Ben,

You wrote. “Thank you for the encouragement. If we can persuade Dr. Bill Hanneman as well, I'll be on my way. “

You sound as if you have an inquiring mind, are ambitious, and like to “play” with your computer. I, on the other hand have “been there--done that” enough to have developed the philosophy that if a thing is not worth doing at all, it is not worth doing well. Now let me tell you why it is not worth doing. Emory, on the other hand is an engineer and I doubt he will agree with anything I have to say. That is fine. The lurkers on this site might get a glimpse of both sides of the matter.

To begin with, when I first started looking at frequency, I purchased a golf club frequency meter and used it , and still do, for looking at rod blanks. If you wish to construct your own model, more power to you. You will probably have fun doing it. However, I quickly found out the resonant frequency value was an interesting number, but precision could be a problem. Dr, Spolek, of whom I will speak later built a special machine and he had a variation of 1%. So I would guess the error lies in the experiment and not the precision of the instrument.

Anyway, before you get too involved, I would suggest you ask Emory to send you a copy of Dr. Spolek’s article,”The effect of mounting hardware on the performance of fishing rods.”

Being an engineer, he spoke in terms of frequency in Hz, and since anglers (and golfers) really can’t or don’t want to deal in those units, they gave little notice to what he wrote. As you know if you multiply Hz values by 60 you can convert it to cycles per minute (cpm). Let me summarize his findings.

Using two identical fly rod blanks, he constructed two rods which differed only in the hardware attached and measured their frequencies.
Rod #141 Rod #140
Blank Frequency 216.6 cpm 215.4 cpm
Finished Rod Frequency 208.8 cpm 181.2 cpm

The author wrote, “One question that arises is whether such small mass differences could possibly account for a striking difference of frequency. As a test, the effect of adding 1.17 g of mass to the tip of Rod 141 was approximated” It did.

Now, all of this is true, and this is Emory’s point. Make your rod (MOI) as light as possible and you will maximize its frequency or efficiency. (I’m not sure how one determines efficiency since it is a % of some maximum standard. However, measuring relative frequency for comparative purposes is very easy with simple tests like the CCF.

All of that is fine, and it makes good advertising copy, but is it really significant, or essentially hype?

Any angler knows a fly rod or any other rod is useless for fishing until one puts a line and lure on to create one’s “FISHING OUTFIT”, and that means adding weight.

Now, in the case of the above rods, they are going to be too stiff to use as fly rods until they are fitted with fly lines which reduce the frequencies of their resulting “OUTFITS” to about 85 cpm. This means about 12 grams of weight has to come from somewhere.

If you want to use them as spinning rods, you only need reduce the frequency to about 95 cpm. How much you need to reduce the frequency is related to the weight of the lure the rod is designed to cast.)

All of this indicates there is around 10 or more grams of weight which must be added somewhere to make a rod blank into a fishing tool one would wish to use.

Since adding hardware doesn’t change the action of the rod, one can conclude all this added weight simply serves to adjust the frequency of the original blank or finished rod to create the angler’s “FISHING OUTFIT” which has the PPF the angler prefers.

This means, to me, the weight of the hardware is essentially something not worth worrying about. From this one might get the idea that I believe all this hype about micro guides is just the latest hype. On the other hand, I am very willing to accept the premise such guides do indeed improve the path of the line and that is the reason for their performance improvement—not any contribution to rod frequency.
-----------------------------------------
Now, let me put on a different cap and consider bait casting rods.

All other things being equal, which they never are. The stiffer a rod is (i.e., higher the ERN) the higher the frequency will be, So where does frequency fit in?

I assume a custom rod builder elicits from his client the strength of the rod desired or the weight of the lure intended to be cast. Now, just as with fly rods, this new rod will be designed to optimally cast this designated weight, as well as weights to some degree greater or less than that.

Therefore, although one could do it, it really makes no sense to design the rod to produce the highest frequency possible. Rather, if the customer is to be pleased, the angler’s “outfit” will have to have a frequency which matches the PPF of the client.

