Aaron Petersen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When Google becomes a firearms expert let me know.

This to me is not accurate at all. Google is not being used as an expert. google is merely a search engine that finds the millions of hits from the web that includes REPUTABLE websites by well known experts. I tried to post this carefully but you will not accept it.

Keep referring to google as an expert and that is not what is happening here.

> Comparing deltas to zero is not accuracy. Think of
> a target. Accuracy is bullseye, consistency is
> grouping. The rifle provides the grouping. You can
> be accurate without consistency and you can be
> consistent without accuracy. You can also be both.
>

Does a target have to have drawings of a bullseye on it? I am OK with a plain white piece of paper and merely comparing the six shot spreads to each other and measuring their diameter and concluding based on those results. And I can assure you a hundred dollar rifle will NOT match a well made expensive rifle. Not going to happen.


>
> But you won't see the light so just trust the
> internet and live how you want to live.

Should custom rod builders trust this website, and is it the only one with accurate information while all others are not?

Even this is debatable.

ben belote Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> no one forced him to sell out his name..

No but cancer did.

He was told he had months to live. So he took the money and ran- for his family- and then outlived the diagnosis and today probably regrets having sold it, but that is just my opinion based on numerous interviews I have seen.

Am I alone here in the wilderness? lol



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2021 11:42AM by Kent Griffith.

Aaron Petersen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HAHA. Who set them in the vice. Who adjusted the
> vice to put the crosshair on the intended target?
> That is the accuracy.

The word I used is vise. Not vice. One is an object and the other is evil:

vice: immoral or wicked behavior.

And I was trying so hard to avoid vice with my vise!

A person does not need drawings to determine a rifles consistency or ability to shoot accurately repeatedly. Plain white paper will show you all you need to know about the rifle's accuracy and/or consistency. Do you want the large spread or small tight spread? And if a cheap rifle cannot put six holes into one spot on the plain white paper, then handing it to a human to shoot accurately is going to be fun to watch.

Hey man, you ever gonna hit that thing or what?


> In bench rest shooting you
> measure the consistency of your group not the
> accuracy.

I said that several times. I can say it the accuracy of the grouping or consistency of the grouping. Debating over terminology is useless. We are both saying the same thing but swearing up and down the other is wrong. Getting comical really.

BTW I am reading up on this subject now because of this terminology issue, but an expert should be more lenient on novices concerning terminology application.

I get the differences now, but still stand by my statement that an expensive rifle will shoot more accurately and more consistently than a cheap rifle should because google told me so!



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2021 12:02PM by Kent Griffith.

When it comes to pioneering blanks Gary is in the top two and is not number two. Same can be said for fishing rod/blank marketing. Gary is no doubt #1. The engineer he worked with from Boeing rounded out a partnership that forever changed composite rod blanks and the blank/tubular composite industry. His legacy still lives on with the manufactured in USA rods, blanks, and grips of Edge/NFC and associates. What remains of G.Loomis the brand is just that, the brand. I personally would never dare call him a sellout. There is more to the story than building a brand and selling to the highest bidder only to walk away heavy pocketed.

When it comes to rod building there are handful more I think of in the top before Gary which were mentioned earlier by Tom. No doubt Gary was great. But just think of the industry standards in fishing rods both custom and manufactured today. Things like split grips, omitted fore grips, micro guides, carbon reel seats, etc. Research who shaped those standards. It is very interesting to learn where things we never question originated from. It is one of the things that makes me even more passionate about what we do as custom rod builders.

Well said even if we disagree on some things...

keep in mind the man who Loomis acquired from Boeing, is not the same man who built the Loomis factories!

That Boeing engineer was just a graphite applications engineer in aerospace design and engineering and what Gary wanted him for was to help him develop the materials for his blanks and antennas- same thing really. A graphite specialist.

But this Boeing engineer did NOT build nor construct all the rod blank factories Loomis real partner did.

Look, in all of my rods, somewhere between 70 to 80 now as a guess, but in all my rods there is only one crystal rod.

This rod has the highest resonant frequency of any rod I ever tested. Tapping on it gives a high pitch NO other rods in my collection can come close to. And I have discussed this with famous blank makers face to face too. He said the key was in the binder not the fibers used. And he is right on target here too.

But here's the deal... only one rod company ever produced a rod blank like this one. Some have come close, but no cigar. It is the first true pencil rod, super thin and tightly rolled and man what an action it has! Love it! Other rods pale to it, even those made by Gary Loomis that come in second behind the crystal rod made in Texas at another blank factory Loomis factory building partner built for another rod company.

How ironic that my favorite rod blank of all time does come from the Loomis legacy, but not directly from him, but from the man who constructed his first two blank factories, and sold retail new for as low as $20 at the time.

And today blanks costing hundreds cannot come close to my $20 crystal rod made by a man who was not brought into the limelight along with Gary for his efforts. Gary got all the credit, yet, a rod made by his secretive partner shot to the top of my rod collection instantly upon handling it and using it. To this day I carefully look for blanks that also come from this same legacy.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2021 12:20PM by Kent Griffith.

Posting this as an FYI for those not aware of what all Gary Loomis is famous for... and it is not just fishing rods... Gary Loomis is obviously a brilliant thinker.. and I for one am glad he brought his genius into fishing rods. He changed the world with them.




