Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>...
> 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.
> ...

I have to agree with Phil.
I have a couple of different devices that can detect vibrations and the other can measure vibration.
The first one is just an 801S vibration detector running on an arduino board.
The second one is a ceramic piezoelectric sensor running on an arduino board.

Chris Catignani Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I have to agree with Phil.
> I have a couple of different devices that can
> detect vibrations and the other can measure
> vibration.
> The first one is just an 801S vibration detector
> running on an arduino board.
> The second one is a ceramic piezoelectric sensor
> running on an arduino board.

I agree with Phil as well. Sensitivity can be measured but not by tip twanging.

Your method using the arduino board is interesting, but I would like to ask some questions.

1)Which version? There are quite a few to choose from.
2)Can you do an input and output comparison?
3)How are you calibrating it and what frequencies are you using?
4)What is the frequency range of your piezo sensor?

(This is the same type I am starting with as well, but its frequency range is rated 100Hz to 17,000Hz, while the guitar coil pickups goes down lower than 100, it has an extremely limited upper range)

5)What are you using to create the vibration stimulus?
6)And is it also calibrated?

One of the issues I am dealing with is the frequency range curve is not flat. And so to find some sort of accurate input/output comparison I have to re-calibrate each frequency used by doing a peak to peak same as adjustment rather than an RMS averaged adjustment.

7)Can the adruino board do an input/output comparison? Or, will 2 boards be required for it?
8)What is the setup you are running it on presently?

According to the website I find this:

"Cross-platform - The Arduino Software (IDE) runs on Windows, Macintosh OSX, and Linux operating systems. Most microcontroller systems are limited to Windows."

Presently I am running open sourced software and modified linux operating systems of various types. So I will have to look into the compatibility of it with linux as I can't stand to use newer microsoft operating systems newer than 8.1. I want the computer to do as commanded, not have a computer with a mind of its own telling me what to do and when yet this is the direction microsoft is heading in and it is steadily getting worse.

I know lots of questions but this presents an interesting scenario since I was depending on the options available to an oscilloscope rather than using a computer for it. I wanted to use calibrated measuring devices rather than something not easily calibrated. I really want to get at what happens to a vibration signal from tip to butt because a rod blank's ability to transmit signals from the tip to the butt really can be measured, but certainly not by twanging the tips randomly and hoping for some consistency with a wider range of inaccuracy and no real way of calibrating such a method.

Another curiosity of mine is in the use of piezo transducers. I am honestly not a fan of them and have avoided them for my entire career in sound and audio. To me they produce little more than noise. And so I am concerned about signal accuracy as well as input loading impedance since they tend to be quite high as compared to coils which are quite low. So has this been an issue with the Arduino board at all? What is the recommended input devices and impedance?

Having computers do my work for me is nice, but I am not sure if I can get the type of calibration I am looking for going this route. Newer digital oscilloscopes really give me a lot more of what I am looking for at present and the ability to directly measure signals with known calibration. This Arduino board can be all over the place since it has no real point of reference when looking at various signals and so measurement is up to the software application? But it is interesting to consider and I appreciate you bringing this one to my attention.

------------------------------------------------------

[www.arduino.cc]

What is Arduino?

Arduino is an open-source electronics platform based on easy-to-use hardware and software. Arduino boards are able to read inputs - light on a sensor, a finger on a button, or a Twitter message - and turn it into an output - activating a motor, turning on an LED, publishing something online. You can tell your board what to do by sending a set of instructions to the microcontroller on the board. To do so you use the Arduino programming language (based on Wiring), and the Arduino Software (IDE), based on Processing.

Over the years Arduino has been the brain of thousands of projects, from everyday objects to complex scientific instruments. A worldwide community of makers - students, hobbyists, artists, programmers, and professionals - has gathered around this open-source platform, their contributions have added up to an incredible amount of accessible knowledge that can be of great help to novices and experts alike.

Arduino was born at the Ivrea Interaction Design Institute as an easy tool for fast prototyping, aimed at students without a background in electronics and programming. As soon as it reached a wider community, the Arduino board started changing to adapt to new needs and challenges, differentiating its offer from simple 8-bit boards to products for IoT applications, wearable, 3D printing, and embedded environments.

-----------------------------------------------

> I have to agree with Phil.
> I have a couple of different devices that can
> detect vibrations and the other can measure
> vibration.

Do tell as curious minds want to know! And a few more intelligent trees as well are now listening in...

Input and output comparisons? And how are measurements calibrated? Extremely curious on this one. Finally a great post leading somewhere with more questions than answers right now....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2022 10:27AM by Kent Griffith.

I just looked up your 801 vibration detector and found it is analog.

How is this used with a rod blank? And what is your source of vibration to be detected?

Kent Griffith Wrote:

I will try and answer you questions


> 1)Which version? There are quite a few to choose
> from.

It doesnt matter...its just a micro controller. You can get the same results with a $6 ESP32 or ESP8266 or a Raspberry Pi.
But to answer your question...Im using an Arduino Uno and Arduino Uno Wifi.
I like the Arduino boards because some of these devices tend to be a little worrisome to work with.
But you can certainly use an ESP32.


