I just read and article that started a train of thought.

Just for quick info the ratio is 1:1.618 and is called Phi. This isn't new but it's very interesting.

This group of builders might really latch onto this.

So how could this ratio be used for rod building? Could it create the next big thing? Who knows but this should be great food for thought.

Here's a link to the article.

[www.ksl.com]

Maybe the diameter of the rod vs the handle for most comfort or performance? Or stepping down from one size ring to the next? Just thoughts.

Any feedback? I'd love to hear some ideas.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2012 02:43PM by Joe Johnson.

It won't necessarily create proper ergonomics in terms of handle diameter, shape, etc. But the "Golden Ratio," as I was brought up to refer to it, has certain aesthetic credentials.

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

"Pretty much any spiral you see occurring in nature follows the rules of the Golden Ratio."

Not sure I'd space my guides on an acid rod on this ratio - LOL

That is very interesting. It's weird how 2 people can use the same color combination on a guide wrap, only difference is length - yet one looks more appealing than the other. I'm gonna play around and measure some stuff now.

I remember Dale Clemens in ACRB stating that grip inlays look best in groups of 3,and I built a lot of grips keeping that sentence in the back of my mind when deciding what to do.

Blly you probably will spend a restless night contemplating numberical concepts of the departed -

Even and odd numbers related to Yin-Yang and the Five Concepts probably preceeded the Divine Stuff.

If you figure out why three inlay metallic passes sells better than two lemmo know!

Down in the Lousiiana Marsh our two laws of nature involve gumbo and boudin - puts us to sleep quickly and keep us from thinking about anything while we snore.

Don't let the fallling apples crack your skull!

I will await the Vivionian Six Laws of Twisting Thread

Will not even ask to see the derivation of the equations you generate!

Gon Fishn



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2012 05:56PM by Bill Stevens.

Bill, with guide wraps with underwraps, I used to want to make teh 2 overwraps and teh space between guide feet the same distance. I know that didn't always look aesthetically pleasing. I like numbers, so it gives me something to play around with and keep me from doing stuff I need to be doing for 15 minutes, lol.

Pretty hard for me to see how the fibonacci series would work into building rods. (ie. 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 . . . . ) The ratio based off this series, phi, makes for a pretty rectangle and interesting spiral, but..... Lots of other ratio's can be used similarly in aesthetics--such as square root of 2 = 1.14 or the square root of 3 = 1.17. But I suspect that using column orders would work better for fishing rods. What about windings based on the Doric order, with about 6 diameters of length, plus tippings proportioned as the capitol and or entablature. Thinner longer items could be based on the more elegant orders--Ionic or Corinthian, with both plinth and entablature proportions specified.

Or perhaps windings could be designed based on the necessary length to hold the guides, the spacings based on functions of loading the rods evenly, and handle diameters based on the ergonomics of the users.

Pretty hard for me to see how the fibonacci series would work into building rods. (ie. 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 . . . . ) The ratio based off this series, phi, makes for a pretty rectangle and interesting spiral, but..... Lots of other ratio's can be used similarly in aesthetics--such as square root of 2 = 1.14 or the square root of 3 = 1.17. But I suspect that using column orders would work better for fishing rods. What about windings based on the Doric order, with about 6 diameters of length, plus tippings proportioned as the capitol and or entablature. Thinner longer items could be based on the more elegant orders--Ionic or Corinthian, with both plinth and entablature proportions specified.

Or perhaps windings could be designed based on the necessary length to hold the guides, the spacings based on functions of loading the rods evenly, and handle diameters based on the ergonomics of the users.

I think it could very well apply to rod building. I intend to apply it to guide spacing and compare the result to the new concept as well as 27X. It may apply to esthetics or rod balance as well. Will be interesting to experiment with. I read the article a while ago and thought then that it makes sense that there could be an application in there somewhere. Glad to see someone else is interested.

