One last note on this fifth version of M&M's ...

Before you guys go too far in trying to determine what has the majority of emphasis on line oscillation, and therefore guide placement, do the following:

Take a reel OFF a rod AND remove the lure. Now, holding the reel in your hand, make a cast with the bail open. Watch the line fly across the room ... NOT!

The entire system does NOT work without weight. Weight, and weight alone, will determine the line oscillation. Yes, there are factors that contribute to any pattern - but I can change ANY output by simply modifying the weight. So ... unless you are planning to cast ONE rod, with ONE reel and ONE type of line with ONE weight ... trashcan any thoughts about guide setups being mitigated by these various factors. IMO, it is a LOT simpler than it looks on paper. That is why I said it wouldn't be understood without buying components and doing ones own testing.

Jim -

Denis,
My earlier analogy of 2 people skipping a rope was indeed a poor one. I had to go out and do some test casting and observing. What I saw was not quite what my “minds eye” remembered seeing. I edited my earlier statement this morning and changed it to a stretched out spring…..so we’re on the same page with that. As to the rest of what you’re saying, I’ll have to re-read it several times and try to digest it. I suspect there may be some semantics involved, but I can’t disagree at this point.

Jim G.
I find I have to disagree with your thoughts; one –lien, reel, lure, for each rod when using smaller guides.

Every rod spinning or bait casting regardless of how it is set up and regardless of the size guides will behave differently when used with different reels, line and lures.

The goal should be to set it them up to work with your preferred choices,
Knowing that my rods won’t cast a ¼ once lure as far as a ¾ once lure doesn’t stop me from using them for each, I adjust my casting and range to match the weight and line I’m using.

The same it true when working with smaller guides, there is no need to set up a rod for each line lure. Or to assume that when using a lighter lure the rod won’t perform to ones expectations.

That is an assumption you are making based on previous though process, and may or MAY NOT apply to what is being designed at the moment. The only thing I know for sure is that several builders are designing, building and using them. All with different lines, lines sizes, lure weights, and reels and getting improved results.

My point was exactly what you are saying ... you didn't understand my post, as intended. My point is that you can NOT build for a single scenario, at least not unless you are willing to be stuck with that exact profile. All one can do is "tune" the setup to react in the most positive fashion WITHIN the intended specifications.

I don't have a sciences background - not physics, engineering, chemistry or anything even close. I am not even going to pretend to be able to absorb 20% of the technical matter so far posted on this subject. However, I do know that I have read some mighty inaccurate thoughts so far.

In closing, IF one really wants to experience the micro guide possibilities. Call one of the vendors that sells these items, BUY them and build a rod ... a little effort will go a heck of a long way to figuring this whole thing out.


P.S. I did manage to earlier thank Don Morton for sharing his high speed photos regarding line oscillation AND to Bob McKamey for hosting the "eye opening" event in May, when the information was released. However, I also need to thank Pat Vinzant for his help over the past year in "deciphering the code" AND for bringing finished rods to Bob's party as well. In addition, my thanks to Steve Gardner for having handed me the VERY first "micro guide" rod to observe ... all the way back at ICRBE almost two years ago.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2008 07:03PM by Jim Gamble.

If anyone has any or has seen any high speed photo graphs of either casting or spinning rods which were built using micro technology I would hope it would be noted on this thread. In an earlier post, on this thread references were made to potographs presented defining oscillations on a rod presented at a builders meeting last year - did any of the rods included in the high speed photo shoot have micro guides installed?

Denis Brown has shared a sample photograh for consideration and has clearly defined his future plans.

htttp://www.rodbuilding.org/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/7809

Mr. Gamble's post -

"P.S. I did manage to earlier thank Don Morton for sharing his high speed photos regarding line oscillation AND to Bob McKamey for hosting the "eye opening" event in May, when the information was released. However, I also need to thank Pat Vinzant for his help over the past year in "deciphering the code" AND for bringing finished rods to Bob's party as well. In addition, my thanks to Steve Gardner for having handed me the VERY first "micro guide" rod to observe ... all the way back at ICRBE almost two years ago."

Did any of the photos, shown in May, referenced in this post have a micro guide train installed?

