Numbers quoted did seem on the low side but I failed to consider they were for fly rods. Yes I am hi-fi nut, why else would I want those 6dj8's:) I did mention FFT in a post above and know about the flecther munston curve. I admit ignorance but I don't think our other tactile senses work in that way. But hey, sound is tactile and all about little hairs moving so maybe???

A simple web search will provide some interesting reading about the type of receptors in your hand, the ranges in which they are active, and which ones are used as "feedback" and/or directly cause muscle movement. Amplitude is as you think but it can't increase the range of preception. In fact (for some ranges) we quickly get desensitized to large input values.

Assumptions are something engineers need to be very careful about. Are we assuming the rod blank is providing the information? Don't we usually have our hand in contact with a metallic part of a reel which of course has the line attached to it. Now don't get me wrong, I already stated that graphite rods are far better than the old glass ones but it is still something to consider. Maybe I'll try a rod as a cane pole and then put a reel on it and fish with my eyes closed and see what I discover...LOL.

In any resonant circuit we can make changes to "tune it". Can we build our rods in a manner such that we make a bandpass filter in the range (of hertz) of interest?

Really a bigger part of where I was heading is are we willing to look outside the box and consider how our body senses these inputs? Are we willing to listen to what has already been discoverd in other areas regarding tactile sensitivity? A fishing rod is really pretty simple and crude even if a lot of dynamics come into play. We aren't making them so we only need to measure and match to felt performance. Of course this assumes we know what and how to measure in a meaningful way. That has not proven to be easy in regards to hi-fi.

At one point my job allowed me access to a wide range of medical journals. When time permits I'll have to see if that is still the case.

It is interesting that you mention sound though. Perhaps we aren't giving enough thought to the harmonics and the resulting spectrum? A given note on one instrument doesn't sound the same on another and a given bite from one fish isn't the same as another either.

Okay, I'm way out in left field but perhaps I have mentioned some items worthy of consideration. I do think it would be interesting to see a FFT plot of dropping a small weight down through the water coloum and stopping it before the bottom and seeing what the impulse looked like.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

Russell,
You have really taken the top off of a can of worms. In fact , I am not sure where to start.

First, do you have any information that is available on the Internet that would bring me up to speed on what we can and cannot feel. I really know very little about this.

Your second and third paragraph, I think that in determining rod sensitivity we should focus exclusively on the rod, what we as custom rod builders build. The physiology of what we sense in our hands is interesting and I would like to know more about it but that is something seperate from rod sensitivity.

Yes, we can widen the frequency response of a resonant circuit in several ways. This is typically done in one of two ways, either stacking resonant circuits that are tuned to slightly different frequencies or by adding resistance to a single resonant circuit which lowers its Q but broadens its frequency response. The second is mechanically the same affect as adding mass to a rod.

Your paragraph 7 and 8. The reason that instruments sound different, a violin sounds different that a trumpet when playing the same note, is that the relative amplitude of the harmonics of the fundamental are different. For example, with horns the amplitude of the first odd harmonic, the third, is actually higher in amplitude than the fundamental. This is not the case with a fishing rod. A fishing rod oscillates at its fundamental or resonant frequency and the harmonics of that fundamental are much lower in amplitude.

I do not want to be picky with you but a harmonic or the fundamental does not have a spectrum. They are pure sine waves. They are the spectrum usually of a more complex waveform like an impulse that you mentioned earlier..

