Has anybody written a program where I can put in the number of cents and get a specific ERN for casting/spinning rods?

Tom White
Rod & Reel Restoration

All you have to do is look at the Rosetta Stone chart or the chart given in the URRS article.

The Common Cents System does not know the difference between a fly rod, and a spinning or casting rod.

...........

But I have 294-cent and 310-cent rods, I know the cents-to-ERN is not a constant ratio, and I was wondering if someone had yet written a program for the cents/ERN relationship to make the result more exact.

Tom White
Rod & Reel Restoration

The results are exact, but they appear only on the charts listed, to the best of my knowledge.

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

“Mr. white

Most numerical relationships can be defined with a mathematical equation but I don’t believe one exists for this so a program might be hard to develop. I could be wrong.”

Bobby,
That's my understanding as well. Maybe that is the next step for Dr. H.

Happy Holidays to All,
Robert

It has been done. Ask Jason Borger at Northfork Composites

294 cents = 24.3
310 cents = 25.3

Dr H's quote from an earlier post at [rodbuilding.org]

"It's not a straight conversion due to the fact that when the line specification were originated, they did not make the intervals equal.
Blame them, not the CCS"

I think we are still looking for that change in conversion after the 303.5 cents mark.

-----------------
AD

Dr. Hanneman if the ERN conversions are non linear some finite mathemetical relationship must exist for others to be able to use the system. Is the system which has been published in Rodmaker or any recent unpublished add ons now the proprietary property of NFC? Is it your intention to make a standard conversion listing available to all custom builders who desire to use the system for rod blanks used in the bass fishing market.

There is a graph in my possession that may be published in RodMaker in the near future. It cleverly takes into consideration the non linear aspect of the scale and goes up as high or higher than would ever be needed. I don't believe it has any sort of straightforward equation listed but you can ask Jason in High Point about how he devised it.



...........

Guys…I gotta tell ya… I’m baffled by the seemed reluctance to make the “extended” ERN values public…… especially now that they have been derived.
A while back when NFC started publishing their CCS values, they prudently used the Cent values since the higher ERN values had not been universally established for the System. They have since dropped the Cents and are using the ERN values that are apparently only known by the “inner circle”. NFC did state that they would make the Cents/ERN conversion available to us at some point. It’s not clear to me if that would be THEIR version of the “extended” ERN or, that of the one originated by DR. Hanneman. Tom now states that he may publish the graph that NFC presumably used to derive their values.
It’s humorous that when several of us has asked for the conversion info using our Cent values (such as 294 and 310 for example), the ERN is spoon fed to us.

I would suggest that you get on the backs of the dozens and dozens and dozens of fishing magazines out there and have them publish that information for you. I agree that they have been very lax in helping you guys out in this area. They certainly have access to the information. Not to pick on one in particular, but BassMaster's coverage of the CCS has been pitiful.

Most of the people on this forum do not and never will subscribe to RodMaker. So it falls on the fishing magazines that the bass guys subscribe to for that information to be divulged. Dr. Hanneman is certainly happy to work with any of them.

I received the graph a few weeks ago. The earliest it can appear in RodMaker is about 4 or 5 months from now. Magazines aren't just tossed together in a few days. Publishers work for months out at a time. The graph is larger than the magazine's pages. I have a lot of work to do getting into a format that I can publish in the magazine. I am not aware of any sort of "conversion equation." I certainly haven't received anything like that.

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

Tom -

Couple things come to mind with this:

- Why, if NFC has invested the time to devise a method to calculate the nonlinear calculations, would they make that nonproprietary information?

- What good does it do me as a rodbuilder if I can't come up with the same measurable calculations and conversions myself without asking for someone to do it for me?

One major flaw in the numbers was already noted: [rodbuilding.org]

You're not going to get acceptance by a wide range of people asking for a measurement tool until they have the ability to review the numbers. Obviously there is a way to figure it out when I can ask the ERN for 326 cents and get replies. [rodbuilding.org]

-----------------
AD

It's not NFC's job to disseminate that information. They're a blank maker. They saw value in the system and extended the current chart to meet their needs. They aren't withholding anything from anybody. It's just not their responsibility to publish such things. They have other irons in the fire. I have the graph and will publish it as soon as I'm able to do so.