You can also see micro rods built by many resonders to this thread at the ICRBE in February.

I am cooking all night tonight and Santa sure would bring me a big present if a photo of micros in action at high speed were to come down my chimney!

Denis,
I’m afraid trial and error, and stumbling in the dark, as you say, may be the most viable option to most of us. Since the wavelength is subject to changes ....as you also said.(I could see that with my nekked eye) I think we’d have to strive to set up the guides for a bit wider range of variables. As to the photo image that you refer to, my line (braid) looks nothing as chaotic as that during the cast. I must be doing something right, so I’ll use what I have for a “baseline” and go from there. Most of this thread has dealt with whether there can be advantages with smaller ring sizes and that is what I’d like to pursue. The challenge (for me) is to get sufficient height. Bob mcKamey’s results are certainly noteworthy and though it’s doubtful he could explain why it works, I’m not sure he cares. He’s probably amused at all the conjecture regarding his project. LOL. Btw, I do not fully comprehend what you mean by “the line is rotating on it’s own axis……i.e. the nodes of the waveform”. If you mean the line crosses thru the center of the cylindrical envelope, I still don’t buy it…..for me, it goes back to the stretched spring analogy.

Bill,
I’ve been a little bewildered as to why you and others refer to “micro guide technology” or “system”. I know the smaller guides have only been available to us for a relatively short time, but it doesn’t seem to me that they are a system in themselves. I realize that the “new Guide Concept System” name has been taken, but surely, someone can come up with a more appropriate terminology. In the meantime, I know what you mean….I think.

Jim G.,
I agree with what you said, but you've had the benefit of seeing Don Mortons photos and had some good input that I and others have not had. This thread has given us some valuable food for thought.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2008 08:14PM by jim spooner.

Bill - Don did have photos of smaller guide setups - including some mighty small butt guides.

Jim S - Try doing away with the notion of "guide height" ... you might just be shocked at what you find.


Again, thanks to ALL for the sharing of information. Hopefully, Santa will bring my aching head a physics book and some Tylenol. In the meantime ... to all a good night.

Jim S. Yhere is no intended connotation to my use of the word "system" - just referring to rods being built using micro micro rods either casting or spinning. I guess it would have been better to call them "little bitsy thingamobs". Don't know any way to differentate these things from rods built using more "normal" guide sizing. Maybe someone can think of a name for them - maybe Santa will deliver that to us as well.

I think I keep my ears pretty well open to all I have heard. - Mr. Morton's photos - I believe, and I have not seen them directly - referenced above, were related to spine orientation and effects of tip weight on oscillation and and did not address micro guides or the line flow situation we are dealing with - blank tip oscillation is one thing line and line flow oscillation between guides is another.

My real serious problem at present, on Christmas Eve no less, is that I am out of micro guides and have two rods to get finished by Sunday - there are at least thirty on the floor in my shop and I will need to hire a dwarf to find them!

And to all a good night!

Bill - I was there AND I did NOT drink the "koolaid" ... that was Todd's job. Don DID have photos of line oscillation ENTERING and EXITING butt guides of various sizes AND running guides as well. Believe me, I watched VERY intently and asked a LOT of questions. Don's presentation was one of the most revealing I have EVER witnessed regarding line behavior. While each "layout system" over the years has yielded improvement on a previous system, this just starts from scratch. The trick here is to TOTALLY forget what you know, think or have ever been told.

This is truly an X-Files type of event ... you have to "Want to Believe".

Jim G.
I currently set up my rods per the method that Don Morton showed me several years ago. One of the most significant differences in his method compared to the NGC was that he set the guides concentric to the spool as opposed to aligning the outside edges with a straight edge from the spool center. His method has worked very well for me, but I’m going to explore the smaller ringed guides. I already use the “micros” for my running guides and I’d like to keep the butt guide as close being concentric to the spool as possible to avoid an offset. You said to “Try doing away with the notion of guide height". In your conversations with Don, did he change his approach to the guide heights?....specifically the butt guide. Or, was the subject even brought up? If you’re not willing to share his methodology, at least give us a hint. I have a great deal of respect for Don’s work and innovative testing.