This, of course is a subjective value, and only the client can ascertain if the rod feels right. Of course, the feel is a function of the frequency of the “outfit” and can be altered at will by simply changing the mass of the lure instead of the line.

Consequently, it matters little what the custom builder believes or calculates to be the correct weight (lure or fly line) to be used on that rod on the basis of the relationship between power and frequency, the final answer is completely a subjective decision based on the PPF or feel the customer wants.

However, what is important for the rod builder is to recognize the relationships among power (stiffness), frequency, and the mass attached to the tip of the rod. It is also important to know how to determine the frequency or relative frequency of any intermediate configuration. It is also important for a builder to have a good idea of how much the frequency will be decreased by applying the hardware to a blank. However, without a knowledge of the PPF of the client, all of this is immaterial. If it doesn’t feel right, he is not going to be happy. Remember, the customer is always right.

Bill, let me ask you this. If the finished rod will never be used with a lure and will never have to cast anything would there be any reason to reduce it's CPM to a certain "PPF" level? At that point would it be perferrable for its CPM to be as high as possible? Would that make it more sensitive to detecting a bite and the way the fish is fighting?

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

Dr Bill wrote, "However, what is important for the rod builder is to recognize the relationships among power (stiffness), frequency, and the mass attached to the tip of the rod. It is also important to know how to determine the frequency or relative frequency of any intermediate configuration. It is also important for a builder to have a good idea of how much the frequency will be decreased by applying the hardware to a blank. However, without a knowledge of the PPF of the client, all of this is immaterial. If it doesn’t feel right, he is not going to be happy. Remember, the customer is always right."

Dr. Bill Hanneman, You do recognized the important of what we are trying to accomplish and affirming that it is important. But you are worrying about not satisfying your customer PPF ?. A Scale from 8.0=extreme stiffness to 1.0=Soft. This range is derived from measuring the stiffness of the rod with the technology that we are proposing. Wow, I don't think this is possible last seven years ago when Dr. Spolek did his research in this area. I would wonder what he would though of it now.

Ben

Dr. Hanneman wrote, "You sound as if you have an inquiring mind, are ambitious, and like to “play” with your computer. I, on the other hand have “been there--done that” enough to have developed the philosophy that if a thing is not worth doing at all, it is not worth doing well. "

Americans that I've known, strives to get better and beyond the call of duty, Sir !.

Ben

I believe that PPF is a fictional variable for every caster.
The arm controlling the cast can change to find the frequency desired for the cast unless the rod is incapable of keeping-up with that arm. We can start hard and finish slow or start slow and finish hard depending on the requirements of the cast. Once the rod has reached it's limits it doesn't matter what we can do we must still wait for the blank to catch-up. Twenty foot cast and 150 foot cast can be met with one rod if the blank and build are capable. We add weight and or line length and how hard we push on every cast. Buliding a rod for maximum frequency means we don't have to put as much effort into any cast. Every cast may still be different but the arm accounts for the difference. Practice makes us better and more varied.
Build it too fast and let me make the adjustment maybe 1/2 line heavier and I get to fish with a lighter blank since I adjust how much line is out on almost every cast. Some days my arm feels stronger others it doesn't. Don't let the weakness be the response of the rod because today I feel real good. I don't need to make big casts every day but when I need one give me something more in the tank.
I would also contend that the 2 rods mentioned above based on the build lost from 4% to 16% of their performance. Maybe 16% isn't bad but if the fish requires a 5% longer cast you're out of luck. You failed to mention which rod was more pleasurable to fish with and gave you the better results.

Eugene Moore

Russ,

You pose interesting questions. But first, if this hypothetical rod will never be used with a lure, nor to cast anything, what function does it perform? Why not simply tie the line to your finger?

Theoretically, there is no limit as to how high the frequency of a rod could be. However there becomes a point where the rod is too stiff to be a reasonable fishing tool. Few anglers use a tuna rod for bluegills.