Patents by Inventor Gary A. Loomis

Gary A. Loomis has filed for patents to protect the following inventions. This listing includes patent applications that are pending as well as patents that have already been granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Highly conductive fiber reinforced antennas
Patent number: 9991588
Abstract: A highly conductive fiber reinforced tubular antenna is composed of metal coated reinforcing fibers in a composite structure. The conductive fibers may be disposed in a tubular or cylindrical fashion unidirectionally parallel to or at an angle to the axis of the tube or cylinder, thus providing multifunctional properties of strength and conductivity. Alternatively, the conductive fibers may be non-woven in configuration and disposed on one or more wrapped layers to form the antenna. The fiber reinforced composites disclosed are both lighter and stronger than their metal counterparts, while the highly increased conductive surface area in the composite creates enhanced electrical or electromagnetic performance than tubular or cylindrical antennas made of metal or nonmetal composite structures.
Type: Grant
Filed: September 24, 2013
Date of Patent: June 5, 2018
Assignees: CONDUCTIVE COMPOSITES COMPANY, NORTH FORK COMPOSITES, LLC
Inventors: George C. Hansen, Nathan D. Hansen, Jon S. Bial, Gary Loomis
Stackable Liquid Pitcher
Publication number: 20140312067
Abstract: Disclosed is a liquid pitcher that is specifically designed to be stackable. The present invention comprises a beverage pitcher for storing liquid with an internal handle and optionally with a pouring spout. The internal handle is a handle that is housed within the body of the liquid pitcher rather than protruding from the body of the liquid pitcher. The internal handle allows the pitcher to support the base of a subsequent pitcher placed within the first pitcher interior. The handle does not protrude from the body of the liquid pitcher and does not sacrifice any structural integrity because it has two points of attachment, which is an upgrade over currently available stackable liquid pitchers, whose handles largely only have a single point of attachment.
Type: Application
Filed: April 3, 2014
Publication date: October 23, 2014
Inventor: C. Gary Loomis
CARBON FIBER ATHLETIC EQUIPMENT
Publication number: 20140094331
Abstract: Weighted arrow shafts and other athletic equipment composed of hollow shafts are constructed from carbon/graphite fibers. Such carbon/graphite fiber material may be at least in part coated with nickel or other metal or alloy to alter the weight of the carbon/graphite fiber material and, thus, the weight or weight distribution of the athletic equipment along the length of the hollow shaft.
Type: Application
Filed: September 24, 2013
Publication date: April 3, 2014
Inventors: George C. Hansen, Nathan D. Hansen, Richard A. Dresden, Jon S. Bial, Gary Loomis
HIGHLY CONDUCTIVE FIBER REINFORCED ANTENNAS
Publication number: 20140091982
Abstract: A highly conductive fiber reinforced tubular antenna is composed of metal coated reinforcing fibers in a composite structure. The conductive fibers may be disposed in a tubular or cylindrical fashion unidirectionally parallel to or at an angle to the axis of the tube or cylinder, thus providing multifunctional properties of strength and conductivity. Alternatively, the conductive fibers may be non-woven in configuration and disposed on one or more wrapped layers to form the antenna. The fiber reinforced composites disclosed are both lighter and stronger than their metal counterparts, while the highly increased conductive surface area in the composite creates enhanced electrical or electromagnetic performance than tubular or cylindrical antennas made of metal or nonmetal composite structures.
Type: Application
Filed: September 24, 2013
Publication date: April 3, 2014
Inventors: George C. Hansen, Nathan D. Hansen, Jon S. Bial, Gary Loomis
Boat hammock installation system
Patent number: 8272085
Abstract: The present invention includes apparatus and methods for installing a hammock upon a boat. A method of installing a hammock comprises the steps of: installing first and second hammock end mounting means upon the boat, the first and second mounting means each comprising one of a vertical mounting member and a suspending anchor to suspend ends of a hammock, where each vertical mounting member is affixed to a surface of the boat, the vertical member including a longitudinally extending member having a first end and a second end, the first end affixed to a surface of the boat, the second end being elevated above the first end, and where each suspending anchor is affixed to an elevated structure of the boat, the anchor having one or more mounting surfaces engaging the elevated structure and one or more ratchets each receiving a strap extending about the elevated structure.
Type: Grant
Filed: October 13, 2009
Date of Patent: September 25, 2012
Inventors: Justin Finch, Gary Loomis
BOAT HAMMOCK INSTALLATION SYSTEM
Publication number: 20110083268
Abstract: The present invention includes apparatus and methods for installing a hammock upon a boat. A method of installing a hammock comprises the steps of: installing first and second hammock end mounting means upon the boat, the first and second mounting means each comprising one of a vertical mounting member and a suspending anchor to suspend ends of a hammock, where each vertical mounting member is affixed to a surface of the boat, the vertical member including a longitudinally extending member having a first end and a second end, the first end affixed to a surface of the boat, the second end being elevated above the first end, and where each suspending anchor is affixed to an elevated structure of the boat, the anchor having one or more mounting surfaces engaging the elevated structure and one or more ratchets each receiving a strap extending about the elevated structure.
Type: Application
Filed: October 13, 2009
Publication date: April 14, 2011
Inventors: Justin FINCH, Gary LOOMIS
IDENTIFICATION TAG
Publication number: 20080100055
Abstract: An identification device attachable to a product is provided. The identification device includes a tag having at least one face for bearing identification information, and a tail having first and second ends. The tail is couplable to the tag at its first end such that it extends outwardly therefrom. The second end of the tail is adapted to pass through a portion of the product and thereafter be enlarged.
Type: Application
Filed: August 6, 2007
Publication date: May 1, 2008
Applicant: TARGUS FLY FEATHERS INDUSTRIES
Inventor: Gary Loomis
Self-sealing PTFE vascular graft and manufacturing methods
Publication number: 20070244539
Abstract: An implantable microporous ePTFE tubular vascular graft exhibits long term patency, superior radial tensile strength and suture hole elongation resistance. The graft includes a first ePTFE tube and a second ePTFE tube circumferentially disposed over the first tube. The first ePTFE tube exhibits a porosity sufficient to promote cell endothelization, tissue ingrowth and healing. The second ePTFE tube exhibits enhanced radial strength in excess of the radial tensile strength of the first tube.
Type: Application
Filed: June 7, 2007
Publication date: October 18, 2007
Inventors: David Lentz, Jamie Henderson, Edward Dormier, Richard Zdrahala, Gary Loomis, Ronald Rakos, Krzysztof Sowinski
Control circuit for sensor array and related methods
Publication number: 20070234825
Abstract: A control circuit for scanning a pressure or force responsive sensor array is disclosed. Pressure or force sensors formed of an array of pressure or force responsive sensor elements can be used to acquire pressure or force measurements in response to an applied load. The control circuit can sample signals from the sensor elements to detect the pressure or force at one or more sensor elements of the sensor array. The circuit herein may provide for relatively faster scan rates. A user may define a subset or subsets of sensor elements of the sensor array to be scanned. Various methods and related circuitry for adjusting for sensor characteristics are also disclosed.
Type: Application
Filed: March 29, 2006
Publication date: October 11, 2007
Applicant: Tekscan, Inc.
