Joe that’s some good information I guess ,but way over my head. I wear hearing aides and wouldn’t be able to hear it ring anyhow. The big debate on here used to be about the spine of a blank, how to find it, where to locate it and then don’t worry about it. Haha! Now this.

I build and fish with e,glass and all my rods are more sensitive than my nephew's graphite rods because I use braided line and he uses mono..simple as that..he could use braid but then he loses more fish in the fight..I trim the butts to build on sixty inches or less to keep weigt down..the slower and deeper flex make the fish fight more fun..but I guess using a line that supplies more than enough sensitivity that glass rods become viable is just not esoteric enough..the rod must reign supreme..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2022 12:52PM by ben belote.

Tim, you write: "Send the blank back and tell them it doesn’t ring right, put it in the corner or throw it away.? Just curious!" You build it. Ringing has not been proven to mean anything, yet. Furthermore, even when we decide that the higher the ring the more sensitive the blank, it doesn't mean a lower ring is not acceptable, or even superior to some other blanks of lower frequency but different design.

Joe, thanks for your expert "testimony." Nice to hear from someone who actually knows something rather than simply "feeling" something. I worked for a chief engineer one time who always said "Show me your data. Only God can come without data." While I have limited data on my method, not being a high volume builder, my data are consistent with what you say. I really like your talking about the differences in design of blanks and the probable impact of them on the blank performance. Your comments on the position of the factors in the equations are consistent with my conclusions after looking at various equations for natural frequency, especially the equation for the cantilever beam. Even if that equation is for a constant section beam, that would not change the position of the factors in the equations. My data are directionally consistent with the predictions of the equations (modulus, weight, length factor variations).

My data so far have led me to the conclusion that the method I published does indicate that the more costly, "premium" blanks, generally do have higher frequencies than the cheaper, lower modulus blanks. It is also capable of showing the slowing effect difference between titanium and SS guides. and tiptops. The data are also consistent with my subjective conclusions on the sensitivity of various blanks of many price points and moduli.

I should point out that another builder has a video-based process for measuring TNF, and his data and mine are highly consistent with each other on the same blank models. Two other builders have used my method and again, the data are consistent.

I have always believed that the ringing and TNF were related/parallel but haven't had the expertise to sort it out. Thanks again, Joe.

Before a familiar voice asks me for my data, I repeat that I didn't get into this to become a data source. Those who want data are invited to use the process.

Maybe some curious person will discover that a currently available inexpensive technology will allow development of the ringing/tone observations into an objective, data-based process.

What would be a "good" harmonic for a rod or a blank? What would be a "bad harmonic? Would it be a number or a "feeling"?

Phil,
Just as with CCS, CCF (including AA, IP, ERN) or Mr. Danek’s TNF, the data gained conducting those tests and the tone emitted by “rod ringing” are of little if any interest to Joe Blow angler / custom rod customer. Most of them could even care less what the tip and butt diameter of a blank is! But the information / data accessed is often used by the builder to choose and construct the best rod for the oblivious customer. Being new to me, I am simply attempting to learn what, if any, “rod ringing” may have to offer. I have no plan on informing my customers what tone their new rod possesses, just as you probably do not inform your customers of their new rod’s CCS. They are BUILD tools, not SALES tools.

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

Tim,
Joe did an excellent job answering your question; I have nothing to add.

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

Phil, I will answer your question when you show me the objective sensitivity test you mentioned recently.

Mark Talmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> While all are appreciated and informative replies,
> I have not received any replies from the “Tap
> Master” veterans explaining how they perform
> their “rod ringing” procedure, what they hear,
> and what it means. I am very intrigued and
> interested to learn.

Mark, as a rod tapping amateur, I am presently in the gathering more equipment and onto data collection process right now. I have one of those trained ears from years of dealing specifically with frequencies and their controlled use, but this trained ear method is not accepted data. It works for me, but......... at present I have an old Fluke 1900A frequency counter I had laying around the garage from my past career, and I plan on connecting up an oscilloscope along with various pickup devices to determine which works best for determining rod blank dominant resonant frequency- same as measuring the dominant "tone" of a bell- the same can be done with rod blanks as well- and does not involve tip speed twanging.

