Dr Bill -

While I respectfully disagree with your "want it NOW" (waiting 6 months for this type of information is not getting it NOW) and "spoon-fed" (presenting all methodology to correctly use a system consistently among all users is not spoon feeding) comments, I appreciate the assistance provided in your last post.

Question #1 -

I did the above calibration graph and used your example with 380 to ensure I drew the graph correctly.

Let's use the original ERN I requested back in July - 326. Using the calibration graph, I come up with an ERN of 26.2. Did the backwards calculation for that - 12586.86/38.61=326.

The answers given back in July were ERNs of 26.71 and 27 for 326 cents. Using the calibration graph above, those correspond to the cent values of approximately 334 and 340 - differences of 8 and 14 cents.

I know .8 and .51 (or 8 and 14 cents) may not seem like much on the ERN scales - but really it is in a measurement that is more common: (cents*38.61=grains*.00228571429=ounces)
326 cents (26.2 ERN) = 28.77oz
334 cents (26.71 ERN) = 29.47oz
360 cents (27 ERN) = 31.77 oz

Those numbers create very different rods. Help me understand the differences (and also correct my math if I'm off - math is not my strong suit by any means).

Question #2 -

Yes with measuring TP and PR, but remember, since that was converted the same as ERN, the calculation was needed. What concerns me is not only the above differences, but also having different ranges - you're possibly going to have the TP converted in one range, the PR in a second, and a third for the ERN. Doesn't this put the numbers on different scales and put the ability to compare off?

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

The chart which Dr. Hanneman detailed will give you the most accuracy if you need the finest possible resolution.

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

Thanks Tom - the chart does make it very easy and quick to make calculations. Having that is definitely an asset and a good step forward.

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

Alex Dziengielewski Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
360 cents (27 ERN) = 31.77 oz
-------------
. Doesn't this put the numbers on different scales and put the ability to compare off?
----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------
Yes or no.

TP, ERN, and PR are three different scales with three different methods of measurement. They are useful for describing the power of the three different portions of a rod. For example: Describing two rods as 18:5 27 and 19:6:23 allows some individuals to visualize the difference better than describing them as 202:41:345 and 217:47:275. It's just a matter of preference.

Comparing power on the basis of weight to deflect is nothing new. People have been doing it for ages and it works fine. The conversion table allows anyone to relate one type of measurement to the other if they want to do so—be it cents, rolls of cents, grams, ounces, pounds, etc.

While we ere all continuing this thread, I took a half-sheet of plywood, stepped off Cents (in picas) on the x-axis from 63-330; and stepped off ERN's from 8-30 on the y-axis. I plotted the published ERN values, connected the points with flexible battens, and continued the line. Then I used a sheetrock square to find the ERN of every cent on the graph, until my eyes and back gave out at 313 cents. I came up with 294 cents = ERN 24.32 and 310 cents = ERN 25.42. I will continue when I can stand up straight. Anybody wants a copy of my results, e-mail me. And thanks for the lively debate on the topic.
Tom White

Tom White
Rod & Reel Restoration

Jason tells me that he will work to convert Bill's excellent chart (which I think he sketched out on a paper napkin, smart guys are quirky like that) to a vector graph that will be easy to follow. Jason started to tell me the process, but it sounded more complicated than building blanks, and I lost track. Look for it on our site in a couple of weeks.

Jon

Bill Hanneman Wrote:

> Yes or no.
>
> TP, ERN, and PR are three different scales with
> three different methods of measurement. They are
> useful for describing the power of the three
> different portions of a rod. For example:
> Describing two rods as 18:5 27 and 19:6:23 allows
> some individuals to visualize the difference
> better than describing them as 202:41:345 and
> 217:47:275. It's just a matter of preference.


I'm not sure I'm on board with that idea. Lets take 18:5:27... (without using the specific ranges...) - note I'm clear about the measurements being taken differently. That's a great idea.

But 18 is not converted at the same ERN/TP/PR to cents range as 5 or 27. So a lets take these three rods (making up numbers):
18:5:27
6:10:18
11:29:35

Let's deal with just the 18, 6, and 11 - first number of each.

You may have the three numbers converted from cents at a different scale depending on their respective ranges. So you aren't getting an accurate comparison - it's not an equal progression from 1 to 6, 7 to 11, 12 to 18 (again, making up numbers for the ranges). 5 to 6 may not be as much of an increase in measurable weight as 18 to 19 after conversion. So how can I use this to get anything other than a relative comparison? Seems to me, sticking with just a flat number is easier to calculate, more consistent, and more accurate. But maybe that's why you note it's a matter of preference.

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

Alex,

The Common Cents System was intended to provide relative comparison. That was the point of the system.

The ERN values were designed to coincide with the AFFTA weight scale - AFFTA built in those ranges, not Dr. Hanneman or the Common Cents System. If you're concerned about a jump in ERN values at the start of each range, just stick with the number of cents - there is no jump where they are concerned. Because any scale, conversion, chart, etc. will work both ways, it is a simple matter to convert ERN back to cents thereby allowing you to compare directly on the basis of weight or number of cents. That would eliminate the ranges and might therefore be more helpful for what you're wanting to do.