Emory,

With regrets, I have reluctantly accepted your decision to bow out of this discussion, however, I will try to answer your final question. But, first a few comments, which do not require a reply from you.
-----------------
Since resonant frequency and the velocity that a vibration will travel up a rod are two different things and not related, I shall continue to believe resonant frequency has no relevant relationship to sensitivity.
-----------------------------------------------
Since sensitivity (i.e., how much of the input energy at the tip of the rod gets to the fisherman's hand ) can be measured and it can be very significant from one rod to another, I shall continue to believe it should be possible to express that value in some form that can be easily understood by any angler. My approach was “Centsitivity”, but it was an optical method.
-----------------------------------------------
Now, for your question:
You wrote, “I do have a final question for you though. You started off by coming up with what I think were very useful, measurable, quantifiable terms for a rods action and power. They were not new terms but you came up with a practical way of measuring them, quantifying them. Where did you start down this path to meaningless, subjective terms like Personal Preference Frequency?“
----
While, you freely recognized the usefulness of my approach to measuring action and power, you then wrote “They were not new terms.” This, in itself, clearly indicates to me you completely misunderstand the significance of my approach.

The terms ERN, AA, etc, are indeed new terms, and more significantly they are terms which are precisely defined and constitute a new vocabulary to be used in characterizing fishing rods. Previous attempts to characterize rods have resulted in hype rather than useful information, and it was time to start over. That was the easy part, as those were static measurements. When it came to dynamic measurements, there was essentially nothing in the angling literature

As you know frequency has been around for centuries, in the hands of engineers. Over the past three decades or so, several have tried to apply it to fly rods—obviously, with little success. I attribute that partly to the fact engineers (which incidentally includes you) insist anglers must speak “engineering language”, if they wish to carry on a conversation on the topic. Time (and our previous exchanges) has show that just doesn’t work.

The CCS introduced a new language which the average angler could easily comprehend. Now, the shoe is on the other foot, and engineers will have to learn to speak CCS if they wish to carry on a conversation with anglers. I will admit, at the moment, there is little willingness on their part to do so. For example, as long as engineers insist on reporting frequency values in Hz rather than cpm, average angler’s eyes are going to glaze over, and the engineers will be speaking only to each other. The golf industry recognizes this.

I believe some of the problem can be best understood in light of some of your own comments. You wrote, “ You are also in error with in your response to Ben about resonant frequency and casting distance. The resonant frequency will determine the rods tip velocity or how rapidly the rod can release in the second part of a cast the energy that is stored up in it in the first part of the cast. This in large measure determines casting distance or how much input is required to cast any given distance.”

As an engineer, you should recognize your statement, “resonant frequency will determine the rod’s tip velocity” is completely erroneous. That is because, Resonant frequency does not determine anything. Resonant frequency is simply an EFFECT, not a CAUSE. It is just an “interesting number” which can be measured under defined conditions and inserted into a formula to explain the reason for a given result.

As you know, in the real world, a rod acts both as spring and a lever. The major factors in determining casting distance is how fast the angler can rotate the lever, the angle of launch, plus the smaller spring effect. Of course, with a fly rod, the angle of launch is zero and distance is primarily a function of how fast the angler’s “stop” is, and that also is a subjective factor.

You also wrote to Peter, “To answer a little differently, I believe, and others who have taken a very scientific approach to quantifying rods properties, believe that a rod’s resonant frequency is the single most important characteristic ... “

To this, I would say, “Baloney!” The only reason anyone might believe it is the most important characteristic is because it is the SUM RESULT of ALL of the CAUSES which combine to make the rod what it is.” But, so what?
Consider the formula: A+B+C+D+E+F+G=194
The value 194 is just an interesting number until one knows what all the values of the different letters are. Then, one can use it to determine whether one has accounted for all of the variables. The value 194 is of no more importance than the numerical value of E.

It matters little whether you or I like it, the most important characteristic of a fishing rod is its “FEEL”. It is also a fact that a bamboo fly rod feels different from a mag bass rod and that difference can be expressed in terms of frequency. This led to the concept of CCF and the expression for fly rods of ERN-ELN=Delta, which represented the mismatch in line weight between what the strength (ERN) of a rod calls for and the personal preference line weight of the individual angler.

This accounted for the fact that different anglers preferred different lines for the same rod. Each angler has his own PPF. It is a personal subjective thing, but it is real and has to be considered by anyone concerned with “feel”. The other approach is to tell the angler to take lessons and/or adjust his casting style to match his rod.