If you're one of their customers (you're buying and building on NFC blanks, right?) then I'm sure they'd be happy to help you out and perhaps even send you a sketch of the graph. If you're not a North Fork customer, I would suggest you get on top of the maker of whatever blanks you're currently using and get them involved in working with the CCS. You shouldn't have to take these measurements - the blank maker you patronize should be taking them for you and listing them in their catalog.

Yes there is a way to figure these things out and many of us have done so. Trying to explain it to others that have not been able to do so has not been a pleasant experience for many of us.

The CCS has already been accepted and is in use by a large number of people - thousands in fact.

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

I agree it's not their responsibility, but the inventor of the system himself said to talk to Jason at NFC. There was no clause of being a customer. That's great for them if Dr H is not doing further development and has handed over the reigns so to speak.

Makes sense it could be available for customers because they should see a ROI from their R&D. That's business.

My biggest disappointment now seems that it's being used on a production end as a sales tool and I can't use it to measure blanks that I manipulate in my shop - again because I don't know how to measure using the nonlinear equations.

Sorry the explanations haven't been a pleasant experience. I echo the same experience in trying to find answers to simple questions though.

-----------------
AD



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/20/2009 12:33PM by Alex Dziengielewski.

Hey guys,

We're not withholding anything, we're just busy. We have gone from about 45 models to around 90 in the last six weeks. As you can imagine, designing perfect blanks is priority #1, Selling them is number 2. Helping out the industry with tools and programs is #3. Jason has drafted seven different CCS related posts and more will be coming. Please be patient with us.

Jon



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2009 11:46AM by Jon Bial.

If the graph or data could be forwarded to me I will create the equations from it's data and put in spreadsheet format for anyone to use. Even if the equation is not linear this can still be accomplished.

Eugene Moore

Thanks Jon.

No negative reflection meant to NFC (and my apologies since I probably came across that way) - wasn't aware the extended development of the CCS had shifted to being done by you guys. If you have done the development, I can just see it would make sense to look for some type of return on it.

-----------------
AD

U da man Eugene!

Please let us know when you receive the data.

Let me assure there is no deep dark conspiracy aimed at keeping the CCS conversions a secret from anyone.

All the information needed has already been supplied in the article on URRS. Anyone with the time and inclination to do so can construct the necessary table.
The complaints I read here seem to be from some who wish to be spoon-fed all the information they might want and they want it NOW.

When I first heard of these requests, I sat down and spent several hours creating a table of these conversions. I believe Tom got a copy for later publication, if he saw fit to do so. I had intended on making some sort of a hand-out for my talk in High Point in February. Then I had an idea.

Since Northfork had adopted the system and Jason Borger had expressed interest in easy access to the higher ERN conversions, I sent a copy to him and suggested they could save me the trouble and cost of producing my hand-out by reproducing the chart and filling the backside with their advertising. I believe they are going to do something of the kind.

For those who just can't wait, here is an example of what you can do.
For instance you have a rod that requires 380 cents.
From the URRS table:
ERN 25 = 11,720/38.61=303.5 cents and ERN 30 = 15,750/38.61=408 cents

1. Construct a graph which is 50 units high and 110 or so units wide.
2. Label the ordinate from 25 to 30 (each little square will equal 0.1 ERN.
3. Label the asbscissa from 300 to 410 (each little square equals one cent).
4. Draw a line (diagonal and upwards from left to right) from the points 303.5 (bottom) to 408, (top).
This is your calibration graph for rods between 303.5 and 410 or ERN equals 25 to 30.
Now if your rod required 380 cents, go to the 380 cent mark and follow the line up to where it intersects the calibration line. You should find that value to read 28.7 on the ordinate. That is your ERN.

The conversion table is linear within ranges but the size of the ranges are not linear.

I hope, if you are working with rods that strong, you are also measuring TP and PR.