From testing airplane wings to tuning piano strings the desirable (and undesirable) qualities of objects that bend and oscillate are tested, observed, and compared to a desired ideal. This enables the buyer/user to make a dependable and useful comparison of oscillating objects, including fish-rod blanks. It is neither difficult nor expensive to determine how a particular rod blank oscillates or to compete the oscillation of one rod blank to another. This would not result in everyone buying the same blank, but it would allow you to truly compare blanks and find the best blank for you, and you could still proclaim "Brand X" blank has incredible sensitivity, power, and feel.

How do you do it

High speed camera will easily do it, probably many other methods.

If you want someones eyes to glaze over while you're talking to them ..... just try explaining how a blank that oscillates at one frequency is better than one that oscillates at a different frequency. And you'd better have scientifically verified data to back it up.

Yep its for sure that you can't catch a fish if the blank does not have the correct oscillation frequency for that particular species

Think the property in question is a rod's recovery - the lapsed time and direction of the oscillations resulting from a rod suddenly unloading.

I was taught (long ago and far away) the belly wag was the quick and easy (and admittedly subjective) way to observe a rod's recovery properties.

Have always wondered what impact, if any, the relationship of guide positions to the spine might have on a rod's recovery properties.

Having the ability to clamp a graphite shaft with a constant weight on tip using a frequency meter changed the golf shaft industry. I don't see why it wouldn't work for blanks. So you say well what cycles per minute (CPM'S) have to do with catching fish- probably nothing, but, it's a proven way to compare one shaft to another. Zone profiling allows to even compare tips.. I have such equipment and some blanks, time for me to at least record some specs and share. More will be revealed!!

There is no belly wag in the graphite blanks I work with. Exc a little for fly rods, but it really tells nothing about the blank.

Emory Harry did some studies published in Rod Maker some years ago. He correlated a bare blank to a blank with the right amount and size guides as he saw it, and the additional guides that many now add. He showed where frequency can be measured than correlated to sensitivity.

If it correlates to sensitivity then sensitivity has to be measured. How?

Blank frequency is one of the measures in the CCS system. I couldn't agree more with the interest of such measures to be as widespread as possible.
It's hard not to suspect that the more you sell snake oil, the less you're interested in objective measures.

_______________________________________________
If I'm not going to catch anything, then I'd rather not catch anything on flies.

Prostaff Rodhouse
[www.rodhouse.fr]

People who don't like or don't physical believe in physical measurements would be free to ignore them. The rest of us might find such measurements useful, and they would not cost a cent.

How do you purchase equipment and pay labor for the testing and not "have it cost a cent?" I guess me finance and economics education was faulty!

Everything costs a cent. More than a cent. How can it be argued that adding an operation, or test, or calculation, or anything else, would be free? It can be argued that it would not raise prices significantly, but not zero. Unless the manufacturers already do it and don't publish.

It costs less to conduct and publish a simple oscillation/resonance measurement of a rod blank than it costs to hire advertising agencies to dream up new nonsense claims like "extra fast" or "super smooth" or "soulful" rod blanks. If you wish to ignore hard data and verifiable facts go right ahead, but don't be the dog in the manger for the rest of us.
l

Less but not zero? I don't ignore hard data. I CCS test all my blanks, for example.I'm a retired engineer. I worked with objective data for over 36 years, with pay, and another 20 without. I respect objective data, and I respect your drive to get it. But let's keep it real. I have a hard time accepting arguments that are obviously false. Like " it won't cost a cent." Dog in the manger does not describe me at all.

Once we've amassed all the above info. we'll know what a blank's gonna "feel" like before we order it.

Read Emory's articles and his many posts here, you don't always have to first measure something quantifiable to be able to relate what will happen to that object later when you add things to it, that can and has been measured.

I don't ignore objective data if it's valid to the application. The fact is .... the only way a bare rod blank is going to catch a fish, is if it's used as a spear. Once you start adding grips, reel seats, guides etc. your objective measurements of a bare rod blank go out the window.
Why should I care about measurements that aren't going to apply to my specific use of the product?

The only objective measurements that won't significantly change by turning a bare rod blank into a fishing rod, are the blanks power, and action. The spacing and size of the guides isn't going to change that significantly. Having the reel 10" from the butt versus 12" from the butt isn't going to change it significantly, The size, weight, and stiffness of the line isn't going to change it significantly. But all of those things and more, are going to change the oscillation of a bare rod blank. And they are going to change it pretty significantly.

You can take measurements before, and after, you build the rod on the blank. Good rod builders have a very good idea of what will happen to a rod blank's initial measurements once they assemble the grips, seat, guides, etc. They know what and how much will be affected. By taking measurements before and after, you can quickly learn what to expect in any changes between bare blank and finished rod.

I can look at the naked blank's specs and pretty much tell you how much it'll change by the addition of various components. It's not that hard.

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