The logical extension of this was to determine how frequency changed with a change in line, and this was found to be approximately 5 cpm for each change of one in either AFTMA Line Weight or ERN rod power.

You have to recognize everything goes back to the precisely defined values of the CCS. Without them, nothing would have been possible and we would still be working with old 20th Century concepts. In the form of the URRS, the concept has now been extrapolated to cover all casting rods.

Essentially, what I am saying is that rod characterization has now independently progressed far beyond the concepts and capabilities of traditional mechanical engineers. I believe the future lies in “Feel” and PPF.
Amen.

Edit



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2010 02:38PM by Bill Stevens.

Bill,
We are certainly not making any headway so we should just agree to disagree.
I would like to respond to your "Baloney" statement though and your last sentence. To your "Balony" statement, It might help if you did some reading. On the subject of resonant frequency I would suggest you start with the papers written by Dr. Spolek, the head of the mechanical engineering department at Portland State University and Dr. Hoffman who I think is now the head of the Aeronautical Engineering Department at California Poly. These papers are readily available but if you cannot find them I will be happy to send you copies. By the way, just out of curiosity what is your doctorate in?

Emory,

Of course we can agree to disagree. I always thought that was a given. But, as I said earlier, it’s neither fun nor entertaining or educational (to the lurkers) if we just agree. Anyway, I thought my “Amen” had closed the subject. However, it now appears you won’t let me get to say the last word. That’s OK, too.

For the record, my degree is in Chemistry, and I spent 40 years of my professional life as a Research Analytical Chemist for the likes of Chrysler, Chevron, DuPont, and Kaiser Aluminum.

I appreciate your offer of the technical papers, however, I believe I already have or have read all of them. Previously, when I wrote, “For example, as long as engineers insist on reporting frequency values in Hz rather than cpm, average angler’s eyes are going to glaze over, ...” Those were two authors I specifically had in mind.

Incidentally, when I first became interested in frequency, I corresponded with Greg Spolek and he sent me what he thought was pertinent. In fact, he was my inspiration and I have often referred to my work as being “Beyond Spolek”. In fact, it should be obvious to you that my “Hanneman Fly Rod Scale of Intrinsic Feels” was derived completely from his data and my imagination.

The problem with all that early work is that the authors did not (because they could not) characterize their fly rods in precise, unambiguous terms.
Of course, all this led me to create the CCS and then progress could continue. Unfortunately, by then, it appears they had lost interest in the subject and ceased writing about it.

As I explained in my first article, measuring the resonant frequency of a fly rod blank is relatively easy with adequate (expensive) equipment but has little relationship to how the rod performs when finished and the necessary line strung up. That was were my interest lay and that led to the concept of CCF which ultimately led to PPF.
Best wishes,

The work of Dr. Spolek and Dr. Hoffman are a complete waste of time for the average fisherman or rod builder. Most will never even bother to read that type of stuff. Dr. Hanneman has been the first guy I know of to take such principles and make them user friendly for the audience they were intended for. This is why the CCS has gone farther in five or six years than that other stuff will go in an eternity.

The only reason that personal computers have taken hold is because of the WYSIWYG system developed by the Xerox Start and Apple Computer projects which allowed the average person to use a computer without having to learn or use coded computer language. Spolek and Hoffman and are in the same boat. The average fisherman or rod builder does not care and will not ever use anything they have worked on until they can make it user friendly for the audience they hope to reach. Right now it does not appear they attended to reach the average fisherman or rod builder. Or maybe they just are not smart enough to be able to reach that audience. I do not know. But I do know that It takes real smarts to understand and reach an audience on THEIR home court.

Mr. Emory
If your question as to Doctor Hanneman’s credentials was some underhanded attempt to discredit his work;
Shame on you!!
The fact that he obtained a Doctorate in any subject leads credence to the fact that he has to ability to educate himself enough quantifiably defend his position.

The fact that his Doctorate degree is in chemistry does not detract from his credibility and ability to develop a “System for the Relative Measurement of Rod Action, Power, and Frequency.