Just got off the phone with my long time co-worker who is still repairing and calibrating oscilloscopes will provide me with his Fluke 7261A frequency counter and access to his calibrated Tektronix oscillscopes a 2225 and a 2815 for this DIY at home experimenting.

I am looking at various audio transducers now considering an electret condenser microphone along with vibration transducers that clamp onto the rod blank to get a more direct signal than an air coupling with a microphone.

Not only do I want to measure the dominant tone or resonant frequency of a rod blank, but I also want to be able to document it visually as well on the oscilloscope.

Once I have the equipment up and running I will then have to calibrate it so I can be relatively certain my results are as accurate as they can be.

As for rod blank sensitivity, I am one of those who has in the past mentioned that it seemed like one of my rod's epoxy binder has gotten harder over the decades since it was made in mid 1980's. Today it has the highest pitch of any rod I own out of about 70 plus at present. I call it my crystal rod for this reason and is one of my top go to rods today.

I see the direct relationship that hardness has on a blank to transmit input vibrations at the tip to the hand at the butt end. The harder the material, the easier it can transmit those vibrations. The softer the materials the less it can transmit and will absorb the vibrations instead. Sort of the difference between holding a rod made of rubber to one made of glass. One does more absorbing while the other does more transmitting and less absorbing.

So hardness is a key factor here along with how the rod blank is constructed. Wall density and weight and even shape plays a roll as well. Thin and hard transmit better same as an old phonograph needle stylus is designed.

I've been researching Airrus rods out of Illinois I think who are working on amplification rods that use the rod blank materials and handle like a megaphone. And without them specifically saying so, from what I can gather there is a new way of thinking on this that is creating rods with wall thickness differences and shape changes from tip to butt. One way works better than another, but the way that works better for vibration amplification may not be best suited for load abilities so they are incorporating a megaphone handle into the equation to further amplify vibrations at the hand.

[www.rodsbyairrus.com]

Megaphone Effect 2.0

"The Megaphone Effect was first recognized during the development of the Tradition series as an increased sensitivity in the grip do to the integral nature of the blank and grip. During the development of the Puls-R a similar vibration transfer was realized in the grip, however in this instance the vibrations travelling down the blank reverse direction at the internal point of contact inside the grip allowing them to flow forward through the grip. We call this Reverse Vibration Transfer or RVT for short. In either, case just like the shape of a megaphone enhances sound the shape of the grip on the Puls-R, Tradition and now our Nano Fusion series enhances the vibrations emanating from the blank."



And I suppose the point of this is to say that shape (construction) and hardness are everything here.

Take a bell for example. Due to its shape is what is allowing for it to vibrate or resonate nicely and produce its clear tone. But if you were to take that exact same metal material and reshape it into a square cube or block, would it still ring nicely? No it will not. Same materials, different shape is key to developing a rod that will transmit vibrations coming into the tip down the shaft and to the hand.

So key factors as I see it are clearly hardness of binder, weight and density, and shape of blank construction primarily. Measuring a rod blank's dominant natural resonant frequency is merely one way of determining a portion of the factors necessary for constructing highly sensitive fishing rod blanks. And Airrus is throwing in a monkey wrench into the equation by now suggesting changing blank shape even further with new construction designs along with combining an amplifying handle to help increase and even amplify overall sensitivity.

And once I get some electronics setup, after measuring a blank's dominant resonant frequency and seeing it on the oscilloscope, I can also measure the blank's ability to transmit vibrations to the handle and I will have to be creative in how I approach this because I will have to create an identical rod tip input scenario that will be precisely the same for each rod tested. And only when I can be assured that each rod is stimulated in precisely the same way and at the same level can I begin to be confident that the output can also be relevant and cross compared.

I also plan on using some type of electronics packaged system for this which will allow me to use digital signal generators run into a power amplifier and into what is known as a bass shaker. I can attach the rod tip to the bass shaker directly and input into the rod blank any amplitude and great variety of signal frequencies to see and measure how a rod blank transmits and at what frequencies. This may not be important and is more of a curiosity of mine as is trying to determine what type of input signals slight tap taps are coming in from the bottom of a lake when a fish hits the bait. I am sure those are endless in amplitude and shape, but curious just the same if I can observe them on the oscilloscope and measure them and see what frequency range they are in, in relation to rod blanks characteristics and the rod's ability to transmit said vibrations to the handle.

