Thank you Tom. The conversion chart will help. I know the NFC ERN chart used to be in the Library , which allowed one to convert any IP weight used to an ERN value. We have had this discussion several times in the past. I think such discussions are useful to give new members an idea what the CCS data is all about. CCS data is quite useful for comparing blanks.
Norm

The NFC chart was compiled from all the earlier charts I had done by a fisherman of some renown. I should know his name but for the life of me cannot recall it. His father was equally famous in trout fishing circles.

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

The ERN conversion chart from NFC is one I refer to in determining the final number but I must say, it is not the most user-friendly data to work with. I think many rod builders shy away from the work when they reach this point and misinterpretation or doubt about the method leads to doubt about the results. Somewhere in my early research, I came across a multiplier that made things a whole lot easier but somehow lost track of it. If builders could rack at blank with 10% supported, load to bend a third of the length, weigh, then multiply by "X" for ERN, I believe we would see a lot more of this data out there. Tom?

And, while ERN is discussed as a relative term, like an inch or an ounce, I have yet to see a chart that will help MAKE ERN a relative term. Like 15.5 to 24.7 is equivalent to an "X" power blank that should work well for trout and bream, or 23.0 to 29.2 is generally enough power for drop shot and light grubs etc.(numbers arbitrary). Of course, then you need to look at AA for a better picture - but until someone makes the NUMBER relative to information the builder needs, I have doubts about how popular it will/can become.

In my opinion. CCS serves a very small group of builders who are not satisfied with a "Medium" power rating when it could be something almost everyone understands and refers to when planning a build. I would love to see the system more widely used but the ERN needs to be easy to reach and the resulting number needs to equate to, well, fishing.

Tom. why don't you come to Foley and we can produce a video "How to Use the Common Cents System"?

Jim, I think the CCS numbers relate to "fishing" quite well once one gets a number of the rods he uses tested for CCS numbers. For example, I have a lower level travel spin rod that has CCS numbers quite similar to one of your Point Blank blanks, and I love how it fishes for a number of techniques. If I want to go to a premium blank with very similar power and action I know exactly which Point Blank to order. Or if I want to go to a premium blank with similar power and action but in a different length, I know exactly which Point Blank to order.

I think that if there is a problem with CCS it is that people look at what they see when opening the CCS Info link and they are immediately overwhelmed, then soon give up going into it more deeply. Being an engineer might have made it less daunting for me than for some, but once I got into it, I found it's pretty much a piece of cake.

I have found that the action descriptions by makers are pretty accurate relative to a small range of CCS action angles, but that is not the case for power descriptions , especially for the power descriptions of XFast actions. Makers tend to call them "lighter" than they IMO really are, not taking into account that the butt power comes in pretty fast. So an XFast action blank called ML power can in fact be a pretty powerful blank capable of much more than the usual blank described as ML power.

Agreed, Mick. It's the "overhwelmng" part I'd like to see fixed. I think that's how we can mainstream the system. How to vids, charts, simplicity.

Jim,

The "overwhelming" part was fixed years ago... but few noticed. The original CCS article can indeed be overwhelming - in that article Dr. Hanneman wanted to explain the underpinnings of the system and why he did certain things. But just like a computer - you don't have to know how it works in order to use it. This is why I wrote the "Simplified Common Cents System." It also includes a brief Rosetta Stone chart. It does not include any of the information from Dr. Hanneman on how he developed the system - just how to measure the blanks to get the various action and power numbers. Might be time to reprint it in the magazine. This is really the only article needed for a person or company to easily use it. It is indeed, simple. The question with making it so simple, is we are again back to people who think something simple can't be worthwhile. The same people who are not at all bothered by how an inch came to be an inch, or who decided why a pound weighs a pound, are terribly bothered by why the CCS deflection distance was chosen, or why a unit of ERN is a unit of ERN. You start explaining that and you're back to the thing being "overwhelming."

So use the simplified CCS article and don't worry about why anything was chosen or done.

You don't need to multiply anything to get ERN - the Rosetta Stone chart lists it per the number of pennies used to get the required deflection. Dr. Hanneman did all the work for the user - no need to do any math or any conversions. He made it simple but over time others have attempted to make it more difficult. It is human nature to think that if something is simple and/or easy, it can't be any good.

As far as terms like "medium power" - that's like using terms such as short, medium and long for blank length. Unless you have a determined standard behind your terms you really aren't providing very useful information. They're all over the place from one manufacturer to the next. Always have been.

A video would be a good idea as well. It's certainly something I could do here provided I can find the time. In the meantime I am going to look for the expanded Rosetta Stone chart. It's here somewhere.

...........



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2020 11:25AM by Tom Kirkman.

