David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My concern is that it seems as
> if feel is being taken out of the conversation.

I have kinda been sitting on the fence reading this thread...
I have a somewhat keen unrelated interest in vibration detection.
I have assembled a vibration sensor with an Arduino board to test various handle materials for rod building..and it works great.
Havent quit got around to testing blanks just yet.

One of the problems I need to solve is just what David is talking about above..."human feel".
This is really a piece of data that needs to be established...and it will be different for everyone...even fluctuate between the same person.

Lets say for example that a person can feel vibration at 1,000 hertz.
Lets also say that a sensor on blank A can feel vibration at 500 hertz.
Lets also say that a sensor on blank B can feel vibration at 100 hertz.

Now we would conclude that blank B is more sensitive than blank A...and it would be.
But if you can only feel a vibration at 1,000 hertz...would that level the field?

I realize there is more to consider...but at some point is this "measuring process" we leave the scope of what a human can feel.
Just like what we cant see and hear (infrared/ultravoilet) (infrasound/ultrasound).

David, what I am trying to do is to present an objective measurement that is predictive of what you will feel. I'm not trying to take feel out of it. If in fact, as most knowledgable rod experts have said for many years, sensitivity is proportional to the ratio of stiffness to weight, then an objective measure of something that is parallel to that, is of value in predicting performance. True natural frequency is that objective measure. There may be more measurements that can predict sensitivity, but this one is the simplest and easiest to measure now that we have cheap tech, and since it basically is measuring what all the experts for years have been telling us about what is "sensitivity" then it has to be of value. It can tell you how much your blank slows down with stainless guides. And how much it slows down with titaniums. Is there a difference that is measurable? Yes there is.

I go back to my first statements about this process. If you want to use it , do. You now have a cheap way of quantifying the effects of the weight you are adding to the blank. You now have a method to determine if premium priced blanks really offer an advantage in sensitivity. But if you don't care, or if you don't want to use it, don't. It really depends on whether you believe that sensitivity is proportional to stiffness to weight ratio, to true natural frequency.

Overall, I am very pleased with the number of replies, contributions, suggestions, in depth analysis, and even opinions (lol) afforded by so many of you regarding “Blank Harmonics”. My initial quest was to discover what a “trained ear” hears and what the emitted “tone / pitch” means when a blank or rod is “rung”. While it may be a pre-technology, old-school practice, I was (and still am) intrigued with its possible merits, just as many old “wive’s tales” have proven to be “right-on-the-money” = kinda like “seat-of-the-pants” knowledge vs “number-crunching-data”. Only a fool would discount either!
But, I must say that I am disappointed to have not received more detailed descriptions of the whole process of “rod ringing”; how to ring the blank, what to listen for, and what the tone signifies. It would be a shame to lose such a vintage process to modern technology (advancement?). Those few with a “trained ear” were obviously on to something long before there was sophisticated equipment to actually measure it!!! And the general consensus seems to indicate that there is a definite correlation between understanding that elusive “tone” and what is considered “sensitivity”. I SINCERELY HOPE THOSE WITH THAT SPECIAL “TRAINED EAR” WILL RECONSIDER ENLIGHTENING THE REST OF US!!!
That said, I would like to recognize and commend those amongst us who have taken it upon themselves to devote a considerable amount of their personal time, integlet, and devotion to produce “measuring” a blank or rod using modern technologies from which all to benefit:
Michael Danek for his TNF contribution; a simple yet profound method of measuring the True Natural Frequency of any blank or rod. It should be considered a huge advancement in determining the sensitivity (dare I say “feel”) of a blank.
Kent Griffin for taking on the challenge (yet to be performed) of measuring the “tone” of a blank. Apparently, my initial questions of a blank’s tone sparked something within Kent = I plead Urkle ignorance = “did I do that?”
Phil Ewaniki for threatening to “I can't wait to fire up my bank of oscilloscopes and test all my rods and rod blanks…” With his proven track record, I have to play “doubting Thomas” = “talk’s cheap, it takes money to buy whiskey”.
In closing, I certainly hope the “rod ringing” does not succumb to being a dying art. We have all suffered from too many craftsman forms of art being lost forever. What a shame it would be if “rod ringing” followed suit and was lost forever.

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

In my opinion, whole idea about measuring rod power (IP/ERN), action angle (AA), and frequency is strictly for comparison purposes. CCS IP and AA have been straight forward and easy measurements to make without the need for expensive equipment. These measurements have proven to be very popular and valuable to many when comparing different blanks to each other. Rod Frequency, on the other hand, was a measurement that required expensive equipment to measure precisely. CCS tried to come up with and easy method to measure rod frequency. However, this CCS method always seemed artificial and not very satisfying to me, so I never used it. It is also apparent that not very many other people use it. You never see people reporting rod frequency when they report IP and AA data. On the other hand, Mick Danek came up with a very easy method to accurately measure rod frequency using a free app that works on your cell phone, tablet, or laptop. These measurements aren’t artificial and are much more objective, and satisfying to me. For example, It allows one to confidently state the blank A has an IP = 600 gm, AA = 73 degrees, and a frequency = 525 cycles/minute. These, along with length and weight, are the physical attributes of that blank and allows this blank to be compared to others. Nothing more nothing less. It’s up to you to determine the blank attributes you want.
Norm

Michael, I am not minimizing nor am I poo pooing what you're doing, or what Kent is planning on doing. Quite the contrary. I applaud what you're doing and believe that it will be useful information. And while I don't think it will necessarily transfer to use on the water in all cases. It will answer one of the most frequently asked questions I see on rod building related forums. And that is, which blank is more sensitive?

