Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......just kidding. Way too deep for me. Who'd have thought we could think that hard about fishing?

A "rocket scientist" would have a level of education that would allow for the expression of such concepts in concise and simple form. If you really understand something you can explain it with simple terms and in a simple manner. It's when you really don't understand something that your presentation takes on unnecessary rhetoric and associated word play.

Denis has not raised any issues here that have not already been thoroughly covered in the magazine, and in much more concise and easy to follow presentations. It is not an issue for most custom rod builders and isn't likely to garner much notice but if Denis or whoever else wants to carry on with it that's fine, as long as they don't violate the board rules.

...........

This thread began when I presented a test I had performed and the observations I had made from the results of that test. They mirrored at least one other builders own test. Denis either did not understand what either of us were saying or chose to ignore those results even though they showed us that his earlier concerns were unfounded.

If the silence is deafening it is only because most rod builders are not going to get involved in discussions that get so far out in the marsh that they have no real practicality in building an excellent fishing rod. They are not going to waste time on such things. Besides, some including myself have joined in only to have our observations ignored because they do not fall in line with the theory or beliefs of one or two people.

I used the term gobledegook in order to hopefully stay within the forum rules and not use language that the youngsters or ladies would find offensive.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2009 12:02PM by Tom Kirkman.

First let me say that I am not taking anyones side. It is admirable that both individuals cared enough to think about rod stress and tell us what they found or think about the issue. I think it is interesting to note that Barry's expirement pretty much shows the same thing that Dennis is saying about the stress on the blank from the guide. Barry showed that as you mess with the guide location/numbers that you start seeing the stress on the blank at other than the point in front of the reel seat (actually where you hold the rod in front of the reel seat). As we have seen on this site before and read the discussions that the measurement of the pull on the guides away from the rod is less than we think in relation to the tension of the line. That is why in the last couple of years we have seen the migration towards smaller guides and single foot guides with the only limitation seem to be how big a knot needs to be passed and how they will stand up to physical abuse. For a long time it has been said that you want to keep the angle of the line exiting from the guide as small as possible thus reducing that pull on the guides/blank and Barry's expirement and Dennis's math/pictures shows that. If you have too few guides thus increasing the angle of the line exiting the guide, that it will cause excess stress and if you run this on to absurdity where you have only the tiptop guide, the tip will be forced back towards the reel, hairpinning the rod causing it to fail.
Thanks to ALL parties for their discussions/time on this issue. We should avoid personal criticisim of an individual because we don't agree/understand what is presented, rather we should thank them or if we don't understand something such as the math/science/physics ask them if a clarifacation can be made. As I said before on a previous thread where I was one of the postulators that personal critisim stifles ideas be presented from the more timid/newer participents on this site even though it may roll of the backs of others.
Kerry