Inventors: Gary Loomis, Janet Lefko, Boris Dubinsky
Control circuit for sensor array and related methods
Publication number: 20070235231
Abstract: A control circuit for scanning a pressure or force responsive sensor array is disclosed. Pressure or force sensors formed of an array of pressure or force responsive sensor elements can be used to acquire pressure or force measurements in response to an applied load. The control circuit can sample signals from the sensor elements to detect the pressure or force at one or more sensor elements of the sensor array. The circuit herein may provide for relatively faster scan rates. A user may define a subset or subsets of sensor elements of the sensor array to be scanned. Various methods and related circuitry for adjusting for sensor characteristics are also disclosed.
Type: Application
Filed: March 29, 2006
Publication date: October 11, 2007
Applicant: Tekscan, Inc.
Inventors: Gary Loomis, Janet Lefko, Boris Dubinsky
Self-sealing PTFE vascular graft and manufacturing methods
Patent number: 7244271
Abstract: An implantable microporous ePTFE tubular vascular graft exhibits long term patency, superior radial tensile strength and suture hole elongation resistance. The graft includes a first ePTFE tube and a second ePTFE tube circumferentially disposed over the first tube. The first ePTFE tube exhibits a porosity sufficient to promote cell endothelization, tissue ingrowth and healing. The second ePTFE tube exhibits enhanced radial strength in excess of the radial tensile strength of the first tube.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 9, 2004
Date of Patent: July 17, 2007
Assignee: Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.
Inventors: David Lentz, Jamie Henderson, Edward Dormier, Richard Zdrahala, Gary Loomis, Ronald Rakos, Krzysztof Sowinski
Bioresorbable hydrogel compositions for implantable prostheses
Publication number: 20070015844
Abstract: Crosslinked compositions formed from water-insoluble copolymers are disclosed. These compositions are copolymers having a bioresorbable region, a hydrophilic region and at least two cross-linkable functional groups per polymer chain. Crosslinking of these polymers can be effected in solution in organic solvents or in solvent-free systems. If crosslinking occurs in a humid environment, a hydrogel will form. If crosslinking occurs in a non-humid environment, a xerogel will form which will form a hydrogel when exposed to a humid environment and the resulting crosslinked materials form hydrogels when exposed to humid environments. These hydrogels are useful as components in medical devices such as implantable prostheses. In addition, such hydrogels are useful as delivery vehicles for therapeutic agents and as scaffolding for tissue engineering applications.
Type: Application
Filed: September 19, 2006
Publication date: January 18, 2007
Inventors: Gary Loomis, D. Lentz
Bioresorbable sealants for porous vascular grafts
Publication number: 20060159720
Abstract: A bioresorbable sealant composition useful for impregnating implantable soft-tissue prostheses includes at least two polysaccharides in combination to form a hydrogel or sol-gel. The sealant compositions may optionally include a bioactive agent and/or be cross-linked subsequent to application of these compositions to the substrate surface.
Type: Application
Filed: March 2, 2006
Publication date: July 20, 2006
Inventors: David Lentz, Gary Loomis, Antonio Moroni, Jennifer DePreker
Medical imaging agents for injectable compositions
Publication number: 20050287216
Abstract: Medically useful compositions, methods and devices comprising insoluble particulate imaging agents are described. The individual particles of the imaging agents of these compositions, methods and devices exhibit regular, smooth morphologies and uniform particle size distributions that allow for enhanced endovascular delivery of the compositions to a mammalian body.
Type: Application
Filed: June 29, 2004
Publication date: December 29, 2005
Inventor: Gary Loomis
Hydrogels for biomedical applications
Publication number: 20050255091
Abstract: The invention relates to methods for the formation of hydrogels by the intensive mixing of aqueous compositions containing copolymers of opposite chirality. Such hydrogels may he bioresorbable and are useful for medical applications within mammalian bodies.
Type: Application
Filed: May 5, 2005
Publication date: November 17, 2005
Inventor: Gary Loomis
Preparation of polymerizable compositions
Publication number: 20050196376
Abstract: Processes for modifying the viscosity of medically useful polymerizable compositions are described. The processes are carried out by providing an oxygen-free fluid composition comprising one or more polymerizable monomers and subsequently irradiating the composition with a controlled dose of high-energy radiation sufficient to effect a desired viscosity increase. Compositions produced via these process are also disclosed.
Type: Application
Filed: February 28, 2005
Publication date: September 8, 2005
Inventor: Gary Loomis
Process for preparation of cyanoacrylate compositions
Publication number: 20050197421
Abstract: Processes for modifying the viscosity of medically useful cyanoacrylate compositions are described. The processes are carried out by providing to a fluid composition comprising a polymerizable monomer a controlled dose of high-energy radiation sufficient to effect a viscosity increase to a precise predetermined value. Compositions produced via these process are also disclosed.
Type: Application
Filed: March 3, 2004
Publication date: September 8, 2005
Inventor: Gary Loomis
Bioresorbable hydrogel compositions for implantable prostheses
Publication number: 20050038134
Abstract: Crosslinked compositions formed from water-insoluble copolymers are disclosed. These compositions are copolymers having a bioresorbable region, a hydrophilic region and at least two cross-linkable functional groups per polymer chain. Crosslinking of these polymers can be effected in solution in organic solvents or in solvent-free systems. If crosslinking occurs in a humid environment, a hydrogel will form. If crosslinking occurs in a non-humid environment, a xerogel will form which will form a hydrogel when exposed to a humid environment and the resulting crosslinked materials form hydrogels when exposed to humid environments. These hydrogels are useful as components in medical devices such as implantable prostheses. In addition, such hydrogels are useful as delivery vehicles for therapeutic agents and as scaffolding for tissue engineering applications.
Type: Application
Filed: August 27, 2004
Publication date: February 17, 2005
Inventors: Gary Loomis, D. Lentz
Self-sealing PTFE vascular graft and manufacturing methods
Publication number: 20040193242
Abstract: An implantable microporous ePTFE tubular vascular graft exhibits long term patency, superior radial tensile strength and suture hole elongation resistance. The graft includes a first ePTFE tube and a second ePTFE tube circumferentially disposed over the first tube. The first ePTFE tube exhibits a porosity sufficient to promote cell endothelization, tissue ingrowth and healing. The second ePTFE tube exhibits enhanced radial strength in excess of the radial tensile strength of the first tube.
Type: Application
Filed: April 9, 2004
Publication date: September 30, 2004
Applicant: Scimed Life Systems, Inc.
Inventors: David Lentz, Jamie Henderson, Edward Dormier, Richard Zdrahala, Gary Loomis, Ronald Rakos, Krzysztof Sowinski
PTFE vascular graft and method of manufacture
Patent number: 6719783
Abstract: An implantable microporous ePTFE tubular vascular graft exhibits long term patency, superior radial tensile strength and suture hole elongation resistance. The graft includes a first ePTFE tube and a second ePTFE tube circumferentially disposed over the first tube. The first ePTFE tube exhibits a porosity sufficient to promote cell endothelization, tissue ingrowth and healing. The second ePTFE tube exhibits enhanced radial strength in excess of the radial tensile strength of the first tube.
Type: Grant
Filed: August 5, 2002
Date of Patent: April 13, 2004
Assignee: SciMed Life Systems, Inc.
Inventors: David Lentz, Jamie Henderson, Edward Dormier, Richard Zdrahala, Gary Loomis, Ronald Rakos, Krzysztof Sowinski