For the sake of an argument, I would opine all this talk about frequency and sensitivity in detecting a bite is theoretical hype. I have yet to see any actual data or experiment which demonstrates or relates any relationship. While one can easily measure frequency, what are the units in which “bite” is measured?

When I am fishing a moving underwater lure, I never have any problem recognizing a “bite”. If I am fishing still bait with a sinker, I would expect the resistance offered by the sinker would determine my sensitivity to any bite. If the sinker offered no resistance, I would watch my line and sense movement in it long before my rod transmitted any signal to me.
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Ben,
--------------
“Dr. Bill Hanneman, You do recognized the important of what we are trying to accomplish and affirming that it is important.”

Sorry, Ben, I really don’t know what you are trying to accomplish. Nevertheless, I will agree it is indeed important to you, if for no other reason than it provides you with a bit of happiness.
--------------
“But you are worrying about not satisfying your customer PPF ?

I am not worrying about satisfying anyone, I don’t build rods for anyone. If I built one for myself, I would worry about satisfying me. But then, I would be my customer.
------------------------
“A Scale from 8.0=extreme stiffness to 1.0=Soft. This range is derived from measuring the stiffness of the rod with the technology that we are proposing. “

So, you have a technology which allows you to measure the stiffness of a rod, and your scale has a range from 1 to 8. What are the physical units in which stiffness is measured by your technology?
-----------------------
“Wow, I don't think this is possible last seven years ago when Dr. Spolek did his research in this area.“

Why not? He reported his values of stiffness in grams/inch to three significant figures.
------------------------
I would wonder what he would though of it now.

Why don’t you ask him. graig@eas.pdx.edu
------------------------
Americans that I've known, strives to get better and beyond the call of duty, Sir !

Just remember, Activity does not equal progress.
---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Eugene,

“I believe that PPF is a fictional variable for every caster.”

Why do you use the word “fictional”? I would accept the word “undefinable”, but PPF is indeed a very real thing to the angler given a rod which is too stiff. It just doesn’t feel good and is not preferred.

Of course, an experienced caster can and does adjust his casting to meet the situation, but that has nothing to do with whether or not a PPF exists. You must remember the operative word here is “PREFERRED” and it IS a variable for every angler.
----------------------------------
“Building a rod for maximum frequency means we don't have to put as much effort into any cast.”

Building a rod for maximum frequency is indeed a worthwhile goal. However, if one is primarily concerned with the effort one must put into a cast, one should consider the power of the rod, and that is a function of the blank one starts with.
--------------------------------------
“I would also contend that the 2 rods mentioned above based on the build lost from 4% to 16% of their performance. Maybe 16% isn't bad but if the fish requires a 5% longer cast you're out of luck.”

Not necessarily. You cannot extrapolate a value from the point that measurement was made to casting distance of a “Fishing Outfit”. I would estimate the actual casting difference was less than 2%.
---------------------------------------
“You failed to mention which rod was more pleasurable to fish with and gave you the better results.”

I did not perform the experiment, and one could just a well relate the performance to how well the rods matched the test caster’s PPF.

Bill we do a lot of live bait fishing. Basically just a leader and hook and a live bait. You drop him over the side and tell him to go find some friends. Target fish are sailfish, dolphin, tuna, etc. You are fishing close to a slack line but you need to be able to feel what the bait fish is telling you. Once hooked up a great deal of information about the fish's condition is passed down the line. It lets you know when to pressure a fish and when to back off and let him run.

I understand my style of fishing is quite different than most. I can even see why some would think the rod hardly matters. All I can say is take a look at a video of a skilled angler fighting a big tarpon on a fly rod. One second he is grabbing the rim and applying all the pressure his tackle can stand. The next second he is "bowing to the king" and doing everything he can to provide slack line so the fish can't throw the hook or break the line while it jumps. You have to be able to feel the subtle clues that let you know when the fish makes the transistion from resting to making the next run. Guess wrong and the line breaks. Guess wrong in the other direction and the battle lasts hours instead of minutes and the fish is fatigued too much and might not survive the battle.

