate after the cast is made and will continue until all energy is disipated.
This oscillation is also not confined to the tip the entire rod will deflect not just selective pieces of it.
Deflection in the butt is also there but the frequency is very high and the amplitude very low.
Open your eyes and keep to what you know the world may look flat from where you stand but believe me you're in no danger of falling off the edge.

Tom at the instaneous time of release the blank is deflected and that is during the cast. If you watch very carefully a poorly constructed rod with too many guides will actuall ocillate on the tip end with long casts. If it happens to be a spinning rod you can see the line whipping around within the guide system. This excessive line movement is creating system losses which create energy losses which reduce the forward force vector. I am doing some spinning rods with micros and am to the point where I think line control is a dominant factor in getting longer casts on all rods. The rod may be straight but if the line is playing out through rings that are too large lateral movement can introduce unwanted system energy loss.

Eugene the weight of a complete set of titanium micro guides is approximately 0.41 grams. This is a significant weight reduction. On a long conventional cast a blank is is instantaneouly loaded and deflection occurs prior to release. In many situations when bass fishing even the initial blank deflection is eliminated by the technique being used. It can be easily proved that a micro system can increase forward distance with the same/similar effort. For this to occur it must mean that the line control of the smaller guide rings reduces losses of energy which allow the lure to travel furthur.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2008 05:29PM by Bill Stevens.

James,
This theory isn't science.
Air boundry layers work against solid objects not objects that are porous enough to absorb air.
Braided lines have less memory from being wrapped around the spool, thinner mono also casts further try 2 lb test but does not have this trapped air film.

Mr. Moore,
I find your discussion booring and insignificant. And, I would have left it at that point, but then you proceeded to rudely bash the one man who has promoted the rod building business, its craft and knowledge beyond what any other individual could claim to have done. I only hope that he ignores your rudeness and continues to do so.
Tom Kirkman, I would gladly state that 99.99% of the people who know you appreciate what you have done and what you do. Please do not allow such rudeness from the other .01% to change your efforts.

Bill,
The mass reduction of the guides causes less oscillation of the blank. This in turn reduces contact with the guides. The blank is oscillating at a higer frequency with less amplitude. Amplitude is the killer. This causes contact with the guides which must guide the line to the new moving target.
Any contact with the guides creates friction and more oscillation. Try reducing the number of guides on fast blanks and locating them further from the tip. The guide size can be increased and contact with the line reduced. This has the added effect of reducing fatigue and increasing accuracy. Less effort more accurate both at once.

Eugene,

No, I'm in my league, fully. None of us casts with a rod blank clamped in a solid, rigid fixture. In your hand, your rod blank will not oscillate for more than a split second, perhaps one small bounce and that's it. Put the rod into a practical situation and you'll see what actually happens. It won't oscillate for "15 to 20 seconds" - not even close. It if does, then you've got one heck of a lot of unecessary weight hanging on it - something that micro guides might help you with. You'd have a hard time getting any blank or rod to oscillate for that kind of time period in an actual casting situation.

What you espouse sounds impressive to the inexperienced, but not so impressive to those of us who have been around the block a few times. What you're touting doesn't approximate what happens in an actual fishing situation.

I could go further, but after reading your few posts here and the other day, I strongly suspect you're purposely bringing up things which are no more than "bait." Some of us are a little sharper than you may think.


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


The rest of you fellows don't need to defend me nor give "Mr. Moore" a hard time - his tongue is likey solidly in his cheek as he writes these things.

You would be hard pressed to get any rod to oscillate from an actual cast for 15 to 20 seconds. Even a long, limber, heavy glass rod isn’t going to bounce around for that kind of time limit. Modern day, lightweight carbon rods with reasonably light components? No way. I’d challenge anyone on this forum to go outside with any rod they own and cast it, and then time it against any visible oscillations for more than about a second, if that.

A person who does not understand the dynamic difference in oscillation time between clamping a rod in a solid fixture and giving it a rap or flex, and actually casting with the rod held in the human hand/arm is either completely inexperienced in the practical application of physics or is simply spending the afternoon trolling. I strongly suspect the latter. At least I hope so.


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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2008 06:19PM by Tom Kirkman.

Bill,

The amount of friction between surfaces has to do not only with the smoothness of those surfaces, but the force keeping them in contact. During a cast, there is very little force pitting the line against the surface of the ring. This is why all else being equal, SIC guides do not create any more casting distance than say, a paper clip wound into a circle and wrapped to the rod blank.

A reduction in componentry weight, particularly near the tip, will easily trump any losses from friction between the line and the guide ring surface. It just doesn't exist to the extent that the inexperienced believe it does. But I have no doubt you are fully aware of this.