PTFE vascular graft and method of manufacture
Publication number: 20030004559
Abstract: An implantable microporous ePTFE tubular vascular graft exhibits long term patency, superior radial tensile strength and suture hole elongation resistance. The graft includes a first ePTFE tube and a second ePTFE tube circumferentially disposed over the first tube. The first ePTFE tube exhibits a porosity sufficient to promote cell endothelization, tissue ingrowth and healing. The second ePTFE tube exhibits enhanced radial strength in excess of the radial tensile strength of the first tube.
Type: Application
Filed: August 5, 2002
Publication date: January 2, 2003
Applicant: Scimed Life Systems, Inc.
Inventors: David Lentz, Jamie Henderson, Edward Dormier, Richard Zdrahala, Gary Loomis, Ronald Rakos, Krzysztof Sowinski
Self-sealing PTFE vascular graft and manufacturing methods
Patent number: 6428571
Abstract: An implantable microporous ePTFE tubular vascular graft exhibits long term patency, superior radial tensile strength and suture hole elongation resistance. The graft includes a first ePTFE tube and a second ePTFE tube circumferentially disposed over the first tube. The first ePTFE tube exhibits a porosity sufficient to promote cell endothelization, tissue ingrowth and healing. The second ePTFE tube exhibits enhanced radial strength in excess of the radial tensile strength of the first tube.
Type: Grant
Filed: March 14, 2000
Date of Patent: August 6, 2002
Assignee: Scimed Life Systems, Inc.
Inventors: David Lentz, Jamie Henderson, Edward Dormier, Richard Zdrahala, Gary Loomis, Ronald Rakos, Krzysztof Sowinski
Esterified starch composition
Patent number: 5587412
Abstract: According to the present invention there is provided a composition as obtained from a melt comprising esterified starch, preferably having an amylose content of at least about 50% by weight with respect to that of the starch, and being substituted to a degree of at least about 1.5, preferably from about 1.8 to about 2.9. The starch ester may be of the kind obtained by reaction of a mixed acid anhydride with starch.
Type: Grant
Filed: February 6, 1995
Date of Patent: December 24, 1996
Assignee: National Starch and Chemical Investment Holding Corporation
Inventors: Gerd Borchers, Ingo Dake, Albrecht Dinkelaker, Jean-Pierre Sachetto, Richard Zdrahala, Stephen Rimsa, Gary Loomis, Paul Tatarka, Olivier Mauzac
Fishing rod
Patent number: 4962608
Abstract: A fishing rod (10) is composed of a hollow, unitary handle (14) and blank (12). The rod blank (12) is substantially trapezoidal in cross section, composed of a top wall (40), a wider bottom wall (42) and sloped side walls (44) interconnecting the top and bottom walls. The widths of the top and bottom walls (40,42) are selected so that when a downward force is applied to the tip of the rod (10), the ability of the top wall (40) to carry the resulting tensile load is substantially equivalent to the ability of the bottom wall (42) to carry the resulting compressive load.
Type: Grant
Filed: December 27, 1988
Date of Patent: October 16, 1990
Inventors: Gary A. Loomis, Allan W. Jackson
Fishing equipment holder
Patent number: 4628628
Abstract: A fishing equipment holder (16) is composed of an elongate cylindrical body of a diameter large enough to receive and store various types of fishing tackle. Generally circularly shaped brackets (44a) and (44b) are spaced apart along and encompass body (18). A plurality of notches (48a, 50a, 52a, 54a) and (48b, 50b, 52b and 54b) are formed in the outer margins of brackets (44a) and (44b) respectively. A rigid, outer, split band (56) slidably rides within an outer groove (58) extending around the periphery of brackets (44a) and (44b) to extend across the openings of notches (48a-54a) and (48b-54b). The opening of outer band (56) may be aligned with the notches (48a-54a) and (48b-54b) to provide access to the notches when placing fishing equipment therein or removing fishing equipment therefrom.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 19, 1984
Date of Patent: December 16, 1986
Inventors: Carl T. Burgin, Gary A. Loomis, Purl R. Enloe, deceased, by Shirley Enloe, administratrix
Ferrule joint
Patent number: 4362418
Abstract: A ferrule joint for a fishing rod blank made from joining plural flexible tapered resin shafts having hollow cores disclosed. The ferrule joint comprises a ferrule integral with one end of a first shaft. The ferrule has a tapered bore extending inwardly from the end of the first shaft. The hollow core end of a second shaft is insertable into the bore to frictionally interlock the shafts together. A transition section integral with the first shaft has a tapered bore joining the tapered bore in the ferrule to the hollow core of the first shaft. The tapered bore in the ferrule and the tapered bore in the transition sections are formed from plural overlapping patterns of fiber reinforced resins superimposed on the first shaft around the hollow core.
Type: Grant
Filed: December 22, 1980
Date of Patent: December 7, 1982
Inventor: Gary A. Loomis
Ferrule joint for sectional fishing rod
Patent number: 4070127
Abstract: The ferrule joint includes a ferrule and an element telescopically insertable into the ferrule to frictionally interlock two rod sections. The ferrule and insertable element are integral with respective mating ends of the two rod sections. The ferrule joint is particularly suitable for use with sectional rods fabricated of tubular hollow core reinforced resin rod blanks which are of relatively small cross section and which employ stiff fibers such as boron or graphite as resin reinforcement.
Type: Grant
Filed: August 11, 1975
Date of Patent: January 24, 1978
Assignee: Lamiglas Corporation
Inventors: Gary A. Loomis, Albert A. Fosha