There is nothing wrong with simply using the number of cents for direct power comparisons between rods or blanks. The ERN scale was developed to allow fishermen to match a fly line to a rod via an equation offered by the inventor. Because fly lines are only manufactured through a limited range, there was no reason to have the ERN scale go beyond that range.

In the event that you are attempting to compare a rod with a known cent value against another rod with only an ERN value, it is a simple matter to convert the ERN value to number of cents. Because the ERN scale has been finite while the number of cents remains unlimited, conversion in that direction has always been possible with the CCS Rosetta Stone chart. Many folks who use the CCS have never bothered with the ERN scale - they refer to rod power in terms of pennies, i.e. "This is a 265 penny rod." It all amounts to the same thing.


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

Until a simple conversion chart is published giving the Cent to ERN values (a continuation of Table A shown in the “Rosetta Stone”), there will continue to be discrepancies when translating Cents to ERN or ERN to Cents…especially using a graph (or interpolation). Also, If Hanneman would amend the existing Table ‘A’ (or commission someone to do it for him), he would continue to “own” the System. I think having NFC do it is a bad idea. Other manufacturers may see it as NFC’s and be dissuaded from using it, which would deny us all usable info. BTW, I hope that after reading this thread, that NFC doesn’t decide that “no good deed goes unpunished” and drops the CCS data from their site.
I’m fortunate that up ‘til now, I’ve never seen the need to convert to ERN and considered it irrelevant. Maybe I’m too simplistic, but after re-reading the URRS article, it seems to me that much of the confusion would go away if Cents (or weight) was used and the ERN was dropped altogether….or used only to correlate to AAFTA weights. I’m probably wrong. I do remember being scolded….quote: “The CCS and URRS are simply tools of measurement. If you find them useful, use them—if not, don't.”
Anyway, so far it has NOT been a simple matter to convert ERN back to Cents (or Cents to ERN).
For what Alex is trying to do, he’d be better off using Cents for his calculations, which directly translates into power without lost translation.

ERN serves the purpose which I outlined above. As I stated, if you are not attempting to match a fly line to a rod then using number of cents to compare the power of one rod to another will certainly suffice.

Converting ERN to number of cents has always been a matter of simply looking at the Rosetta Stone chart. The higher ERN values that many have asked for have not existed previously so there was no chance you would have run into ERN values for which you would have been unable to convert back to number of cents.

North Fork is not changing anything in regard to the CCS. They are simply extrapolating the current chart so the ERN scale will read higher for those interested. The system is still entirely Dr. Hanneman's. Several other blank manufacturing companies I have talked to in the last few months are preparing to adopt the CCS in 2010 regardless of what North Fork does in regard to publishing such an extended chart.

Dr. Hanneman's oft repeated phrase "If you find the system useful, use it. If not, don't," isn't a means of scolding anyone. It's a means of interjecting a bit of common "sense" to some of these discussions.

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

The Rosetta Stone only goes to 173c; the URRS article provides a “back door” means to interpolate ERN to Cents up to 303.5c; and from 303.5 up, its to be done with the previously described graph. Doesn’t say much for continuity, but do-able with dubious accuracy.
If we could somehow harness all the energy being generated by this “issue” and apply it to making the Rosetta Stone Table all inclusive, we’d all be better served. Or, convince the blank manufacturers to give us directly derived “c” values as well as ERN (which most of us non-fly rod builders don’t use).
I don’t think any of us wants to throw the baby out with the dishwater, but what IS a good system COULD be MORE useful….and more people might be encouraged to use it and share data.

You're still missing something - if you want to convert ERN back to number of cents, that has always been possible for the very reason you mention - the Rosetta Stone chart only goes so high thus it would be impossible for you to ever encounter an ERN figure that wasn't already directly related to number of cents on that same chart.

What you can't do without an expanded chart is go the other direction - convert number of cents to ERN values above those listed on the Rosetta Stone chart. But as we both seem to agree, if you're not working with the matching of fly lines to rod power there is no reason to use ERN when number of cents will suffice.

At any rate, an expanded chart is in the works and as has been stated before, will be available in the near future.


...........

Tom,
You say “the Rosetta Stone chart only goes so high thus it would be impossible for you to ever encounter an ERN figure that wasn't already directly related to number of cents on that same chart.”
NFC has made the “impossible” possible! I’m glad I’m not the only one confused by the facts.
Anyway, I give up! Every thing is fine the way it is. I for one, can convert the ERNs given by NFC (or whoever), “close enough” to my “internal system” to get a relative comparison for making blank selections.

This has happened only very, very recently and as has been said over and over, an expanded chart is on the way in the near future. Most of us involved have jobs and aren't able to stop what we're doing and provide that information immediately on demand. Some patience is in order.

...........