> 2)Can you do an input and output comparison?

Yes...With the 801S I have a LED wired up. If it feels a vibration it lights up.
You can also just pass results to the comm port...and you can certain wire up a display screen if you wont.

> 3)How are you calibrating it and what frequencies
> are you using?

So I have two devices...and your questions should address each.
I am not calibrating either one...I am by no means an electrical engineer. So some of what Im doing may not be par for the course.
I do know how to program and I know how to use IoT devices.
The 801S does have a screw that will allow you to change the sensitivity...I found it was not necessary.

> 4)What is the frequency range of your piezo
> sensor?

Im not really sure how to answer that. A peizo senor is actually produces an electrical charge thats measured.
To convert that to a signal...you would need the addition of a voltage controlled oscillators.
Again...out side on my knowledge base...somewhat.
But ...if you had this hooked up you can control the frequency and the range.

> 5)What are you using to create the vibration
> stimulus?
The vibration is created free swinging arm (Popsicle Stick-O-Matic 2000)...Another creation of mine....crude but effective.

> 6)And is it also calibrated?

Yes.

> 7)Can the adruino board do an input/output
> comparison? Or, will 2 boards be required for it?
You can run multiple sensors off one board. (A little confused with this question)

This is how the test(s) are run
The 801S.
The 801S is sitting on a table (stationary).
I use the machine to thump the materials.
If the LED lights up...the sensor felt it.
I will gradually move the testing material further and further away until it fails to light the LED.

The Piezo sensor.
Pretty much the same way as above except there is no LED.
The sensor will send back a wave of current strength as integers.

So...I am not 100% please with the results of the piezo and feel that there is more work to do to refine this.
And to be perfectly honest...all I wanted to do was test handle material

> 8)What is the setup you are running it on
> presently?

So...the program runs on the Arduino board.
You develop the app with Arduino IDE (which runs on Linux, Apple and Windows)
Then you compile the code and upload it to the board.

I have measured blank frequency using the free frequency counter app by Keuwlsoft, as previously posted by Micheal Danes. I have found it to be very reproducible, and quite easy to use. The amount of deflection you give to the tip of the blank doesn’t affect frequency, just amplitude. So a little bit of deflection will give the same frequency as a greater deflection. This is similar to a tuning fork, hit hard hit it soft you get the same frequency. It does show differences between blanks with different modulus, between different model numbers of the same manufacturer. You can tell the difference between the blank and the finished rod. It can tell the difference between the use of different guides, etc. Quite useful. It should be noted that this is not a measurement for sensitivity, but rather for frequency only. It should be used for comparison purposes as one of blanks physical properties. Just like length, weight, tip and butt diameters, CSS power, and CSS action. All objective numbers. Nothing subjective about them. I’m sure there are other methods for measuring frequency. It would be nice to see how the results of these other methods compare to the results obtained using the free frequency counter app. For comparison purposes, I listed the objective physical attributes of some blanks I recently measured. Hope we can make some comparisons using other other frequency measurement methods.

NFC MB736 X-ray- IP = 668g, AA = 71, freq = 489 cpm
NFC SJ736 X-ray - IP = 793, AA = 75, freq. = 500 cpm
NFC SJ703 X-ray - IP = 343, AA = 73, freq = 433 cpm
NFC SJ732 X-ray- IP = 422, AA = 78, freq = 445 cpm
NFC SB724 X-ray- IP = 463, AA = 74.5, freq = 480 cpm

PB691MXF - IP=541, AA=77, freq = 600 cpm
PB691MLXF- IP=512, AA=77, freq = 592 cpm
PB701MLF- IP=570, AA=77, freq = 616 cpm
PB731MLF- IP =599, AA=73, freq = 510 cpm
PB731MXF - IP=764, AA=82, freq = 610 cpm
PB731MHXF- IP=826, AA=79, freq = 600 cpm

MHX MB843 - IP=699, AA=74, freq = 444 cpm

Norm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2022 12:37PM by Norman Miller.

Chris Catignani Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> > 4)What is the frequency range of your piezo
> > sensor?
>
> Im not really sure how to answer that. A peizo
> senor is actually produces an electrical charge
> thats measured.
> To convert that to a signal...you would need the
> addition of a voltage controlled oscillators.
> Again...out side on my knowledge base...somewhat.
> But ...if you had this hooked up you can control
> the frequency and the range.
>

I am approaching it differently by using an audio piezo transducer mainly because they are so cheap, but the problem with them is their limited frequency range and especially the fact their response is anything but flat which will require some adjusting across the frequency spectrum used.

"Easy to use,just clip it to the position where vibration is more obvious on the instruments.
Built-in vibration sensor.
The clip is built-in vibration sensor which could make a response to vibrations,then transform them to electric signals and deliver them through cable to the tuner" or oscilloscope in this case.

I can dial in the input by adjusting each frequency used to measure a rod blank's ability to transmit vibrations from tip to butt, but now the output pickup with the same response curve as the input transducer will in some way have to also be calibrated possibly by way of oscilloscope identical settings and then see direct differences in a peak to peak mode so a usable pattern of resulting data can emerge.