This is not much different than the old days of phono cartridges and needles and styluses. One thing is for sure and that is we won't be using random tip twanging to try and come up with our results which Dr. Hanneman says is for determining how a rod blank settles down.

[www.rodbuilding.org]

(from an old Rodmaker Magazine) is what Dr. Hanneman thought:

"Every fishing rod blank possesses a unique intrinsic property known as it "natural frequency." This is a measure of how fast it can recover from being flexed and is the net result of many undefinable things. The natural frequency, which in the following will be referred to as NFB (Natural Frequency of Blank) is "fixed at its birth." It can never be increased without shortening its length. On the other hand, anything and everything you normally add in converting that blank into a useful fishing tool will lower that value." "As a general rule, the higher the natural frequency, the more efficient the rod. "

He says this method is and I quote is: "a measure of how fast it can recover from being flexed."

And I can do this same thing by timing a blank in my hand doing a simple bounce test and observing the blank's vibration and how long it takes to settle down and HOW it settles down by careful observation. The bounce test by hand produces more than one wave form on a blank if one observes there are tip swings which is one waveform, and the entire rod will vibrate from handle to tip with a longer waveform. I can see both and observe by eye what the blank is doing and how fast it settles down and how it settles down and from decades of observation I can make this same determination in mere seconds- which does not do the customers any good who have to purchase blanks by mail order. They need this type of information as data and simply measuring speed of tip swings is not taking into account the secondary waveform moving along the entire blank at the same time the tip is swinging back and forth at ever changing speeds and amplitudes.

He then says and I quote again:

"The natural frequency, which in the following will be referred to as NFB (Natural Frequency of Blank) is "fixed at its birth." It can never be increased without shortening its length."

And this is something I fully agree with. Like a bell has its tone or resonant frequency fixed at birth or its creation, it cannot be changed by the addition of adding weight to the outside of the bell like adding guides and thread wraps and epoxy. All those things do is mute the bell's ability to vibrate and dampen its amplitude, but its resonant frequency cannot be changed until the structure of the bell itself is changed as the good doctor noted with his last sentence "it can never be increased without shortening its length." which is a structural change of the object being measured. Adding weight mutes an objects resonant frequency.

But the last line the good doctor notes the key to why this process is measured in the first place... a measure of how fast it can recover from being flexed... "On the other hand, anything and everything you normally add in converting that blank into a useful fishing tool will lower that value."

So the doctor and I both agree we cannot change the rod's natural resonant frequency without changing the rod blank's physical structure, but by adding weight of new guides and thread wraps and epoxy is slowing down the rod's ability at the tip to swing as fast as it did as a blank blank. The added weight will slow the tip swing speeds down no doubt about it. But who cares? This is not providing me with any useful data in my opinion. It is merely measuring how fast a blank can recover from being deflected at the tip. That's it. That is all you get out of it. It is not measuring sensitivity at all. He clearly says it is for measuring how fast the tip or rod can recover and settle back down to motionless. Some rods seem to vibrate on endlessly while other settle right down.

So I cannot consider an ever changing TNF or NFB as being one and the same as a rod blank's dominant natural resonant frequency- which the good doctor says cannot change until the structure of the blank itself is changed in some way. Adding weight merely slows down the tip swing speeds. And since this TNF or NFB is measured by tip swing speeds affected by weight, to me it cannot be the same as the rod blank's natural resonant frequency. That is "fixed at birth" and cannot change with the addition of weight to the outside of the blank.

I want to get at this tone of the rod blank and its natural resonant frequency. Not tip speed swings. I want to be able to measure the blanks dominant resonant frequency on electronics, and measure how it relates to the transmission of vibrations of various frequencies down the shaft of the rod blank, and once this type of data is collected then it can be compared with the measured results of adding the additional weight of guides, thread and epoxy. I have no doubt those will mute the vibrations coming into the tip and muted each step or each guide down the blank to the hand.

