I agree with Tom's statement. It may require multiple weight standards to cover the entire range of currently available rod blanks. Blanks measured by each standard would be comparable only to other blanks measured by that same standard. I also like the idea of using an accelerometer. Whether there is a unit out that would measure a motion range of say, 3 weight fly through 80-Unlimited Class tuna, is a question for someone with more expertise than I in that area. As I stated before, this is all really good food for thought. Very interesting discourse guys!

-Geoff

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is my opinion that CCF is an artificial number
> only conceived because Dr. Hanneman was searching
> for a way for those without expensive equipment to
> get some measure of the natural frequency of a
> blank. If you look back at the old posts on the
> subject there were those who thought natural
> frequency meant a lot; others thought otherwise.
> Remember our series of posts a few months ago on
> natural frequency and its relationship to
> "sensitivity?" Most on this forum agreed that
> natural frequency was a good indicator of
> sensitivity, the ability to feel a subtle bite.
> Wouldn't it be much better to simply measure the
> natural frequency of a blank or rod without adding
> any weight to it? Then one could see the effect
> of adding tiptops, guides, guides of different
> materials/weights/sizes and finishing wraps and
> epoxy. I don't believe CCF can do that.
>
> Times have changed and we have new tools that that
> Dr. Hanneman didn't have. They are inexpensive,
> and one can in fact measure natural frequency of a
> bare blank, no weight attached, accurate I believe
> to about 5 %, with an Android cell phone or tablet
> and a free app. I'm in the process of gathering
> data. I've come to some preliminary conclusions
> but am not quite ready to share them.
>
> Natural frequency is NOT a measure of action as
> action has been defined for so long or as
> questioned in this original post. It appears to
> be an indicator of tip recovery speed if one
> deflects the tip the same distance with every
> test. The higher the natural frequency, most
> likely the higher the recovery speed. How can it
> not be? But it won't be in feet per second units.
> It will be objective but the units will be either
> cycles per unit of time or period of the single
> cycle in time units. Like milliseconds. It would
> give an objective relative comparison between
> blanks.
>
> But if you believe that natural frequency is an
> indicator of sensitivity, measuring it without
> adding artificial weight to the blank would allow
> one to be confident of his component selections as
> they affect sensitivity. There is much more work
> to be done.
>
> I don't see where any static deflection test can
> give an indication of tip/recovery speed. It
> seems to me that all it is is a CCS power test
> with different weights and deflections. Yes I've
> seen the Big Picture and agree with Tom that it
> has some value in defining the bending
> characteristics of a blank. But it won't add to
> our knowledge of tip/recovery speed. And I don't
> believe any dynamic testing with weight added to a
> blank has much value.
>
> OK, everyone, unload!

CCF can be used to compare a blank to finished rod by running the same test prior to and after adding components. It is mentioned in the CCS publications. It is just a simple side by side comparison. The debate about how it translates to sensitivity is something I am not willing to tackle at this time. However, static loading an Isolated tip section will show you the deflection. If the weight remains constant through various subjects then the lower the deflection the stronger the tip section. That number in association with ERN may give us the strength of the tip section and potentially correlate to recovery speed/frequency. I started chasing this out of passion to find "Magic Wands" for retrieve styles where the presentation is everything. Best example being a jerk bait, soft or hard. With tapers, each section (however you define them) will act differently independently as opposed to how they work as a sum as measured through CCS. So when fighting a fish I am using a larger part of that sum vs. when I am working a jerkbait I am only using the tip section. I think this logic is what is behind the market of multi taper blanks such as the MB765 NEO.

Batson, keep in mind, you, as I, were talking about speed in the sense of velocity. Mark originally asked about action, which unfortunately has been described using terms that sound like speed. We probably should take our discussion of tip speed/recovery speed/natural frequency to another post. And leave this post talking about action.