Funny how some will see a small trout on 2-4# test as UL fishing and deserving of a top notch rod but won't see a 40# fish on 12# line as deserving of the same level of sensitivity.

FWIW I do see your points but it seems they are centered around casting hence my questions. To me, light and stiff seem best but I might be overlooking something and acknowledge your expertise in these matters. I am not one to favor a parabolic type of rod so that it will provide a cushion. It just isn't right for me and how I fight a fish.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

Dr. Wrote, "So, you have a technology which allows you to measure the stiffness of a rod, and your scale has a range from 1 to 8. What are the physical units in which stiffness is measured by your technology? "

The GolfSmith Frequency Analyzer measures stiffness in the unit of HertZ or Cycle Per Minutes. Getting HertZ results from the GolfSmith Frequency Analyzer we can compiles flex stiffness to a scale which could be use and share among angler, rod makers, and custom builders.

Dr. Wrote, " Activity does not equal progress"

Actually, without activities there would not be any progress (The Light bulb does not invent itself.).

Thank you for Dr. Craig Email Address.

Ben

Ben,

Dr. Hanneman has already invented a stiffness scale which doesn't require any special equipment in order to take the measurements. It is in wide use today.

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

Tom,

OoH-Rah ! for Dr. Hanneman and for rod builders and makers who've are using it today (CCF).

Benefits of GolfSmith Frequency Analyzer:

No mathematic involvement in calculating the CPM or HertZ (No formular to remember). No multitasking requires. Yes, you can relax your tired set of eyes. If you blink your eyes, the output number is still the same (No counting of 1-20 requires, less chance of error in counting). It is a good tool for those of us with weak eyesight. This intrument can communicate with your high tech computer as well (Yeah!).

The key feature is the Dynamic read out of rod's frequency. Builder can adjust or tweak rod's frequency by he adding or replacing hardwares to meet his PPF.

This instrument gets a rating of five star (5=best). Visit GolfSmith.Com and see the GolfSmith Frequency Analyzer video and see if you agree.

Ben

No, not the CCF. The ERN scale. One is relative frequency and one is relative power or stiffness.

My point again is that most builders do not own, nor will they buy, a Golfsmith Frequency Analyzer.

There are things we'd like to see and then there are the things that we have to accept as being practical. If you want to construct a means for rod builders to measure the inherent properties of blanks, you're going to have look at who the average builder is and develop something that doesn't require the purchase of any special equipment.

........

Tom....

This is not for the average builder. It is like they advertised it, It is for the "Serious" and "Professional" builder (Toy for Big Boy).

Okay. Got what you meant by ERN scale. Can't seem to figure out what's the different between CCS and CCF ? Which would you use for stiffness ?

Ben

Ben,

CCS "Common Cents System" is a SYSTEM or group of tests which provides a number of methods for characterizing rods.
CCF "Common Cents Frequency" is one test in the System.
Stiffness is a static measurement and is expressed in units of ERN.
Frequency is a dynamic measurement and is expressed in units of cpm (cycles per minute).

The optimum stiffness of a rod is primarily a function of the size of the fish one intends to persue.
The optimum frequency of a rod is determined by the type of fishing one intends to persue, e.g., bamboo fly rod - 65 cpm, graphite fly rod - 85 cpm, Spinning rod - 105 cpm, bass rod - 115 cpm. Frequency is the major determining factor in feel or casting speed (PPF).

-----------------------------------
Russ,

You wrote, "To me, light and stiff seem best but I might be overlooking something ... I am not one to favor a parabolic type of rod so that it will provide a cushion. It just isn't right for me and how I fight a fish.

Light and stiff are characteristics of rods with high frequency, while parabolic rods are "loved" for their characteristic lower frequencies. To which I would say, "You have a considerably different PPF from anglers who fish with bamboo. To each his own. It's a personal thing."