Mark, I am not a veteran blank ringer. I just haven't been at it long enough, nor have I used that many different blanks to be considered such. But my experience with listening to the tone of a blank follows what Joe discussed in his post. The blanks that are more tinky sounding, FEEL the most sensitive.

In order of tinkiness from what I can remember lol


#1) Pac Bay Quickline QLSJ782. It sounded like glass and felt very delicate in hand. Very thin walled with more taper than I have seen in any other blank I have built on. It has a 4.0 tip and a .590" butt and is only 78" long. The Quickline series of blanks haven't been available for I am guessing .... 5 years. Very sensitive blank. and very close to being as sensitive as the next blanks in line.

#2) This one is a toss up between the NFC SJ 736 X ray blanks I have built on, and the Rainshadow RX10 ETEC72M Eternity blank I have built on. As far as how they feel sensitivity wise. I honestly can't tell. The SJ 736's are higher powered and more stiff than the RX 10 blank I built on. The testing being discussed here would or should, based on stiffness to weight ratio, show that the 736 blank is more sensitive. If it is, I certainly can't tell, But they sound the same in the tink test. Oh and I have built on one of RX9 Eternity 2 blanks. It sounded about the same as the X ray and RX 10 blanks.

#3) Would be the Rainshadow Immortal blanks I have built on. They have that tink, but it's not as high pitched as the other blanks mentioned.

#4) Would be the NFC IM blanks I have built on. I have built on them more than any other blank. I have documented hearing loss, but they seem to have a slightly lower tone than the Immortal blanks I have built on, in similar powered blanks. They aren't as tinky.


Anyhow.... I have built on other blanks, but they were prior to my building on the Quickline blanks. When I heard the sound those made, I started to tink every blank I've built on since then.

Wouldn’t be nice to have an objective number rather than a subjective tinky sound. The number you can pass on to others, the tinky sound you can’t.
I have some frequency numbers I recently measured on several blanks I had on hand, They include some NFC blanks and some Point Blanks, plus a few others. I have to check to see where I recorded the data. However, the Point Blanks had a higher frequency than the NFC X-ray blanks. Don’t know what this means, but the numbers don’t lie. When Micheal Danek and I compared our frequency numbers for the same blank models we were very close. This indicated that his frequency measuring method was quite reproducible.
Norm

David, I agree on Quickline, and wonder if their early demise was due to fragility. They were too good to go away as fast as they did. I had a Quickline fly rod that I broke and was surprised that what I did to it broke it. Very nice fly rod.

The app I mentioned in a previous post quickly identifies the ringing frequency that occurs when lightly dropping a blank onto a concrete floor. If you think that you want to know what frequencies you are dealing with, email me and I'll identify the app.

I think one of the advantages of TNF is that it can be used on completed rods while the ringing cannot if the rod has something over the end of the blank butt as every rod I build has. I finish the grips before wrapping. It can show how much the system slows with adding guides/wraps/tiptops.

You write: "It will answer one of the most frequently asked questions I see on rod building related forums. And that is, which blank is more sensitive?" It will if you believe sensitivity is proportional to natural frequency. And/or ringing frequency.

My work so far has shown that we are in fact getting value by paying for high modulus blanks and lighter guides/tiiptops/wraps. How much? Since there is no objective test for sensitivity it's a matter of personal judgment/opinion.

So far my Harmonics Determinations are one blank is only 5.4% of an octave off, butt to tip, while anther is 28.5% of an octave off, but to tip. I can put the first blank right in tune by adding only twelve grains of weight to the tip-top, but I may have to shorten the butt section of the second blank to achieve the right vibrational harmonics. This won't make the rod cast any farther but it will make it extremely accurate!
Newcomers probably shouldn't worry about these advanced scientific measurements or the rod building techniques which deal with them.

Phil, your sarcasm is recognized. What is not recognized is your providing the objective sensitivity test you mentioned recently. We still await the test that does not exist, but you said it did. Fess up, we all know you don't have it.

Michael, I think your postulation concerning how quickly the Quickline series of blanks went away, is probably spot on. I built two rods on the blank I mentioned above, and like you, I broke one of them in a manner that completely surprised me, That rod had never been whacked on anything or mistreated in any way. I had also fished it for a couple of months before I broke it, so I doubt it was anything that happen to the blank prior to my owning it. It snapped like a dry twig.


Also, your TNF measurements are great in that as you pointed out, you can compare bare blank, to built rod and change guides and measure the difference between those. That is good stuff. as it gives a more accurate picture of what the end product will be.