In May, Don was not even concerned about height - the fixation was on size, spacing and the resulting "friction" or oscillation. He had so much on his plate with those revelations, that he had to be maxed out ... at least temporarily.

However, Pat Vinzant DID play with both size AND height ... he even brought "evidence", to Bob's party, in the form of finished rods. On paper, those guide layouts would have been labeled as folly - in person they looked TOTALLY wrong and just plain silly. However, after a couple of casts ... ALL bets were off and most folks needed a stiff drink.

I have NO earthly idea how any of this stuff really works - it just does. After several discussions with Bob McKamey, our joint conclusion is that ONLY reverse engineering will unveil why.

I can tell you that I have tried spinning reels from Shimano 1000 to Daiwa 3000 - same results. I have used both braided line (Dyneema and Spectra) and monofilament (Stren MagnaThin) - same results. Granted the magnitude of improvement varies, but the results are the same ... better performance.

Jim -

here we are in Oz grimly clinging upside down to the earth with our toes while we drag the rest of the world into the next day.
Xmas dinner is over & quickly looking at recent posts I support Bill Stevens; that sharing Don Morton's images would help us all to be on the same page trying to talk about the same thing. Ditto for images of Bob McKamey's rods in full flight.
Information on the details of the rig , rod setup, line, reel will be critical to getting us on the same page talking the same language trying to understand why.

I'm not arguing with what anyone else believes they have seen or attempt to explain....................I'm just putting forward what I know I have seen, and the way I approach the issue and why.

I fear the only way we are all going to get a feel for the waveforms generated by threadline/spinning reels is for some highspeed imagery using current geartypes to be posted so we can all walk thru it frame by frame, so everyone can see the full rotational waveform for themselves.
then we will all see the effect with our own eyes of locating guides in different parts of the wave form and of different guide sizes.
I regret the equipment I was involved with a couple of decades ago is no longer available to me .
If anyone out there has current access to the necessary equipment I will be more than happy to contribute a stratified set of test protocols,
( having been there and done that a long time ago ).
I am far too far away from most of the rest of you guys to contribute more.
A mechanical casting rig like Tom K had operating years ago and some highspeed camera equipment would enable reproduceable test conditions and the proof will be in the pudding.
The initial test equipment would not be onerous.
- 1 x blank used in the same orientation in all tests
- 1 x spinning reel
- a series of different line types & sizes compatible with that reel & general use.
- a series of different lure types ( a slug, hardbait & worm in each of a couple of weights would do )
- a "fuji concept" guide train as a starting point.
review the imagery of the different line types & lure type sizes based on casting distance & wave form imagery
Then choose one line size & type and a lure size & type in the middle of the field as the test set-up for the next work.
- a range of guide positions & sizes varied from there & optimise distance & line "taming" ( for want of a better word ).
( there is an obvious protocol for this part of the exercise..................tip rearwards ).
Then with that optimised guide train repeat the full series of line types, sizes & lure weights & types.

The results will clearly identify the level of benefit that can be achieved with optimising a particular rig and the potential penalties involved
in flexibility of that rod with a range of other lines / lures.

The benefit of sensitivity of the optimised rig would be in your own hands, the benefit of casting efficiency would be quantifiable, whether it was worth it will be in your own hands too. you will all be able to assess the effect on casting efficiency of the optimised rig in its chosen role and its effect on casting efficiency with the wider range of line/lures.
Then you can start to think about optimised rigs at the extremes of the field & the effect of that optimised rig on the rest of the field.

first though we have to identify the objective of the exercise ..................improved rod sensitivity without significantly diminished casting efficiency or optimal casting efficiency & any sensitivity gains that come from that .

In the absence of such data its back to the advice Bob McKamey provides, testing, testing, testing.................whilst being aware that you might be gaining in one area but diminishing the overall flexibility of the rig in other situations.
Just my 2C

"Bill - Don did have photos of smaller guide setups - including some mighty small butt guid"

Was there one rod photographed that utilized 3.5 mm or smaller running guides on a casting or spinning rod?

Was there one spinning rod photographed that utilized a 12 or smaller butt guide?

Presently on the Micro IFO Rollout List for ICRBE In February to be present:

Viewing in the cases and chunking in the lot!