Doing a CCS analysis on a blank is really a straight forward and simple process that anybody can successfully do. Basically, the amount of weight it takes to bend the blank 1/3 it’s length defines power, and the angle the blank tip exhibits when bent by this weight defines action. Simple, easy, and understandable. The addition of ERN to the mix, complicates and confuses many, because they look at that number and they say where in the he’ll did that come from! I had to scratch my head when ERN was introduced in the CCs articles. ERN is awkward to work with and understand, because it is an arbitrary number which not a proportional nor intuitive, and without a conversion chart or conversion program nearly impossible to calculate. I took the time to try and figure it out and it was not easy. For a conceptually very simple process why complicate it by throwing in ERN? IMO, CCS would be more acceptable with a KISS.
Norm

ERN wasn't an add-on - it was the original power measurement. You do not need to convert, multiply or anything to get it. Just count the pennies and find the corresponding ERN (Effective Rod Number). There is really no work involved. It's already been done for you and is one of things that make the system so simple. Since it is THE power number for the CCS, attempting to change it with some using the actual deflection weight in grams or ounces and some using number of pennies, removes one of the constants and spreads the measurements into varying units. Just use ERN as the system calls for.

One thing I would also add and it's how things are worded and does cause confusion - the required deflection for taking the measurements is not 1/3rd of the blank's length - it a distance equal to 1/3rd of the blank's length. Some deflect the blank back to 1/3rd of the length and then get inaccurate measurements. Of course, this is all covered in both the CCS articles and I again recommend using the simplified article that contains just how to take the measurements.

..........

Never said it was an add on, I just stated it was a complication that is not needed to understand power and action.
Norm

But ERN is THE power number as defined by the Common Cents System. The inventor did not specify to use the actual weight needed to reach the required deflection as the power number (in fact he was attempting to get completely away from having to weigh anything, which is just another complication in taking the measurement). The inventor did not specify to use the number of pennies, needed, either. He specified ERN which is extremely easy to obtain by just looking at the CCS Rosetta Stone chart.

Oddly enough, when the system was unveiled, many people objected to using pennies to obtain the required deflection. They felt it best to complicate things by using different items to load the rod and then using a scale to measure how much weight was used. And yes, that is odd - that work had already been done by using pennies as the weight standard. No need to weigh anything, no need to possess or buy a scale - just count the pennies and correspond that number to the ERN figure on the Rosetta Stone chart.

If anything, attempts to modify the system with different weight standards and units is what has made it "overwhelming" for many. Too many people doing too many different things outside of what the system clearly specifies, leaving others to wonder what the @#$%& is all this stuff? Just take the measurements per the simplified article and list the action and power numbers as specified by the instructions.

.........

Please do. Early on I referred to the chart(s) I could find but their fly rod orientation didn't go far enough to rate many spinning and casting blanks. That's what led me to the NFC chart and that's where things started to get confusing and more complicated than necessary based on the original work. A reprint would be great with additional info for blanks that take 1000 grams to bend to one third. And by the way, that's too many pennies minted in a certain time frame to keep track of! "Common Cents" tells me it's easier to load that bag with pyramid weights at some point, LOL!

I agree that a Medium is not a Medium is not a Medium across the board, but until we create some kind of relationship between a number people do not understand and a rating they think they DO understand...

NFC attempted to put all the various terms onto their chart, and which they did quite well, but it is one of those things that a first time user may have trouble deciphering. The expanded Rosetta Stone chart doesn't require you to do anything more than correspond two numbers - there is no graph, lines, charts, etc. I'm going to find it and print it in the earliest upcoming issue, plus put it in the library here.

By the way, you don't have to count pennies more than once, really. Bag them in multiples. I know many builders that have done this to speed things up. Somebody mentioned it here yesterday I think. Get some small ziplock bags and put 30 each in a few bags, then 20 each in a few more, and then 10 each in a few more, then 5 each in a few more. Write the number of pennies on the outside. Keep 4 pennies single. It only takes seconds to then load, and count, the total number of pennies. For 3 or 4 dollars worth of pennies (which you can probably find around your home right now) you will have all you ever need. I would question the accuracy of weight between pyramid sinkers versus pennies which are held to a high standard of weight accuracy. Every Lincoln penny minted since 1982 will be the same.

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

I look forward to the chart. I support what you're doing. In fact, I live in the same zone. Everyone wants placement charts and I keep telling them "how to think" to make it even easier. It's an uphill grind, brother.

As I see it the only direct power measurement is the number of pennies it takes to deflect the blank. As in 100. If I interpret the info correctly THAT is the power of the blank measured in pennies (pennies that weight 2.5 grams) It is not 100 ERN's. Or 25 ERN' assuming an ERN is 4 times more mass than a bag of 100 pennies.