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2021 12:24PM by Kent Griffith.

Kent Griffith Wrote:

> This to me is not accurate at all. Google is not
> being used as an expert. google is merely a search
> engine that finds the millions of hits from the
> web that includes REPUTABLE websites by well known
> experts. I tried to post this carefully but you
> will not accept it.
>
> Keep referring to google as an expert and that is
> not what is happening here.

> Does a target have to have drawings of a bullseye
> on it? I am OK with a plain white piece of paper
> and merely comparing the six shot spreads to each
> other and measuring their diameter and concluding
> based on those results. And I can assure you a
> hundred dollar rifle will NOT match a well made
> expensive rifle. Not going to happen.

> Should custom rod builders trust this website, and
> is it the only one with accurate information while
> all others are not?

> Even this is debatable.

Google pulls info from several websites including paid promotional sights. So no I don't trust google because it is parroting market slogans from firearms manufacturers, wikipedia (which is not citeable), forums full of ignorance, reddit, and other uncredible sources.

A target being just a white sheet means you define accuracy as hitting the paper. What point of reference must you aim to make your group? By comparing group you are comparing consistency if the rifles were perfectly operated. And just because your rifle is more expensive does not mean it is more consistent or better. I have had box R700 SPS with Leupold gold rings shoot better than "precision" marketed rifles with high end glass on them in the same caliber, barrel length, and twist rate shooting loads designed for peak performance in both. It is rare but money does not directly correlate to consistency. But we here are not comparing an Ugly stick to a Rainshadow or X-ray. We compare blank to blank. Apples to apples. You keep asking for spine vs not spined data and available data has been shared from a study. It was for dead lift capacity and the results were clear. If you want casting accuracy studies then perform one. One has not been done to my knowledge.

Here no one is required to trust a website or even each other. We share and debate ideas. As I said before some of us build to beliefs. I for one can tell you if I build a rod for a customer who believes a casting rod is what he wants to throw a 1/10oz ned rig then I will be faced with three options. 1. Build what he believes is best for him against what I know to be fact. 2. Advise he see someone else for the build. 3. Sell him on what I BELIEVE the appropriate setup for his application is.

Anyone who sells custom rods will choose option 3. Only once failing to do that will we choose another option.

There is a lot to unpack in this thread.

Accuracy refers to the weighted center of a grouping of data points and that precision refers to the standard deviation of the data points. In Aaron's description, replace consistent with precise. A firearm shoots in the direction that the shooter points it. The shooter is responsible for the accuracy. Just like a good caster can locate casts with great accuracy, a great shooter can locate shots with great accuracy. With an inadequate firearm, that grouping may have 0 shots in the bullseye, but the center of the grouping will be demonstrating accuracy. A great shooter with a great firearm and the appropriate ammo will have the center of the grouping in the bullseye as well as all of the shots tightly clustered. Simply put in scientific terms, if the accuracy is off, you calibrate your instrument, if the precision is not adequate, you change the tool.

Watching that video back, I almost half-wonder if Gary intentionally provided just enough fodder for both sides of the spine debate to walk away and say "Hey look, my interpretation of the problem is correct!"

Kent, we tend to agree on many ideas when it comes to rod building, but where the spine goes may be one where we agree to disagree. My question for you is when you spine your blank, are you using the axis of least resistance, as Gary demonstrates in the video, or are you using the 'natural' curvature of the blank? Gary contradicts himself in the video. He demonstrates the technique of finding the spine of the blank that is used by spine finders. He then goes on and says that, and I'm paraphrasing here, 'If the blank has a curve, it will be along the spine.' The latter is simply not true. Tom's data, and my anecdotal experience with blanks, indicate that the spine, the location of which is demonstrated by Gary in the video, and curvature of the blank are rarely, if ever, on the same plane.

Given your other comments, it sounds to me that you are using the 'spine' in the sense of the stiffest axis, i.e. the straightest axis, to locate your guides, as you indicate that you are using the latter definition of 'spine' that Gary talks about. In addition to alluding to your definition spine and the straightest axis are the same thing. Unfortunately, in the jargon of rod building is, as I interpret it, the spine essentially refers to the part of the rod that is on the outside of the bend when the rod is flexed along the weakest axis. The problem is that the stiffest and weakest axes are not typically parallel to one another, hence the dichotomy in the terms spine and straightest axis.

Personally, I've settled on the fact that torque determines how the rod will flex, and build on the straightest axis. If how the rod flexes during the backcast is that critical, I would opt for guides on top (both casting and spinning), as I would be assured that the tip will not rotate one direction vs. the other on the backcast. Using this logic, a "Simple Pass By" wrap would become the optimal configuration for casting a spinning rod. However, I opt of a slow spiral wrap, not too dissimilar from the Cagey Wrap, for my casting rods and keep the guides on the bottom of the spinning rod to make use of the stability once the fish is hooked.

While we are on the topic of semantics, Gary uses a very incorrect term in the video when he talks about the rod dampening. Unless the sprinkler system is on in the room, the rod is not dampening as it comes to rest, but it is damping oscillations as it comes to rest.

We can quibble over the semantics of terms used in rod building, but there are quite a few instances where the definition of the jargon do not align with the physics definition of the terms (action uses terms related to velocity, etc.). Heck, even in physics we have some strange definitions. After all we still define electric current as the direction positive charges flow through a circuit, even though we have well over 100 years of evidence that it is the negative charges that actually flow through the circuit.

Aaron Petersen Wrote:

> Google pulls info from several websites including
> paid promotional sights. So no I don't trust
> google because it is parroting market slogans from
> firearms manufacturers, wikipedia (which is not
> citeable), forums full of ignorance, reddit, and
> other uncredible sources.
>

OK.

> A target being just a white sheet means you define
> accuracy as hitting the paper. What point of
> reference must you aim to make your group? By
> comparing group you are comparing consistency if
> the rifles were perfectly operated.

I said over and over all I care about is the size of the six shot bullet spread on plain white paper is fine. If a rifle is locked down in place and cannot move I don't care where the bullet hits. I am looking for how well the six shots group up or don't. Once I know which rifle shoots more consistently then I can go for accuracy more so with greater consistency than with the cheap rifle.