Steve Gardner's Amazing No 1

Bobby Feazels' all micro on top task specific bass rods

Jeffery Friends spiral tournament bass technique bass rod

Alex Dziengielewski's Quick Draw Micro Bass Boat Rod Box Micro Extraction Demo

John Timberlake's micro spinning rod

Bob McKamey's spinning rods

Bill Stevens' Big Boy Mat Punch/ Frog Sticker and Drop Shots and Marsh Rat Bait/Spin Casters

We hope this list expands - add yours to the list!

As they say - The Proof Is In The Pudding - See You There!

If any "fixation" was on frictional losses this should be considered - frictional losses have minimal effect to outbound wave form when the line is in the "controlled" state. After thinking about it I am not sure frictional forces in the true sense have anything at all to do with this - conventional static friction forces are defined as the forces that will start movement from a dead stop - with all this line flying through the guides I really am not sure what we are messing with -

Conventional frictional losses depend on two things - 1) coefficient of friction which is determined by the two substances rubbing together and 2) the normal force shoving the two surfaces together, N. The force N shoving the two things together, i.e. the line and ring, are minimal and extremely low when the lure is outbound. Personally, I am not concerned with friction losses during the time the blank is loaded during lure or fish retrieve. I am thinking that Denis will be prepared to either explain this in a way that we can understand.

I hope we can eventually prove that a better rod can be built for each given circumstance - Why!

The production guys will not be able to deal with this at all! This will be one market that a cookie cutter rod and one set of instructions will not apply.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/25/2008 08:40AM by Bill Stevens.

Something that should perhaps be given consideration during testing is the difference in properties that monofilament exhibits when dry and when used long enough to absorb the 10% figure of water I have always seen reported.
For testing to as accurately represent what occurs in on the water use perhaps it would be advisable to expose spooled line to enough moisture to simulate real conditions. Temperature has a bearing as well. Reluctant to toss into the ring additional variables but at least some thought should be given these.

Chris

On the other side of the pond you guys should have more enjoyable things on your plate today than mulling over this stuff.
Boxing Day here .

The complexity of what happens in the "taming" of the line wave form is something that I have no certainty about.
intuitively the force pushing line and guide together is thought to be rather small and with slippery ceramic guide rings the friction effect correspondingly low.
I'm not so sure that relative to the energy in the momentum of the lure this is correct.
A couple of observations
- We all know how much effect low line level has on casting distance 7 one assumes this is primarily caused by increased contact with the spool lip.
- we all know about losses in casting distance with increased line size.

now in my line of thinking
The force between line and guide generating friction is proportionate to mass & velocity
- mass of the line
and 2 velocities;
- the velocity of the line down the rod in the direction of the tip
- the velocity perpendicular to the rod in the amplitude of the wave form.
* the heavier the line the more mass acting to generate friction at the guide.
* the heavier the line the larger the amplitude of the wave form & the greater the friction.
* the heavier & stiffer the line the more energy that is lost in changes of direction of the wave form at guides.
* the velocity & acceleration of the line perpendicular to the rod is greatest in the first 1/4 of the rising amplitude in the wave form, is neutral at the point of maximum amplitude in the wave form and is decelerating in the declining amplitude half of the wave form wavelength.
hope you are able to get a mental picture of the above.

Now , the problem with locating a guide in the declining amplitude part of the waveform is that the interference of the guide causes concertining
of the line in the wave form ( ie it stacks up behind itself viv-a vis "damming" ) and the amplitude increases even more ..............causing increased velocity perpendicular to the rod.
The issues with having two velocities affecting the friction of the line at the guide is that the most significant velocity affecting friction is the one that is perpendicular to the rod & therefore the guide face....................the greater the angle of the line entering the guide ( in the wave form ) the more the line velocity down the rod is vectored towards the guide face .
This is an effective line velocity at the guideface that is rapidly rising with increased angle of attack, and rapidly increasing force of the line on the guide & resultant friction.

The amount of contact of the line on the guide is essentially irrelevant as a friction parameter as increased contact spreads the force and reduces the amount of friction per unit contact area and this is negated by the increased contact area ...................the result in constant friction loss irrespective of contact area.............................this little bit it true in flat objects and only slightly incorect with curved contacts as in guide contact
.................in the case of such curved surface contact it is reasonably true but with slightly increased friction ( too technically confusing to explain why ).....................lets just accept that it is not a big issue.