Right now I am still considering system configuration. I want to measure by direct attachment rather than acoustically coupled. But at present I am unsure which type of transducer will produce the best results. I could use piezo, or I could use something similar to a guitar pickup with coils and magnets, or other vibration sensors. It will take time and experimenting. Calibration is another issue.

And since I have to mount the rod blank, I would do so from the butt end and then determine an approximate distance from the mount to where handle would be located for the output measurements. Tip inputs would have to be consistent as well. I have in mind using audio bass shakers which converts an amplified audio signal into strictly vibrations only which I can directly attach any rod tip to and send the rod blank any frequency at any amplitude so I have a consistent measurable input that can be applied to any rod blank.

This is really super simple stuff. Just getting all the equipment together and dialing it all in will be the challenge and spending money on purchasing the needed transducers. I already have most of the electronics in the way of various frequency counters, digital sine wave generators, and calibrated oscilloscopes. This could be a fun project for retirement and who knows, maybe MudHole and or GetBitOutdoors and others will let me measure some of their blanks once up and running and see if something like this could work and produce useful results and real data.

And, lastly, once the electronics is hooked up to a rod blank and calibrated, if someone wanted to do some tip twanging while the rod is mounted, the electronics would measure frequency(ies) and amplitudes and can also be timed to see how fast a blank settles down without doing math.

So this is where this retired amateur rod tapper is at with it these days. Still in the equipment gathering phase and putting it together and seeing if I can come up with a repeatable process of measuring a blank in some way that I can find useful to me. I've always wondered about my crystal rod, now maybe I can define it somewhat.

Phil, you are in central Florida too, wanna help out here and join me in this?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2022 07:56PM by Kent Griffith.

Joe,
Thank you for your astute, knowledgeable and informative reply. You did a good job of relaying the information in an understandable manner. While there are a number of contributing variables involved which produce a higher or lower ring (longitudinal frequency) , the general consensus is that the higher the ring / tone / pitch = the more sensitive the blank is.
The only stock of raw blanks I have is approximately 8 different (length, weight, tip & butt diameter) NOS vintage FG Conolons. I “rang” at least 2 from each model and was surprised to learn (hear) that they all were quite close in tone = no stand-out. Although not a musician, I would say all were certainly within one octave. I suppose the real tone difference will be when I get some CF blanks to compare.
You mentioned dual cure (UV + heat) epoxies and cited an example of “someone implying in the past that some blanks may have gotten better over time”. While this phenomenon is certainly possible, I find it difficult to believe such would be the case with a fishing blank. Even if a dual cure process was employed, most likely the UV was used initially in the cure process followed by an elevated temp post cure of heat. I am certain the blank manufacturers utilize the highest heat possible to expedite the curing process which, in turn, subjects the blanks to higher temps than they will be exposed to when used as a rod, not to mention saving time (money). This is exactly why I have suggested post curing epoxy on this site a number of times. If a composite laminate is cured at, say, 80*F, it will stay stable up to that temp. But if it is later subjected to, say, 150*F (inside a hot car), it can soften and continue curing at the elevated temp. Given adequate time, the composite laminate will now be stable to the higher 150*F. Most of the epoxies used in the rod building industry (not necessarily the blanks) are considered “low temp” (150*F). After an initial set time of 6-12 hours, a post cure at 150*F for 4-6 hours can improve the properties of the epoxy.

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

Since we fish with rods and not blanks, how the system changes with added weight is of significant consequence. All knowledgeable builders have known this forever, and now there is an easy, cheap , way of measuring it. And deciding whether it makes sense to pay for lighter guides and premium blanks.

All it takes is an Android device, a free app, and a way to hold the blank/rod.

A solution in just 69 words and almost no cost.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/28/2022 05:40PM by Michael Danek.

Kent,
I am pleased to have a “Tap Master”, “Rod Ringer” respond = thank you. You know, you could simply explain to me how you perform ringing a blank, what you hear, and what it means without going to such an extreme process of incorporating such sophisticated equipment to measure and produce data!!! LOL. Repeat, LOL. Wow, quite an undertaking and I am certainly interested in learning the results.
In particular, I will be curious to learn if adding weight (guides, wraps, epoxy) to the blank will change the tone (as I suspect) or simply mute / muffle it (as you suggest).
One way or the other, thank you for taking the time to orchestrate the test; I’m certain to not be the only one interested in your findings.
Even if by some miracle your request for help was accepted, are you sure you would want it?