All I said was an expensive rifle can shoot better or more accurately than a cheap rifle. There is no debate necessary really because its a given most of the time. Occasionally you might a cheap gun shooting more consistently than an expensive one but it is rare and you know that.

This all revolves around you saying what I said was 100% false when it was 100% true. And the fallout from this is getting no where.


> You
> keep asking for spine vs not spined data and
> available data has been shared from a study.

Um no sir. You have me mixed up with someone else. I could not care less about data on spining a rod. I have no need for any at my age. lol! I asked for data on straightest axis to prove their method settles down the rod blank vibrations as fast as spining does as Gary Loomis claimed in the video.

> It
> was for dead lift capacity and the results were
> clear.

And so it was, but you fail to realize I could not care less about the dead lift capacity of any of my rods. Means NOTHING to me. Has no value, no practical use for me NADA. Zilch. Zippo.

Also be aware the results of all that showed that the differences were so insignificant to render to dead lift test almost not worth anything since there is so little difference between results.

I have never measured nor cared about the dead lift capacity of any rod in my lifetime. Why should I bother with wasting my time on something that provides me with no useful information since I never break a rod from exceeding its capability. Its not an issue of concern for me at all.


> If you want casting accuracy studies then
> perform one. One has not been done to my
> knowledge.
>

Everyone keeps putting up these challenges. Do this. Do that. And until you do no one is listening to you. come back with proof or shut the @#$%& up already! Can't I see you are all on a forum discussing fishing rods and old kent is just getting in the way and mucking up all the one-sided information and back patting for agreeing with the group? Yep. I can see it as can everyone else who are not signed up and NOT posting can as well. Thousands of them out there... silently watching and reading but staying silent like the list of advanced spiral wrappers who are as well for obvious reasons.

Please stop it with all the challenges. Do this or else we don't believe you type of thing. This is a discussion forum. Nothing more. Nothing less. I have nothing to prove to anyone. I simply discuss as forums are made for. All one-sided is boring as @#$%&!

> Here no one is required to trust a website or even
> each other. We share and debate ideas. As I said
> before some of us build to beliefs. I for one can
> tell you if I build a rod for a customer who
> believes a casting rod is what he wants to throw a
> 1/10oz ned rig then I will be faced with three
> options. 1. Build what he believes is best for him
> against what I know to be fact. 2. Advise he see
> someone else for the build. 3. Sell him on what I
> BELIEVE the appropriate setup for his application
> is.
>
> Anyone who sells custom rods will choose option 3.
> Only once failing to do that will we choose
> another option.

OK. But this has nothing to do with me. I'm retired.

But for the sake of debating...

Let me get this straight... people who want custom rods ask you to make their rod for them the way they want it done, but you say the best choice is to ignore the customer and sell them on what you think is best?

This is why no one can make rods for me. You will not make it how i want it or pay for it to be made because you want to sell me your ideas rather than do what the customer wants.

And what if you are wrong? Like for all you simple spiral wrappers out there... if a customer comes to you and asks you build a spiral wrap for them, would you hand them a simple spiral wrap? I bet they would say I'm not going to pay for that! I asked for a spiral wrap, not whatever that thing is.

Whatever happened to the customer is always right? Except for fishing rods! Then the customers are always wrong!

i think Gary saw the writing on the wall for this craft/ lndustry..

>Once I know which rifle shoots more consistently then I can go for accuracy...

Agree. Rifle is consistent. Shooter is accurate.

When someone asks for something that will not perform it is my name and brand on the line. If I feel making you an inferior product to my brand standard will hurt me I will not partake. That is our right. However, I can market something that will most definitely perform and hopefully sell that. At the end of the day if you are trying to sell to market you have to market. Even Gary went to a show and marketed a graphite rod in a manner that changed everyone's perspective on the "fragile" rods. The customer is not always right in a non-service industry. If you were asked for a simple spiral rod to be built I am sure you would market to them the Cagey Hook spiral. I also have no doubt you would sell it.

Edit: For clarity I never have nor will ever make a rod a certain way against a customers will. Until the build is 100% agreed upon I will not even commission. If we cannot agree I will refer them to someone else who may be able to help them. A real example of this was someone who came to me asking about a performance rod for offshore gulf fishing. I simply told them I have never built one before and gave them two options. 1.) I could research the needs of your application and make recommendations to choose from. 2.) I can give you the number of the person who I would trust to make my offshore rods. He wisely chose the contacting the other individual.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2021 01:30PM by Aaron Petersen.

Lastly,

There is no disrespect meant in this discussion. I respect you and your contributions here as well as your spiral method. One of the hardest things to discern in typed conversation is tone. I would like to assure you there is not meant to be any ill tone to my responses.

To those who build on the spine. I respect your opinion and without judgement will take a bullet to protect your right to do so.

I build along the straightest axis, please afford me the same courtesy.

By the way the post asked about the effects of a 10-15 degree off set between the seat and the spine. How did this turn into the Kent Griffith show?

Have Fun

John DeMartini Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To those who build on the spine. I respect your
> opinion and without judgement will take a bullet
> to protect your right to do so.
>
> I build along the straightest axis, please afford
> me the same courtesy.

Absolutely! Everyone has a right to their opinions and none of us should be beating up on each other in the forum for simply disagreeing on topics. But I think it is clear today I am on my own. None of the members I know are backing me up here today. And the heat is coming down on me...

>
> By the way the post asked about the effects of a
> 10-15 degree off set between the seat and the
> spine. How did this turn into the Kent Griffith
> show?

How? Because its says "spine" in the thread title, that's how! Oh, and being retired, I have plenty of time on my hands to play word jockey!

And sorry John but I do not recall reading your post about the effects of an offset between spine and reel seat.

But the question I would have is- if your reel seat is off from the spine by that much then when you backswing into loading up the rod for a cast, now one side is weaker than the other so laws of physics says the backswing will flow into the weaker side meaning your backswing is definitely not going to be straight into the sweet spot as Gary Loomis described in his interviews on this subject- Do you want the backswing to skew off to one side because you chose to put a weaker side and stronger side opposing each other in less than ideal locations?

This is why I spine my rods, so I can balance out- another term gary used in the video- to balance the spring forces of the rod between the two sides which helps the rod to load up straight and unload straight into the cast. Off setting the reel seat according to Gary and my way of thinking is to throw it out of ideal operational balance.