Thank you to all for your insightful replies, but especially Roger Wilson. While his “Ceiling Method” may lack the sophistication of CCS in determining the action of a blank, it provided me with the first VISUAL indication of a blank’s action = where the blank INITIALLY starts to bend under load. This initial-bend-point has been the cause of my confusion and compounded only by my habitual over-thinking. Although I was totally aware that the more load applied to a blank, the further down the blank the bend will occur, my obtained CCS numbers seemed to be out-of-whack from what I ASSUMED the blanks were = CCS indicating a fast action yet the blanks were bending all the way to the butt. Most of my CCS measurements have been performed on my vintage FG Conolons, which I ASSUMED were medium to slow action simply because they are “old FG blanks”. But employing the “Ceiling Method” instantly showed that they are, in fact, fast action. It wasn’t until using the ceiling method on a bamboo rod I purchased from Johnny Klune (RIP) that I was able to visibly see the initial bend of a medium / medium-slow action blank.
While I certainly am not down-playing CCS, and consider it one of the most profound gifts to the fishing world, chalk-up another one for KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid; THANKS ROGER!!!

Mark Talmo
FISHING IS NOT AN ESCAPE FROM LIFE BUT RATHER A DEEPER IMMERSION INTO IT!!! BUILDING YOUR OWN SIMPLY ENHANCES THE EXPERIENCE.

With all due respect, not on your life Michael! ;) This post was highjacked and converted to a discussion on speed, recovery, frequency, etc. early on. Action is fairly easy to measure and define with CCS and has been beaten to death. This post has turned into something pretty awesome with some highly technical ideas and insight. Perhaps Tom will manually create a new post and copy over this post from the point when the conversation changed. What do you say Tom?

-Geoff at Batson

With all due respect, Geoff, you and I are saying the same thing.

Except I can measure natural frequency without adding artificial weight to the blank.

Aaron, can CCF tell me the difference in natural frequency between a SS tiptop and a titanium one? Can it tell the difference in natural frequency between using KT4's in SS vs titanium? Does CCF even measure natural frequency of the blank? Or does it measure the natural frequency of the blank with a lot of un-natural weight added to it? 4 clear and separate questions. No offense intended, but let's be clear about what we are discussing and what can be learned by the two different tests, CCF vs "native" natural frequency with no artificial weight added.

With all due respect, Mark, I think you have found something you can believe in rather than an objective measurement of action. CCS AA measures action and comes up with the same answer whether you, I , Tom Kirkman, or Roger Wilson performs the test. The ceiling test will not do that.

With all due and deserved respect to Dr. Hannerman, I am in total agreement with Michael that the specified amount of weight added to the blank to compute CCS was simply to slow the frequency of the tip down enough to enable the average person to count the oscillations. Can anyone/everyone perform CCS? = Basically yes. Does it work? = Obviously yes. Is it optimum? = Personally, I feel adding any weight would dilute the accuracy of such a test. Is it splitting hairs? = Possibly so but, then, isn’t that a prerequisite in rod building?
I am anxious to learn the end product of Michael’s pursuit. He has spent a considerable amount of time and effort developing his frequency method and it may be quite close to finalization. Will anyone/everyone be able to perform his method? = I suppose it depends on the software / hardware required; heck, I don’t even own a cell phone lol. Nonetheless, thank you, Michael, for your hard work and devotion!!!

Mark Talmo
FISHING IS NOT AN ESCAPE FROM LIFE BUT RATHER A DEEPER IMMERSION INTO IT!!! BUILDING YOUR OWN SIMPLY ENHANCES THE EXPERIENCE.

Michael,
You are absolutely correct and I agree. But Roger’s ceiling test was the first to reveal that my previous ASSUMPTIONS were incorrect. Now I do not wonder if my obtained CCS numbers were/are correct.

Mark Talmo
FISHING IS NOT AN ESCAPE FROM LIFE BUT RATHER A DEEPER IMMERSION INTO IT!!! BUILDING YOUR OWN SIMPLY ENHANCES THE EXPERIENCE.

All systems of objective and relative measurement are based on "artificial numbers." So what? The length of an inch was based upon "the width of the human thumb," which are not all the same. Does this invalidate the system of length that we use? Of course not - that you have a defined constant is what matters.

To my knowledge, no one has ever said that frequency of any kind is a measure of action. Action isn't frequency - it's where the rod initially flexes. This has been the standard within how the term is used in rod manufacturings for well over 60 years.

The Common Cents Frequency measurement is not a measurement of rod action. It is a relative measurement of rod speed between one blank and another.