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

How are rods loaded, how are bites felt, while fishing? Longitudinally or transversely.? If longitudinally, the rod is essentially out of the equation, it's all about the line. If transversely, it's about the line and the rod. Think about it

Mark Talmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> simply explain to me how you perform ringing a
> blank, what you hear, and what it means

When I hold a blank in my hand I keep my hand as close to the butt as is possible and simply tap on the blank arm's length in front of me with a hard object, and usually that is one of the keys I have in my pocket. I simply listen to the tone the rod makes. You will hear the initial contact of the tap along with the rod's tone coming out from under that slightly behind the tap. I am familiar with my own rods sound and pitch, and what I am testing is usually lower in pitch as I have yet to find newer rod blanks that can match my nearly 40 year old crystal rod's pitch which has led me to conclude its binder has continued to harden over the decades since it was made in 1980's. I have a fly blank made by AirFlo out of Wales that comes close that is now about 10 years old or so.

Once I hear the rod's tone, I then do a quick bounce test by bumping the rod with my hand and watching how it vibrates and for how long. Rubbery rods tend to show me at least 2 distinct wave forms at the same time. I can see the tip swinging back and forth and I can also watch a longer wave form moving along the entire length of the rod vibrating differently from the tip swings.

I observe how long it takes the rod to settle down to motionless. The longer a rod takes and the more lengthwise vibration I see I will reject those blanks. I prefer blanks that minimize the longer wave length vibrations and settle down in the tip quickly. I am not a fan of low pitch rubbery rods. I want crisp fast blanks that settle down quickly.

When I pick up a blank I can do both in seconds. A quick tap and a quick bump and simply listen and observe.



> Even if by some miracle your request for help was
> accepted, are you sure you would want it?

Absolutely! He is a big fan of provable data so let's try and generate some.

Speaking of which I am already thinking of changing what I said above.

Mounting the butt end of the rod was bothering me because it would tend to dampen the blank's ability to vibrate and I want to avoid that, and I need a way of calibrating the input signal to the output signal and I think I have come up with a way that might work. So my change would be to purchase identical transducers, one for input and one for output.

I would need to calibrate the 2 in some way so that their readings are identical and provable by measurement.

I would then hard mount one transducer right onto the bass shaker, and suspend the rod vertically and hold it up by the tip transducer only cover about 1/2" of rod tip or so, and put the other transducer on the butt end of the blank. This way nothing is dampening the rod, and I will be able to compare the input signal to the output signal to determine more accurately any gains or reductions in signal strength.

I am also curious about signal resolution and how well the clean sine wave or square wave or saw tooth wave input into the tip of a rod blank will appear on the output and what changes if any the rod blank will introduce into the signal. So that will be interesting to compare as well.

At present I am thinking that the signals used are to stay within the audible range of frequencies, but who knows I might find them extending beyond this range of frequencies, but experimentation will show me the way. I have often wondered how low the long wave form is that I observe doing the bounce test and hope maybe I can measure it. But the transducers chosen also have to be able to work in those ranges too, so that could be an issue. Presently I am looking at these clip on cello transducers and hope they can get me started.



I would have to mount the above transducer to a bass shaker like shown below, but I would not use an amplifier with a built in low pass filtering system. I would use a full range amplifier so I can test a wider range of frequencies and maybe have to choose a transducer with a wider range of usable frequencies instead of just a bass shaker. They do make full range transducers I can mount on the backside stud of say the drywall in your living room and use the drywall for the speaker cone with the transducer hidden on the backside. But in this case I want to use it to simply send vibrations into the tip of the rod blank through the transducer so that signal can be monitored and measured and compared to the output. I already own 4 of these I have used in my home theater on viewing seating, and also on my beds so I can sleep better without dropping quarters into the machine every hour. lol And I can easily change the frequency and amplitude to get it just right every time.