ERN and AA are effective tools for measuring static units.
Measurements of degrees and weight per unit of deflection aren't novel. They've been around much longer then anyone reading this.
Dynamic measurements are a logical progression. Cycle per minute or Hertz denote an active motion scale.
Static measurements will determine what weight can be applied but don't tell how fast that weight may be propelled or at what degree of accuracy. The primary reason for the widespread use of graphite composites are dynamic forces. How much force is applied and how quickly can it be moved. A rod is far more than a load bearing device. The design of the rod taper and the placement of the rod mass can be measured statically, but not dynamically. A truly good casting rod may have the same ERN and AA of a "DUD". The difference is weight distribution and application of good taper design. A rod with a weak butt section and overly heavy tip may weigh the same as a rod with a light tip and a heavy butt taper. The former rod will have a low response frequency and be incapable of damping or accurate positioning at all distances. The latter rod will be much higher in frequency and be capable of long and accurate casts.
Even though the same weight the latter rod will "feel" much lighter when cast. The former rod will feel heavy and clumsy while requireing more effort to make any cast short or long.
The change to graphite versus fiberglass or bamboo was to experience that higher frequency. The improper taper of the blank can make, even graphite slow and non responsive and some of the blanks available today are afflicted with that problem even if static measurements show they are right where they need to be. What if the frequency of the bare blanks stated earlier had only been 140 CPM. The build would have only made that lower never higher. Probably a blank that is not a good candidate for a custom rod. Sell that at the local department store for $20. Nobody there will complain at that price.
Resonant frequency may be the first tool to accurately describe blank taper and dynamic weight distribution. I've seen units down to $100.
"Fictional" imaginary. None of us have a completely averge day. We feel better, worse or if fishing it may rain or the wind might kick-up. In either case I don't run to my truck to adjust my PPF. I change my stroke to match my conditions and have fun fishing. Maybe catch a couple if I can figure out all the variables.

Eugene Moore

If the acceptance of such a measurement system requires the purchase of a $100 unit... forget it. You're not in touch with the average rod builder. He won't spend the money.

The CCS system was designed to measure the inherent properties of rod blanks and finished rods. Like a tape measure or a thermometer, it provides measurements; data, which the user must then consider and use wisely. Just as neither the Fahrenheit nor Celcius scale will tell you if you need to wear a coat, the CCS does not attempt to tell you what will make a good or bad rod for your application. It just supplies the data - the rest is up to you.

The CCF is the ideal tool for comparing the relative speed of one blank to another. It requires no special equipment nor special knowledge. It is simple and outright cheap. And it works.

Those who want to push the use of resonant frequency for any rod building purpose should do so. But don't be disappointed if 5 years from now you have no more proponents than you do now. There's nothing wrong with it, except that's it's not practical for the intended audience.

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

Mr. Tom Kirkman wrote, "If the acceptance of such a measurement system requires the purchase of a $100 unit... forget it. You're not in touch with the average rod builder. He won't spend the money."

I don't think we are that cheap, Mr. Tom. Most people owns a RenZetti Lathe and most not, however, it's their PPF.

I can assure you that most rod builders certainly do not own Renzetti lathes. Not by a long shot. Not even 1 in 1000 own a Renzetti lathe.

...........

Mr. Lee

Maybe one day you and I might aspire to be on that list, but it will only come from the difference we make in the long run, not from the toys we own.

What happens when you find out that higher frequencies are more drastically effected then lower frequencies by the components added to the blank?

What happens when you step out side the lab into the real world and find out that all the work done to establish an exact frequency changes a few minutes after the rod adjusts to ambient temperatures do to the fact that molecular movement increases in hotter weather and decreases in lower temperatures. Totally changing the frequency you have strived so hard to create?

What if Mr. Brunt is correct?
[rodbuilding.org]

And the whole time we are trying to design and build rods with higher frequencies because we believe them to be more efficient, the human body is actually better at detecting lower frequencies, and we are heading the wrong direction.

Do we buy high frequency blanks and continue to use mechanically impeding methods and materials (such as cork) to bring the frequency down?
Or do we buy lower frequency blanks, saving money and use frequency matching methods and materials (such as carbon fiber) in order to as much as possible maintain the frequency we have with the bare blank?