And I hear that straightest axis is chosen a lot because of how it looks as someone said they don't want their rods looking like they are crooked. So they choose straightest axis to hide the curvature from view.

So what I get out of it and reading a lot of this discussion is spine is useless and straightest axis is god.

But spine is chosen by a scientific method while straightest axis is left to the roll of the rod and either tip up or tip down does not seem to matter, and straightest axis theory is put forward more for aesthetics than performance which is another reason I balk at it. So to me until I die, spine is god and straightest axis is irrelevant.

I had hoped limiting my comments to just one thread would be OK.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/06/2021 02:41AM by Kent Griffith.

Aaron Petersen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lastly,
>
> There is no disrespect meant in this discussion. I
> respect you and your contributions here as well as
> your spiral method. One of the hardest things to
> discern in typed conversation is tone. I would
> like to assure you there is not meant to be any
> ill tone to my responses.


Thanks! I appreciate that! Means alot especially when I am being told you do not understand and you are 100% wrong! Go away and go do some reports or something and come back when you got something.

I try and avoid this type of thing towards others, and I try to stay on topic even when it is getting personal against me for simply disagreeing and bringing a different point of view.

Thanks Aaron!

Joe Vanfossen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Simply put in scientific terms, if the accuracy is
> off, you calibrate your instrument, if the
> precision is not adequate, you change the tool.
>

Bingo! Nailed it right there!

Gary Loomis says spining the rod is calibrating the instrument. And if precision is not adequate, you change the tool - from a cheap chinese mass produced junk rod to a U.S. made rod and from a straight axis rod to a spined rod! (As I see it)

I agree Joe!



> Watching that video back, I almost half-wonder if
> Gary intentionally provided just enough fodder for
> both sides of the spine debate to walk away and
> say "Hey look, my interpretation of the problem is
> correct!"
>

This is an interesting perspective. I do agree with you it seemed like Gary was trying to balance on the fence in that one.


> Kent, we tend to agree on many ideas when it comes
> to rod building, but where the spine goes may be
> one where we agree to disagree. My question for
> you is when you spine your blank, are you using
> the axis of least resistance, as Gary demonstrates
> in the video, or are you using the 'natural'
> curvature of the blank?

I do the same as Gary. And it is constantly being rechecked through the build process.

> Gary contradicts himself
> in the video. He demonstrates the technique of
> finding the spine of the blank that is used by
> spine finders. He then goes on and says that, and
> I'm paraphrasing here, 'If the blank has a curve,
> it will be along the spine.' The latter is simply
> not true. Tom's data, and my anecdotal experience
> with blanks, indicate that the spine, the location
> of which is demonstrated by Gary in the video, and
> curvature of the blank are rarely, if ever, on the
> same plane.
>

I get that. But I reject it. I do not accept it.

I do not care about building on straightest axis period. What is important to me is to balance out the rod's return or unloading spring effect out of the backswing of a cast to be straight in and straight out as gary says. making one side of the blank stronger and the other side weaker is quite simply to me the WRONG thing to do.

I agree with gary 110%. I want balanced rods made for casting and no other reasons. Dead lift irrelevant. All I insist on is finding where the blank bends the easiest and put that straight up and let the stiffest side fall where it may and let the straightest axis fall where it may. I could not care less about those since they have no bearing on what I do. I never break rods so dead lift capacity is useless to me. And I do not have any rods- well one cheap lightning rod I've kept since college is bent, but so what. I still use it like that bent off to the left side a little bit, but spine and spiral are dead on!

Casting is top priority with spining. Dead lift and straightest axis simply do not exist to me. The rest of my rods all look straight to my eye, and all built on the spine.

> Given your other comments, it sounds to me that
> you are using the 'spine' in the sense of the
> stiffest axis, i.e. the straightest axis, to
> locate your guides, as you indicate that you are
> using the latter definition of 'spine' that Gary
> talks about. In addition to alluding to your
> definition spine and the straightest axis are the
> same thing.

I personally was never aware of this issue until I read about it here. Mudhole never mentioned it. Get Bit Outdoors never mentioned it. But gary Loomis did address it and I thought he did very well in under 4 minutes.

Now that said I do NOT look for the stiffest side. Could not care less about where that is. And it does not matter either unless I specifically wanted the dead lift capacity. But since that is completely irrelevant, I gotta deal with what is relevant and to me, that is putting the rod's softest side, easiest to bend into, straight up so my casting backswing flows right into the sweet spot. Now where ever that stiffest side is located after spining the rod makes no difference to me at all. All that matters, as Gary carefully explains, is soft side up. That's it.

> Unfortunately, in the jargon of rod
> building is, as I interpret it, the spine
> essentially refers to the part of the rod that is
> on the outside of the bend when the rod is flexed
> along the weakest axis. The problem is that the
> stiffest and weakest axes are not typically
> parallel to one another, hence the dichotomy in
> the terms spine and straightest axis.
>

yep. I addressed that one above. Soft spot straight up. Stiffest side goes where ever it goes. Same with the straightest axis side, and same with greatest dead lift capacity. All irrelevant to me. Build the casting rod for casting first and foremost and let everything else fall into place where it does.


> Personally, I've settled on the fact that torque
> determines how the rod will flex, and build on the
> straightest axis. If how the rod flexes during
> the backcast is that critical, I would opt for
> guides on top (both casting and spinning), as I
> would be assured that the tip will not rotate one
> direction vs. the other on the backcast.

In my backswing all my guides on all my rods whether spinning or baitcast are all on the same side. In my backswing the guides are all facing forward which according to what you said would cause tip twist in the backswing.

And my response to this one is I am not agreeing with this one.

For one, nearly all of my rods that I use today have super small micro guides in 4 to 6mm range. They are NOT large enough to be used as levers to twist the rod tip in a cast. My line in these guides is literally on the rod tip and NOT away from it to cause such a twisting force.

Next, the weight of the lure and backswing forces are not enough to cause any detrimental twisting in the tip that would throw off casting accuracy- besides your muscles would learn to adjust for it anyway and do if such a thing even exists. And in my opinion this subject is so negligible as to not amount to enough of anything to take into account to compensate for in the build at this point.