I agree with you that we are getting value with high modulus blanks, and lighter guides. Especially the lighter guides. I have put Fuji T2 guides on several of my builds, and they definitely make a difference in at the very least, the balance of a rod and reel. I say at the very least, the balance, becauseI haven't fished two identical rods side by side with the only difference being guide frame material though.

What I have done though, is taken a set of the T2s off a rod, and replaced them with the same size guides, but with SS frames. The blank I built the rod on that I did this to, is an ETES610MXF RX9 Eternity 2 blank. The reason I changed the guides is because I was extremely disappointed I was in the power of the blank. I figured well, I can turn it into a pan fish rod, and I wasn't about to leave titanium guides on a rod I will rarely use.

Anyhow ... there is a marked difference in sensitivity in the rod from then to now. I chalk some of the difference up to it being such a light powered blank, as I don't think a higher powered blank would show such a marked difference.

I am interested if you have done any testing along that line? Does guide train weight affect TNF more on lighter powered blanks, than it does on higher powered blanks? It would seem logical to me that it does, but it would be nice to know, and could help those building on lighter powered blanks make a decision as to if the added cost is justified.

David, thank you for your comments.

I have not done enough testing to conclude that a lower powered blank is affected more by guide weight than a higher powered blank, but agree logically with your conclusion that it would be.

Michael: My test was a smashing success! I got all kinds of data on how my rod blanks vibrate without reel or line attached. Unfortunately, I can't share the results in CPS (cycles per second) because that would require numbers. And as soon as I put a line (which I use for fishing) through the guides on a blank the blank's harmonics change - a whole bunch - depending mostly on the line, not the blank.

Phil, you specifically stated that sensitivity can be measured, not vibration. I'm still wating for you to show us the test. You don't have to provide data, just show us the test. Which as you know, you cannot do because there is no objective senitivity test.

March 25, 2022, comment by Phil Ewanicki "Sensitivity can be measured, and. . . "

Not to worry about the line. This particular reel has no line.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/2022 10:13AM by Michael Danek.

Sensitivity* is a product of vibration.
Vibration CAN be measured in cycles per second [which Requires numbers]

Here is the test you asked for:

Zero vibrations = zero sensitivity.
little bitty vibrations = little sensitivity
- etc.

What answers to measurements of sensitivity without numbers look like:
Question: "Can you feel anything?"

Answers: "Nope."
" A little."
"More"
" A lot."

OR you could actually Measure the frequency and Amplitude of these vibrations (or whatever you wish to call them) with numbers. Scientists do such measurements all the time.

You can argue that sensitivity is a product of vibration, whatever you mean by "product." But sensitivity is not vibration and vibration is not sensitivity. I've postulated, based on opinions by many expert rod people and my own observations, that sensitivity is PROPORTIONAL TO NATURAL FREQUENCY, which is a form of vibration. PROPORTIONAL TO.

Vibration (TNF or ringing or any other natural frequency testing) is NOT a direct measurement of sensitivity. It is a measurement of the recovery rate of the blank, which is why it has units of cycles per unit time. If it were a direct measurement of sensitivity it would have units of sensitivity, of which there are none. But it would be a specific unit FOR that characteristic of the system, like maybe a blank would have the sensitivity of 27 "fifs." (Felt in finger) THERE IS NO DIRECT OBJECTIVE TEST FOR SENSITIVITY.

What the heck do you think I've been telling you all this time? Now you are telling me, after trying to shoot holes in the TNF process for weeks, that it is a direct measure of sensitivity?

To directly answer your last statement, that is exactly what I've been doing and I presented the process in another string of posts. as you should know by now.

I'm checking out of this discussion to go outside and have a discussion with some of the more intelligent trees out there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/01/2022 04:19PM by Michael Danek.

Now Now Michael I know patients nor something doctors have.


Tight Wraps & Tighter Lines.

Bob,

New Bern, NC.

Michael: You flat-out claim that sensitivity to vibration can't be tested or quantified. I assure you I can feel different amplitudes and frequencies of vibration. I assure you that the amplitude and frequency of vibrations generated by earthquakes can be noticed and measured. I assure you that the amplitude and frequency of vibrations generated by a bow on a violin can be heard and measured. A rod blank displays the same physical principles, and yes, the amplitude and frequency of vibration of a rod blank can easily be measured. BTW: Sensitivity is NOT nearly so proportional to "frequency" as it is proportional to volume. Good luck with the trees.

I am certain that Mr. Danekl will have a much more enjoyable and enlightening experience with the trees than the rest of will have dealing with Mr. Ewaniki.

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

Why do you guys continue to play with this character? We all know what happens when you put food out for the neighborhood strays. Eventually a skunk shows up and messes up the party

Of course if you want to stink the place up, keep putting the food out to where the skunk can get to it.

Or ...... you could do the entire neighborhood a favor, and put the food dish where the skunk can't get to it.

Eventually the skunk will go away.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2022 08:54AM by David Baylor.

I keep hoping. . . but I give up.