What if Mr. Brunt has finally brought to light why there is so much controversy over adding weight to the butt of a rod.
The engineering side claiming it reduces efficiency and frequency because it is adding mass and “mass reduces frequency.
With the practical side stating emphatically that they can feel things better.

Maybe the answer is that in adding mass; we are lowering the frequency to a level that the body can better detect, should we start out with low frequency heavier blanks to begin with?
Don’t get me wrong, if you’ve read anything I’ve written. Then you know I’m all about pushing the envelope in design and function.
And while I think Emory’s concept of using frequency for quality control and keeping blank tolerances close in model classless is an outstanding concept. I also think that is were it stops that there are just too many variables for it to be practical outside of that environment.

And that’s not even including what Dr Hannon has brought up about PPF.
This can be argued away all day in engineering terms, but can not be discounted simply because as one person can sing in a higher or lower frequency then another, some people also feel at higher of lower frequencies.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2010 06:29PM by Tom Kirkman.

Mr. Steve Gardner and Mr. Tom Kirkman,

Got no ideas on what you two are talking about. Only qualified Rod Makers would able to provide you with appropriate answers (they specialized in making composite rod). I'm no such.

Sorry.

Ben

Steve you make some interesting points to ponder. I think you have credited me with more than I deserve.

I’m going to do my best to avoid math here but there are some basic concepts I think are important so bear with me gentlemen.

If one were to take a hoop, imagine a tambourine, and tape a pencil to its edge and trace a line as it rotated along a path many might guess you would get a semi-circle. Instead you would end up with a cycloid. It would look a bit like a bunch of upside down letter U’s. A pendulum in a grandfather clock moves in such a path. Now if we took one of those U’s and turned it upside down and placed a marble at any point on the “U” it would reach the bottom of the “U” at the same time. Intuitively that seems impossible to many. Yet we know the grandfather clock keeps good time regardless of how tight the spring is wound and how far the pendulum swings. A child on a swing is another such example and one I’ll use to illustrate a point.

Imagine we take Ben’s new toy and attach it to the metal frame of the swing set. A child take his place on the swing set, pushes off from the ground, and is set in motion at the resonant frequency. If his parent comes along and pushes at the right point in time the child swings higher and higher but at the same frequency. Now as the child swings farther what difference do we imagine we would see displayed on Ben’s instrument? How strongly does the child on the swing feel the force from the parent’s hand? Compare that to what would be felt if the parent decided play time was over and intentionally “pushed out of time” at something other than the resonant frequency. One action caused the child to go higher and higher and the other caused an abrupt decrease. I’m sure all of us would agree that the push intended to end the session would be felt far more strongly by the child. An instrument attached to the swing should detect a large spike.

Now think about a crank bait being trolled. The tip of the rod is bouncing along just right letting us know we have the right trolling speed and the lure is running true and weed free. We could view this as a natural resonant frequency for the system. If a fish could somehow manage to swallow said lure and move and quiver at the same exact speed and frequency would we feel anything? Compare that to what we would expect to feel if the fish imparted the equivalent of that “playtime is over” strike.

Now is when I am going to step out on the limb and possibly make a fool of myself. I am going to suggest a strike should be viewed as an impulse or step function. It is more of a DC event and has no frequency. To me the key is to maximize the difference between the resonant frequency of the rod and that impulse. We want to feel that bone jarring hit of a well timed stiff arm on that child’s back when playtime is over.

Lately there has been a trend towards fiberglass blanks for crankbaits. Could it be that materials have become so sensitive that the angler is reacting too fast? Could it be that the strike triggers an autonomous response? As mentioned in the other thread there are receptors in the human hand that do trigger such responses. Testing has shown that grip diameter does have a bearing on sensitivity.

I was at BPS last night, as I needed some line. I felt two rods that I assume were targeted at the same general market. One was the banana wright mcgill and one was a daiwa steez. To see two rods, that couldn’t be farther apart, intended for the same use only indicates to me that it is a lot more than personal preference at work here.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.