> Using
> this logic, a "Simple Pass By" wrap would become
> the optimal configuration for casting a spinning
> rod. However, I opt of a slow spiral wrap, not
> too dissimilar from the Cagey Wrap, for my casting
> rods and keep the guides on the bottom of the
> spinning rod to make use of the stability once the
> fish is hooked.

I have zero torque issues. Here is another members assessment of the Cagey Hook Wrap method. And keep in mind while reading this comment is that this man built simple spirals because that is what this forum advised him to build. He did NOT like it one bit and set all of those simple spiral rods aside and did not enjoy using them at all- until I came around and showed him a different way to spiral wrap and here is where it is at today:

"But the one thing I had become accustom too was the torque generated when setting the hook (On a simple spiral), and these were serious try to remove their jaw hook sets, no braid then. The absolute second I set the hook with Kent's spiraled rod, I was in shock. Where was the twist, where was the reposition the reel in my hand moment? Kent is not paying me enough to embellish on the moment of truth hook set, I'm just sharing my experience. I've since caught bass on crank baits and experienced the same very smooth transition from fish to landing. I've since stripped two rods and plan on more.

The Cagey Hook Wrap is extremely stable, smooth operation as noted here into load up of a fish, and just a pure joy to use. I spent nearly 25 years perfecting it. I can guarantee you they are some of the most advanced spiral wraps you will ever see. And how many spiral wrap methods tout guides moving into a preferred planned alignment as the rod bend and loads up? You do not hear any other spiral rod builders go to where I have gone with it. Most only go so far and stop progressing. I pushed ahead until i could do no more. And then I wrote the article for Tom and he published it. (Thanks Tom!)

>
> While we are on the topic of semantics, Gary uses
> a very incorrect term in the video when he talks
> about the rod dampening. Unless the sprinkler
> system is on in the room, the rod is not dampening
> as it comes to rest, but it is damping
> oscillations as it comes to rest.
>

Yeah I get beat up over this one too! I even got emails over using the wrong spelling or application of a word around here. It gets noticed!


> We can quibble over the semantics of terms used in
> rod building, but there are quite a few instances
> where the definition of the jargon do not align
> with the physics definition of the terms (action
> uses terms related to velocity, etc.). Heck, even
> in physics we have some strange definitions.
> After all we still define electric current as the
> direction positive charges flow through a circuit,
> even though we have well over 100 years of
> evidence that it is the negative charges that
> actually flow through the circuit.

Yeah its not all black and white is it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2021 03:22PM by Kent Griffith.

"if your reel seat is off from the spine by that much then when you backswing into loading up the rod for a cast, now one side is weaker than the other so laws of physics says the backswing will flow into the weaker side meaning your backswing is definitely not going to be straight into the sweet spot as Gary Loomis described in his interviews on this subject- Do you want the backswing to skew off to one side because you chose to put a weaker side and stronger side opposing each other in less than ideal locations"

The laws of physics don't say this. Please detail which specific "law of physics" is saying anything of this sort. You're pulling stuff out of thin air. You have yet to realize that the lever arm effect, which IS a law of physics, will trump a spine effect every single time. You have not mentioned inertia which also plays a role. A "backswing to skew off to one side" is not part of physics. It does not happen that way. The rod is going to travel in a straight plane along the direction of your backcast and then in the direction of your forward cast. It will not travel off to one side or the other during either. If it twists around its own axis which does not change the plane of the cast, it will only be from the lever arm effect of the guides. I am starting to think you are just making a big joke here and even laughing at the stuff you are making up. There is zero physics behind your statements.

You are welcome to this opinion however ad hominem it is. And I say you are out of line with that worthless comment.

But rest assured for some time the thought has been mutual to a growing degree which is why postings are dropping for myself and... it does go both ways Mike. It is not all one sided and just because you choose to disagree with everything does not make you 100% right and me 100% wrong. Part of it is in how you read things and what you get out of what is written. I cannot be held responsible for how you interpret the words of others.

Gary says spining balances out the rod. I agree with him. If you choose not to believe that is fine. And I am wondering where your physics proof is? I did not know it was a requirement for simple casual discussion on forums.

That is why this is called a discussion forum and not a truth forum because humans are not perfect, never will be, and so our speech and interactions will never be perfect. just the way it is, but trying to lay some sort of blame game all on me because you disagree or misinterpret things and get something completely different out of it and then respond according to your interpretation as if that is indeed what I said is purely up to you as I stand by what i said, but maybe not HOW I said it could have been improved on.

The point is, it appears to me you WANT to be mad at me for not saying what you want to hear. And so like a true other aisler, you attack the messenger which is modus operandi 101.

But one thing you should never do is turn your words onto other people like this in a negative personal sort of way as if your perspective were the only truth of it all and everyone should submit to it. I don't. And also be assured that your response is why a lot of members I know stopped posting here. Exactly because of @#$%& like what you just posted here is quite simply unacceptable in a casual discussion forum. Admin should strictly maintain the peace by getting rid of people who cannot control their emotions over dam fishing rods.

Tom is trying to run a successful business here, not @#$%& of participating contributors who disagree with forum standards and drive them away to cause further harm to this website and forum because of word of mouth. Your comment just hurt all of us Mike.


I found some quotes matching mine online...

"When you realize that the spine is the weak side of the blank it makes sense that the rod will try to go to it'

"What follows is that when the rod is bent it will want to always bend on the weakest side just like a chain will break on the weakest link, no argument there."

"Just as the human body bends forward better than to the side, so do fishing rods. Rods have a “spine,” meaning they bend perfectly in one direction. That bend must align with the guides."

These are not my words Mike, but they all say the same thing I said that you said was pure @#$%&.

So re-read it if you did not understand it. But I may be guilty of not using proper wording so I'll give you that, but don't launch any more personal attacks. If you do, then you will accomplish driving off yet another member and cause more harm than good for doing so.

I also did not quote your comment above to give you the opportunity to edit your wording if you so choose. If not, that is fine too. If you will remove your unprovoked angry response I will remove mine as neither should be here.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/05/2021 05:02PM by Kent Griffith.

i think someone is shilling for spine finder manufacturers..lol..modern rods have so little spine it,s not worth locating much less being concerned about.

Kent - I flat out gave you the physical reasons that what you are saying cannot happen. Please look into the physics of 'lever arms" and "inertia.'

Now I am positive you are just trolling everybody here......