...........

The same word often has different unique meanings depending upon the context in which it is used. What is the definition of “leading?” Merriam Webster defines it as “coming or finishing first, or guidance.” Well, in the publishing industry, “leading" defines the amount of space between lines of typography. Same word, different context, different definition.

The terms “action” and “speed” have unique meanings as they apply to the inherent characteristics of a fishing rod. The first is where the rod initially flexes. The second is relative reaction and recovery time.


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

Tom,
Excuse me but I do not understand the point you are attempting to make. I have not taken / confused any of the replies to my post to suggest “action” is relative to “frequency” or the inverse. The more recent “frequency” posts are simply a tangent from my original “action” post. I think it is safe to say that most are aware the two are basically NOT directly related.

Mark Talmo
FISHING IS NOT AN ESCAPE FROM LIFE BUT RATHER A DEEPER IMMERSION INTO IT!!! BUILDING YOUR OWN SIMPLY ENHANCES THE EXPERIENCE.

Mark,

I wasn't referring to your comments in my statement.

..........

Tom,
Granted and realized, even before your last comment. My original post concerning “action” has simply developed a tangent by others regarding “frequency”. Such tangents are typically accepted, expected and usually appreciated here on your great forum. It is all about learning and I am certainly here to learn. Keep the tangents coming!!!

Mark Talmo
FISHING IS NOT AN ESCAPE FROM LIFE BUT RATHER A DEEPER IMMERSION INTO IT!!! BUILDING YOUR OWN SIMPLY ENHANCES THE EXPERIENCE.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> With all due respect, Geoff, you and I are saying
> the same thing.
>
> Except I can measure natural frequency without
> adding artificial weight to the blank.
>
> Aaron, can CCF tell me the difference in natural
> frequency between a SS tiptop and a titanium one?
> Can it tell the difference in natural frequency
> between using KT4's in SS vs titanium? Does CCF
> even measure natural frequency of the blank? Or
> does it measure the natural frequency of the blank
> with a lot of un-natural weight added to it? 4
> clear and separate questions. No offense
> intended, but let's be clear about what we are
> discussing and what can be learned by the two
> different tests, CCF vs "native" natural frequency
> with no artificial weight added.


Runn CCF on a blank with and without each tip top/component. Note the differences. If you have the tooling to measure the short answer is yes. Side by side comparison and delta analyzation is all you need. Adding the weight was to exaggerate the rod vibration to a point where it was easily recorded. The number derived from the test is not in megahertz or anything that we would consider standard scientific. It is it's own unit created by a standardized test. The same tests can be done with zero weight added by flexing a blank a controlled amount and letting it go by release. Then use modern tools to record the oscillations.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/15/2021 08:17AM by Aaron Petersen.

Adding additional weight to rod blanks in order to perform the CCF measurement is not an issue. The results remain relative and therefore comparative, which is the whole point.

In my clumsy way I was advocating use of the "defined constant" Moderator Kirkman advocates above. Numbers are constants; adjectives such as "fast" or "medium" or "smooth" or "powerful" convey little if any useful information about rod blanks, at least to me.

Those terms are used in a particular vernacular in regards to fishing rods. I didn't coin them - they have been in use by most rod manufacturers for decades. "Fast, medium, slow" etc., are not subjective insofar as how they used to refer to action, although they offer very poor resolution.

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

With CCF what is the difference in frequency of some typical bass blank between a titanium tiptop and a SS tiptop?


Phil, the terms fast, moderate, and slow used in describing action, as Tom says, have been pretty good guidelines for fishermen for a very long time. While the resolution is not as good as having objective numbers like the AA in CCS, they still have value and describe quite well enough the actions so that using them allows fishermen to select blanks and rods for specific uses or preferences. Those of us who have extensively used CCS know the approximate AA values that the different action descriptions are likely to have.

Michael,

The difference (or delta) will only be known once a build has been tested. Run CCF with raw blank. One with titanium guides held by dental bands. Then one with other guides held on by dental bands. Then compare results. Only then will you know the difference. For fun, run the tests with the apps on the phone and without the added weight if it is able to accurately allow you to count the oscillations. The difference in oscillations per second is your delta.