This particular model shown below says I can have 40Hz to 15,000Hz to play around with.


This is how simple it is to test a rod blank's ability to transmit vibrations from input to output... nothing to it really. The output of each transducer 1 and 2 routed to its own channel on a dual trace oscilloscope, and tap off of those to the frequency counters- unless the scope comes with them as an option, and sometimes also comes with various signal generators as well. And I can instantly see and compare input and output signals at ever changing frequencies and amplitudes and create comparative data that can be plotted on charting if so desired similar to what Airrus did above.

With this type of setup a rod's dominant natural resonant frequency can be measured and observed, as well as its duration recorded and slope of the taper rate. So there are a couple of different data sets that can be measured with a setup like this one that goes a bit further than just trying to measure random tip twanging swing speeds and calling it a day.

Oh, and one thing that would be interesting to compare would be to take the measured dominant resonant frequency from the electronics here, and then compare it to the results of the tip twanging recovery rate "process" TNF and see if the results match up to their math results- which I kind of doubt. And for the tip twangers, after modifying the setup below slightly, using the oscilloscopes and their digital signal recording feature option, once the twangers twang a rod tip and release it, the oscilloscopes can measure and record what the blank is producing in the way of vibrations frequency(ies) and amplitude from release to motionless which is more data than their process presently comes up with because that process winds up with one single number, while this electronics can measure and record it all from release to motionless and repeat it over and over so we can learn more about what is really going on in real time versus after the fact looking at some number on a piece of paper. And the scope's output can be routed to large flat screens for entire classrooms full of people to observe and learn from it. Just extra ideas of some associated possibilities... and you can bet Airrus is doing something similar to create their research data too, but what is interesting about their claim is a vibration reversal happening at the handle beginning, but on blank blanks I doubt this would happen since there is nothing on the blank to pose an obstacle. I would think the signal would continue to the rod butt unaffected, but just an opinion of mine without proof.

Like I need another new project to do! I still have to finish my custom trolling motor setup and a louder stereo system in the boat. Maybe I could add bass shakers to the boat's hull and run some bait fish feeding audio into the water? Maybe they would like some Skynyrd better? Play FreeBird and catch a boat load! Playing with sound has been a life long passion. But ironically, this type of A/B comparison is not much different than the old tin cans with a string tied in between them.




Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2022 07:57AM by Kent Griffith.

Within 15 minutes of starting my search for a free app I had a suitable app and had measured the ringing frequency of 3 blanks. Using another free app, a tone generator, allowed me to verify the frequency determined by the first app.

I too found two suitable apps for detecting how sensitive a rod is. Well ... I actually didn't find them .... I was born with them, and I am using them to type this post. They're my hands and fingers.

Yes, I'm being quasi-facetious. But seriously .... I applaud the work you guys are doing, and there will certainly be merit in what you discover. But, are you discounting feel, in lieu of objective data? Meaning that, if the measurements you are taking show a rod to be more sensitive, that that rod will perform better in use. If so, IMO that is a mistake.

It's clear from my participation in past threads on a different topic, that I am a huge proponent of adding weight to the butt of a rod to achieve a certain degree of balance for rod and reel combinations that are used for slack, and semi slack line techniques. Where the rod is being fished with the rod tip up, and you're trying to detect a bite through feel. It's been a well discussed topic, and one in which I usually find myself with few if any allies. Just to be clear, I am talking about tip heavy rods here. Anyway ....

There is zero doubt in my mind that one of my weighted rods would lose to an identical unweighted rod, in the type of testing being discussed here. It's been said many times that stiffness to weight ratio determines the sensitivity of a rod. If that is in fact true, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, then the weighted rod will be less sensitive simply because it weighs more. There is also zero doubt in my mind, that my weighted rods will feel more sensitive, in use. And it comes down to a concern that Kent mentioned in his most recent post. And that is his concern that mounting the butt of the rod would dampen some of the vibrations.

Based on feel, I would conclude that his concern is valid With the rod and reel combinations that I have balanced, and they're not really balanced because they are tip light when I am holding them as if I were fishing with them, I don't have to grip the rod (gripping the rod is akin to mounting the rod). like I would if that rod and reel were tip heavy. I can open my hand and it will lay right there in my hand. If mounting the rod would dampen vibrations and skew testing, wouldn't gripping the rod change what you feel?