And while we're at it, when we speak of using smaller and lighter guides, we must also be careful to state that we mean to use the smallest and lightest guides that will still perform the required task. Simply putting the smallest and lightest guides available on your rod can be detrimental - there will be a limit to how far you can go and that depends on your line along with the particular task at hand. Again, you are faced with a practical situation that must be addressed if you really want the best possible performance out on the water.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/14/2008 06:05PM by Tom Kirkman.

Eugene;
If they could make the Titanium with ceramic inserts larger and at the same time lighter then the Micro's your theory might work.

But at the moment roughly 5- 3mm micro (non titanium) guides weigh the same as one 6mm Titanium with ceramic inserts
And when you step down to 2.5mm though 1.5mm Micro guides, the numbers are even higher.


Question;
Have you built, used, tested, or even held a rod with Micro's on it?

Steve,
Yes, I have held and cast a rod with Micro's. That was initially what led me to search for lighter guides for my fly rods. I use #2 single foot titanium for rods 5 weight under and #2 titanium double foot for rods to 8 Weight. For spinning and casting rods I've stuck with Titan fly rod guides to reduce weight at the tip of the rod. Perhaps Micro's would work here and reduce the weight further.
Thanks

Gene, forgive me, but how do you get the rod out of your vise when the fish hits? Are you able to feel the strike while the rod is clamped in the vise? I think I also smell a troll here. Real rod builders understand the difference between a rod clamped in a vise and a rod held in a hand and human frame that quickly dampens such vibration. They are not even remotely the same. Please do not take this as offensive, but are you theorizing or have you actually built any rods yet?

Why is it I get this gut feeling this Eugene fella is a ghost writer just to stir the pot so others can pound on their chests ???? He is very smart like a fox to have his email address hidden....HMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Me thinks Capt. Rick is right....I for one vote HOG WASH.

Tight Lines
Tight Wraps
Fishin'Stix by Fred

I know that a lot of people here are WAY smarter than me. But can they tie their shoes? You know what I mean!

Book knowledge is great thing but anybody can get it. The question is, do you know how to apply and use it to get a job done? Experience is the best teacher in the world. Get some.

Oh Dear
Guys, lets leave the personalities out of it and stick with the science & physics ........................a subject too few of us fully understand in its relationship to the package that is our fishing rod & our fishing gear.
I have previously stated that there is more going on in the action of our simple fishing rods than there is in getting a space rocket to do what it does.
The action of a fishing rod is a compromise and combined effect of a raft of competing attributes of the components in the rod.

Without taking shots at anyone in particular .....................some of us ARE out of our depth here because we have made simplistic assumptions because we have not identified all of the parameters affecting rod performance in the range of ways we use them.
What we get with flipping & why & what the combination of effects is............is not necessarily the same with an overhead cast & the context is critical to understand the combination of competing effects on rod function. The oscillations are there alright in that type of cast they are very rapid and faster than the human eye can perceive.......................don't kid yourself.................. you are assuming something because you can't see it.

Chill out !!!!!!!
Good grief.............humans built a wheel long before they understood the physics behind why it worked ..................nobody is criticising the guy who built the wheel and made an improvement...................ditto for micro guides on rods , for another.

What this discussion is about is trying to understand WHY.

If you have not viewed high speed imagery of a rod in casting ( in a range of casting styles).....................you ARE out of your depth in assuming what you think happens.
This applies to the 'jet' of air travelling with mono too......................its there .................about 3/4 - 1" in diameter.
The issues of this jet of air is irrelevant to the issue Eugene is raising.........................it potentially becomes a limit to the reduction in size & weight of the guides which can be undertaken before we start to generate another effect which counteracts the benefits of reduced guide size & weight in casting performance.( as identified in a previous post ).

Lets stick to the concept of inertial mass and let Eugene develop his approach in this thread.
From a perspective of fundamental science Eugene's concept has legs........... real legs .
You might not be able to see what is happening or understand it..................that might be a bit confronting.....................don't shoot the messenger.................I don't think he is baiting anyone................there's some stuff here we should flesh out.

and just for the record I have never corresponded with Eugene outside the posts in this forum. I offered to in a previous post , Eugene chose to use the forum ................let him have his say...................you might just learn something from the experience in this discussion you did not previously realise.

Lets all just Chill Out and let the discussion continue in a dispassionate manner.
If you really understand the physics of what it being discussed please contribute..................if you don't , then hold off with comment until we get a bit further down the track, please.
Please proceed Eugene you have the floor.
DenisB