Harry T. Bell

One simple application for applying the golden ratio is to insert a trim ring in a rod grip. For example, if you wanted a 10 inch rear grip and a 4 inch fore grip, you could place a trim ring in each grip according to the golden ratio. According to what I read this would be the most "eye pleasing" division of the grip into two pieces. Using a 1/8 inch or 1/16 inch plastic ring you could easily divide according to the golden ratio. Wouldn't Euclid be surprised at this application.

You can Google "Golden Ratio and choose the following URL: [mathworld.wolfram.com]

Have fun.

Mike Blomme

When I size my grip inlays, about 75% of the time I make the image 4" long and 2.5" wide. This usually distorts the image a little bit, but it always comes out looking good when it's on the round grip. I dida quick spreadsheet for numbers from 1 to 40, divided by and multiplyied by this magic number to make it easier if somone wante dto check gripo lengths, or guide wrap lenghts, guide spacing, etc.

Number divide ……….. multiply
1 ……….. 0.62 ……….. 1.62
2 ……….. 1.24 ……….. 3.24
3 ……….. 1.85 ……….. 4.85
4 ……….. 2.47 ……….. 6.47
5 ……….. 3.09 ……….. 8.09
6 ……….. 3.71 ……….. 9.71
7 ……….. 4.33 ……….. 11.33
8 ……….. 4.94 ……….. 12.94
9 ……….. 5.56 ……….. 14.56
10 ……….. 6.18 ……….. 16.18
11 ……….. 6.80 ……….. 17.80
12 ……….. 7.42 ……….. 19.42
13 ……….. 8.03 ……….. 21.03
14 ……….. 8.65 ……….. 22.65
15 ……….. 9.27 ……….. 24.27
16 ……….. 9.89 ……….. 25.89
17 ……….. 10.51 ……….. 27.51
18 ……….. 11.12 ……….. 29.12
19 ……….. 11.74 ……….. 30.74
20 ……….. 12.36 ……….. 32.36
21 ……….. 12.98 ……….. 33.98
22 ……….. 13.60 ……….. 35.60
23 ……….. 14.21 ……….. 37.21
24 ……….. 14.83 ……….. 38.83
25 ……….. 15.45 ……….. 40.45
26 ……….. 16.07 ……….. 42.07
27 ……….. 16.69 ……….. 43.69
28 ……….. 17.30 ……….. 45.30
29 ……….. 17.92 ……….. 46.92
30 ……….. 18.54 ……….. 48.54
31 ……….. 19.16 ……….. 50.16
32 ……….. 19.78 ……….. 51.78
33 ……….. 20.40 ……….. 53.40
34 ……….. 21.01 ……….. 55.01
35 ……….. 21.63 ……….. 56.63
36 ……….. 22.25 ……….. 58.25
37 ……….. 22.87 ……….. 59.87
38 ……….. 23.49 ……….. 61.49
39 ……….. 24.10 ……….. 63.10



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/02/2012 06:55AM by Billy Vivona.

I built a golden ratio caliper and use it often when to determine positioning of trim rings in handles and lengths of decorative wraps. I made it out of cardboard and pins. Here's a link the plans:

[www.quantumbalancing.com]

Richard Glabach Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Pretty much any spiral you see occurring in
> nature follows the rules of the Golden Ratio."
>
> Not sure I'd space my guides on an acid rod on
> this ratio - LOL


You might not have been spacing your guide with it but, I can tell you that it is one essential element in ACID ROD.

0 to 60 to 120 to 180

same as 0,1,1,2,3 with reference to the interger sequence.

I'll proof it to you.

n+1=n1+n1=N2+n1=N3

Therefore:
0 = 0 degrees = Stripper guide
n+1=1 =60=1st bumper
n1+n1=1+1=2=120=2nd bumper
1+2=3=180 = and behold ............

I've been away from rod building for the past 6 yrs and for some reason, I felt extremely compelled to return. I was toying with the idea of applying FIbo or the golden ratio to my rejuvernated interest and decided to work on a warm up rod.
If it helps anyone exploring on this front of possiblities I'd suggest you start with a fulcrum. It could be you wrap or weave and then put in the ratios or inverse ratios to discover lengths of the next fitting.

For now, I'll need to get my fundamentals back...trying to grip that spool of thread correctly... lol..