As usual everything is a compromise of parameters:-
my approach to siting strippers at 3/4 wave amplitude on the rising side contains some perpendicular velocity & acceleration, but minimises the damming of the waveform at the guide and the resultant increased amplitude increase from the concertinaring of the wave form as it dams up.
The most significant "taming" of the wave form takes place at the stripper and this is the site where most variability in the wave form from casting vagiaries are dealt with.
The wave form exiting the stripper is less affected by casting vagiaries and is more a function of the stripper size & site................subsequent guides can be sited at maximum waveform amplitude with more certainty & reproduceability..............with the object of minimal perpendicular velocity in the wave form.
( this rationale should be obvious from the above if the principles have gelled with you ).

These issues are relevant whether you build to the "Fuji New concept" or other concepts.
The object of rapidly taming the wave form is a balance between increased friction losses in a small number of guides and the ability to use smaller guides further up the guidetrain as the line has been tamed and reduced friction is encountered .................the benefit of the reduced guide sizes is increased dynamic performance of the blank and increased sensitivity on the retrieve.

My question at the close of my previous post remains valid for the individual angler:-
What is your objective...................and how much loss of flexibility in your rig to handle different lines/lures are you prepared to accept in achieving benefit in a particular area of activity, remembering that the line & lure affect velocity and velocity affects the wave form and your guides will be acting on the wave form in different phases of the wave form generating different results in "taming" the waveform and the friction generated in that "taming" ............indeed the taming might now be inefficient and the waveform progressing further up the rod & damming on a running guide.
or the damming at the stripper is excessive with unacceptably higher friction losses there.

The incredibly hard part is trying to adapt to all of this without seeing accurately the wave form and what your modifications are doing.
You can go by cast distance but this will be the cumulative effect of at least 3 guides on the rod.......................mucho difficulty in assessing which site & guide size is appropriate for the location. Without the ability to see this you can see why Bob McKamey emphasises testing,testing,testing.

Happy confusion.

Denis, I am a very careful and curious reader of your entire postings - - -

I have one question after dealing with your last one!

Do you enter the ring and fight a Kangaroo on Boxing Day?

No
the Roo wins every time

the boxing takes place in the stores at the apres-Xmas sales.

I'm off down my cabin for a few days with anticipation of scales shed everywhere
Any queries after digestion & I'll get back in a few days

BTW Bill,
many thanks for the tip about getting rid of my RBO glitch , shutting down the auto cache and rebooting seems to have fixed it
............and I did remember to re-activate the auto-save function after the reboot this time.
All the best to you & yours to everyone.

Back home and happy. I'm just caught up on this thread from the last two days.

You guys are great and yes, I have experienced Boxing Day in both NZ and Auz Land. The pahutakawas on the north island of NZ are a thing to behold.

I may become a spinner man yet. Although the BUBBAS in East Texas call them "flue - flue" rods, they may turn around once we show them a better way. Although, it may take a while.

Can't wait to hear about the RBO.

Bobby

After re-reading all of this thread, I’ve concluded that Bob McKamey has been the only one to offer any real specifics for the “line tamer guide system”* to help us in doing our own experimental set-ups. The theories have been interesting and may have given some, the perception of an “information overload”. Perhaps we ARE over-thinking the whole thing.
Jim Gamble said: “While each "layout system" over the years has yielded improvement on a previous system, this just starts from scratch. The trick here is to TOTALLY forget what you know, think or have ever been told.”
This would certainly demand a leap of faith, but noting Bob’s credible results (and presumably others), I’m willing to give it a try. At this point, I’m more curious than skeptical. One thing that would be beneficial, if possible, would be a picture of the set-up…..not high-speed imaging or anything of that nature…. just a simple picture of the rod (w/reel installed) showing the first 3 or 4 guides.
This “line tamer guide system” may become the largest “reverse engineering” exercise the rod building world has ever seen…..if indeed it is proven to be as successful as reported.

* Bill, I’m not being presumptuous, merely my feeble attempt at naming the “system”