I really hope to be able to get out on the water soon to confirm if what I just said above is true or not, We just need to get a weekend where it isn't snowing or the winds aren't blowing 25 mph. I have two rods built on the same NFC X ray blanks. I just changed the grips on one of the rods to some cork split grips that I recently built. I epoxied a 1 oz cylinder weight into the butt of the blank of that rod to get it to balance the way I wanted it to. Other than the grips, the rods are identical. Same guides, same reel seat, with everything in the same locations on each rod. The only difference in the rods other than the weight I added, is that the grip on the unweighted rod is full length carbon fiber.

Anyhow, good luck in your endeavors. It's some interesting stuff. But all the objective data in the world will never replace feel, when it comes to a fishing rod

After all .... other than knowing for personal satisfaction, if you can't feel it, does it really make a diiference?

David, you speak a lot of good common sense. What works for you is all that counts.

David,
Thank you for your contribution as well. I agree with you that when actually fishing a given rod, it is ALL about feel, or as you stated, “if you can't feel it, does it really make a diiference?” In that respect, my agreeing answer is no. When I am actually fishing, no thought is ever given to how long my rod is, if it is CF or FG, what the CCS or TNF might be, which guides are used or their spacing, and, personally, do not even concern myself if it is tip-heavy or tip-light. BUT (and this is a big BUT), when I am choosing a blank, components, and concepts to build that rod, I rely and depend upon as much information and experience as possible to make the best decisions to achieve building the desired rod so that I don’t have to think about it later while fishing it.
Veteran builders may be comfortable with their years of experience and consider different aspects of data unneeded. With only 6 years of experience, I do not have the luxury of vast experience and thus must rely upon as much information as possible. And this site has been a WEALTH OF INFORMATION!!! Hopefully it continues.
With the exception of my son’s racing career or when I am machining a part, I have never been associated with as much “hair-splitting” as involved with rod building; it may even be a draughing factor for me. It is safe to say that 95% of anglers could not “feel” the difference between Alconite vs Torzite guide rings, KR Concept vs COF, or even 5g less rod weight. But it comes as no surprise to me that builders heavily concern themselves with such. I have seen long races won by thousandths of a second.

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

Kent: Thanks - finally some real proof of rod sensitivity and vibrational pisco-dynamics. I can't wait to fire up my bank of oscilloscopes and test all my rods and rod blanks, then report my findings (in generalities, not numbers) to whoever will listen.

Phil, how's it coming on that objective sensitivity test you mentioned recently?

Michael, thank you, and I agree that what works for the individual is all that counts. And please understand that I am not trying to make what you and others are doing is meaningless. It definitely has merit, and will tell you which blanks transmit vibrations better. My concern is that it seems as if feel is being taken out of the conversation.

Mark, thank you as well. And I don't know if you are including me in the "veteran builder" category, but if you are, I have only been building one or maybe two years longer than you. My guess is that you've built more rods than I have. Once I finish some builds I have in progress, I believe I will at 18 rods. No where near what these others have built. And as I said above to Michael. Their testing is not meaningless, and will be useful to them, and if they share any of their data, I am sure I will find it useful. It will be a comparative tool, just like CCS is. A question came to mind based on the following observation .... you rarely see people ask for CCS numbers for a particular blank, but you quite often see people ask, which blank is more sensitive. So could published data of the type they're seeking, be of interest to more builders? Or perhaps more casual builders?

Anyhow ... what I was trying to convey with my previous post, is the same thing I have said in posts in past threads. And that is that the highest testing object, doesn't always win the contest when put to use. Your experience in racing has surely taught you that. The fastest or most powerful car, doesn't always win the race.

And as far as 95% of anglers not being able to tell the difference in the things you listed, although I think I would lower the percentage somewhat, I agree with you on everything you listed, except for the KR concept vs COF. The first cast they made with the proper KR concept guide train and they'd be like ............ MAN this thing casts farrrrrrrrrrrr LOL At least that's the reaction I had when I made my first cast with a spinning rod with a KR concept guide train.