I know I'll regret it, but if the ERN is not a "derived" number, then why do I have to leave my CCS rig, with its only 2 measurements to consult a chart which tells me the ERN? Should I have used ERN's instead of pennies? If I had used ERN's than that would be the direct power measurement. If I have to consult a chart that relates ERN to my direct power measurement, then ERN is not a direct measurement of power. IP is. And I can convert that to grains, grams, ounces pounds, or any other mass unit. But there is no single ratio that allows me to convert it to ERN. Another way to say it is IF ERN was "the original power measurement" (this says it is MEASURED) why do I need a chart to know what it is? Why can I not MEASURE it directly.

Another obvious question is why have ERN? Why not simply IP? It is a direct measurement of power.

Jim, I have bagged up rifle reloading bullets into logical counts that give me the weights I need, writing the grams and number of pennies equivalencies. They are simply units of mass. Then I have small bags of 40, 20, and 10 pennies. Works great.

IP is not any more a direct measurement of power than ERN and neither reflects what the amount of weight the rod will cast or what the rod will deadlift. It is simply a measurement constant for assigning the relative power number (ERN). And the inventor learned very quickly that some people tend to think that the amount of weight used to obtain the deflection was the weight they assumed it would cast. I remember a number of people breaking rods early on trying to cast that amount of weight. This was at least one of the reasons that Dr. Hanneman chose to use simple, whole power numbers instead of some obvious unit of weight.

So why ERN? Because that's what the CCS calls for. That is the relative power number used by the CCS. And there is a single chart that allows you to match pennies to ERN. It's been in the magazine along with the NFC chart that allows you to do the same thing. So no, it is not "100 ERNs" - it is "an ERN 12 rod" or whatever the case may.

There are already many (different) power rating systems in use by the various manufacturers. Nearly all use simple, whole numbers, such as 1-power, 2-power, etc. In all my years doing this I never once heard anyone ask Fenwick why they assigned relative power numbers instead of just stating how much weight was used to bend the rod to a certain point, or just how far the blank flexed under a certain weight. They just accepted the number and used it. Fenwick, nor the others, ever bothered to state the actual weight used or the exact distance deflected, they "converted" (if you wish to use that term) to a simple relative power number which the average fisherman could easily understand from a relative basis. Had they listed the power as being a 912 grain rod, or a 27 inch rod, the layman would never had figured it out.

The CCS uses ERN as the relative power figure. No one is forcing you to use it - you can use the actual weight, or number of pennies or whatever you want. But the CCS and it's Defined Bending Index, use AA and ERN.

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

I am old enough to remember the days of Fenwick rod powers. Nobody knew what a four power rod was But they knew it was stiffer than a three power and less stiff than a five power. Which I think was the point. In time after using the rods they gained an idea of about how much power they for power Rod had, along with the others. And they would do the same with ERN in time. In the meantime the numbers are still intuitive with higher numbers meaning more power and lower numbers meaning less which seems to me to have been the simple intent. Pretty sure I am not as bright as Dr. Hammerman so I will just stick with his system as it is.

I beg to differ. If I cannot "measure" ERN, it is not a direct measurement. IP has been defined as the power of the blank in pennies. 100 pennies = IP of 100. CCS "calls for ERN," but why? I'm thinking I'm going to get "just because" pretty soon.

Tom , what is the algorithm that put the numbers for ERN next to IP numbers? Someone, somehow, decided that a rod of xxx IP had an ERN of yyy.

I can't believe anyone was stupid enough to think that one could cast the weight it took to deflect the rod, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I measure ERN almost every day. It's not hard, there is no undue burden to do it and I don't have to weigh anything. And... it's the means by which the inventor chose to number relative power.

Yes, some people tried to cast the rod with the amount of weight needed to attain the required deflection and like you I'm not surprised. The public, you know...

How many people have ever questioned the length of the inch? Or the weight of a pound? They were defined by the originators as was the ERN by the originator of the CCS. Somebody chose an arbitrary length or weight and named it as a unit of measurement. Yet nobody questions them. It doesn't stop people from successfully using them. It does not matter what they are based on. They provide relative systems of measurement. No one is born with an intuitive knowledge of either but as people use them they become accustomed to those systems and what they represent. Those terms, as well as ERN, are correct by definition.

Dr. Hanneman put it best - if you find the system useful, use it. If not, don't.

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

The length of an inch is based on the width of three barleycorn seeds laid side-by-side. Given that no two barley corn seeds are likely to be the same width I would say the origins of the inch are pretty arbitrary. But the length of an inch is considered to be correct.

It's a marketing issue. Like Imperial vs Metric.