Any more then your electrical engineering degree adds to your credibility. That is unless you plan to start plugging your rods into electrical outlets.

You can correct me if I am wrong;
But I believe his Doctorate would require him to have a vast knowledge of Chemical physics, Thermal dynamics, molecular vibration, ECT.
(Things which I believe will affect the results of what is being discussed once you leave the comforts of a controlled environment)
Giving him the knowledge to develop effective field theory’s on said subjects dealing with products made out of carbon and epoxy chemicals and the symmetry of bond stretching between the two.

Edit!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2010 02:38PM by Bill Stevens.

Bill,
I have been a little testy a couple of times and for that I apologize.

You made the following statement in an earlier post and I think this is at the heart of our disagreement. "Essentially, what I am saying is that rod characterization has now independently progressed far beyond the concepts and capabilities of traditional mechanical engineers. I believe the future lies in “Feel” and PPF."

I do not have any argument with your earlier work but with this statement I think that you are profoundly wrong.
First: Engineering and physics will continue to advance and the characterization of rods will get better and better as it does.
Second: I do not see "Feel" and "Personal Preferred Frequency" as characteristics of a fishing rod at all. It seems to me that they are characteristics of the fisherman.

Gentlemen,

Would you take your sick child to a Vet ? Every fields has it own diciplines. One studied on one field does not classified him as the author of another. In my opinion, Dr. Hannenman needs to review the work that he posted. It is inconsistant to what he preaches.

my 2 cents.

Ben

Mr. Gardner, it was I that asked Emory Bill's profession. I thought he would know. There was no intent to discredit anyone, especially by Emory. So if there is any blame to be had please direct it my way, not his. I asked because I felt it would allow me to better understand some of what Bill has posted in this thread.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

I found this invaluable discussion on this board.

[www.rodbuilding.org]

Are any of these people around (alive) other than Mr. Emory ?

Ben

Mr. Brunt
That is why I qualified my question with a (IF YOUR QUESTION)
Did not want to accuse him of something that he was not doing.

At the same time I want to thank you for posting you response. In a world were it is easy to hide behind a computer screen and allow others to be challenged for our questions and postings. It is a statement of good character for you to speak up!

The day of satellite transmissions was the state of art, a company transmitting their newspaper veloxes via satellite (domestic)- their scanner went down. They called the maker of the scanner from abc country to fix it. The tech spent 5 minutes diagnosed the problem, fixed it and went home. The president of the company received a $50,000.50 invoice. puzzled and ask why were they billed so high, the tech replied, a resistor cost only .50 cents. But to know which resistor to replace it with cost that much.

Emory,
I didn't notice any testiness. Chemists and engineers seldom agree, and that is what makes it interesting.

I would like to respond to what you think is at the heart of our disagreement. However, I will create a new thread (Frequency Revisited Part 2) to do this and bring our discussion back to Page 1.

-----------------------------------------------
Ben,

You wrote, "In my opinion, Dr. Hannenman needs to review the work that he posted. It is inconsistant to what he preaches."

I am pleased to learn you have read and understood all of the work I have posted. Very few people have done that. Congratulations.
If you have found any inconsistancies, I would be most appreciative if you could quote me chapter and verse, so that I can clear them up.

Off hand, I would say any inconstancies might be attributed to the fact (a) I have lost my mind. (b) Facts I have discovered later have caused me to change previously held opinions. (c) I did not say what you thought I said, or I did not write what you thought I wrote.

In any case, there has obviously been been a miscomunication somewhere, and that should be cleared up for the sake of all the readers. We shall all be appreciative of your assistance in this matter.

Follow up on my story.

Yes, the president of the compay paid this foreign country $50,000.50 dollars for fixing his bread making scanner. Of course, he has three inhouse overated engineers with blue prints and schematics of the scanner (I know, I worked there).

Dr. Bill, I appologize if i sounded too what you think I sounded. I am learning and your second post today kinda give me a new light.

Thanks.