I am sure the curve pattern of results will be similar, but dialing in precise calibration will take some effort.

It is really a simple process to measure the input to output ability of a rod blank, but dialing in calibration of input to output with limited pickup transducers is posing somewhat of a problem.

I really want to see the input versus output data to really get a better idea of how resonant pitch of a blank relates to its ability to transmit vibrations to the butt. Its going to take some time and experimenting for sure.

One thing I am anticipating more as a curiosity is that a rod blank will transmit vibrations from tip to butt most efficiently at or close to its resonant frequency, and the further away from it we go I suspect the rod blank's ability to transmit will diminish somewhat. Once this is a known, I'd be curious to compare what types of vibrations and frequencies are generated by line taps at the tip because if they are close to the dominant resonant frequency they should be more readily felt at the hand than those further from the dominant resonant frequency where the rod vibrates at its peak efficiency. Isn't this the direction we should want to go in to begin to put values on sensitivity measuring if it is possible at all beyond feel?


> > 5)What are you using to create the vibration
> > stimulus?
> The vibration is created free swinging arm
> (Popsicle Stick-O-Matic 2000)...Another creation
> of mine....crude but effective.
>

OK. Interesting.

Thanks Norm for those values, but without other data to compare them to how does one use those results? By feel? By saying a rod with a 616cpm feels more sensitive than a rod with 444cpm?

I want to measure a rod blank's dominant resonant frequency and then set that aside and begin measuring the same blank's ability to transmit vibrations from tip to butt across as wide of a frequency spectrum as is possible. Once I can see two sets of data side by side only then can I begin to really see better how a rod's dominant resonant frequency relates to its ability to transmit vibrations down rod's length. So that is what I am aiming for is two distinct data sets and then see what their relationship to each other is.

And I appreciate this observation you mentioned:

"The amount of deflection you give to the tip of the blank doesn’t affect frequency, just amplitude. So a little bit of deflection will give the same frequency as a greater deflection."

It confirmed the randomness of the tip twanging method and lack of calibration for it as a harder twang may take longer to settle down than a softer twang throwing off the results some of how long it takes to settle down, and I really want to compare the electronics measured results with this type of information and see how close they are, but also to compare it with the data compiled from the input/output comparisons of blanks. I believe this would give us all a better idea than endlessly discussing it without the data to back it up.

I wonder if Airrus would share their method of blank measuring they use for their research and development? Can't hurt to ask.


ADDED:

For what I am attempting I will only work in hertz not CPM. So either hertz will have to be converted to CPM or vice versus. I prefer hertz since that is what I am used to. Never worked with CPM for reference. "CPM is the number of cycles per 60 seconds (one minute); Hz is the number of cycles per one second. Solve this proportion to obtain: number of cycles in Hz = CPM / 60."



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2022 01:27PM by Kent Griffith.

Everything is looking like this:
[drive.google.com]

Marksmen use numbers to measure the vibrations a particular cartridge creates in the barrel of their rifle and alter the cartridge to promote accuracy. Vibrations can be and are precisely measured by many people for any number of dynamic movements, including "Galloping Gertie" - the suspension bridge that measured, easily seen harmonic vibrations tore to pieces. Sensible rod builders accept the fact that there are "slow" vibrating rod blanks and "fast" vibrating rod blanks and all points between - and the speed differences can be measured, not just felt. Fish-pole physics are no different than any other branch of physical science, even if this fact offends some sensitivities.

Chris Catignani Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Everything is looking like this:
> [drive.google.com]
> DQ0MHPtCy8ToLHF4nH0VCA?usp=sharing

Chris, I think that device of yours deserves some explaining! Looks interesting though!

And Norm, I think it is time to point something out about those measurements you posted...

I did live sound engineering and recording for decades. Frequencies were my thing. And when I was a kid just getting into sound as a teenager over 40 years ago, back then we had to use our ears to listen to pitch and determine relative frequency, and then apply it to the systems. So over many long years I developed an ear for pitch. And as I have said above I worked strictly in hertz as all the equipment in audio also works in that reference.

That said, I made another claim on this forum that seems to have been ignored which I want to bring out now that you have posted some resulting data claims:

NFC MB736 X-ray- IP = 668g, AA = 71, freq = 489 cpm
NFC SJ736 X-ray - IP = 793, AA = 75, freq. = 500 cpm
NFC SJ703 X-ray - IP = 343, AA = 73, freq = 433 cpm
NFC SJ732 X-ray- IP = 422, AA = 78, freq = 445 cpm
NFC SB724 X-ray- IP = 463, AA = 74.5, freq = 480 cpm

PB691MXF - IP=541, AA=77, freq = 600 cpm
PB691MLXF- IP=512, AA=77, freq = 592 cpm
PB701MLF- IP=570, AA=77, freq = 616 cpm
PB731MLF- IP =599, AA=73, freq = 510 cpm
PB731MXF - IP=764, AA=82, freq = 610 cpm
PB731MHXF- IP=826, AA=79, freq = 600 cpm

MHX MB843 - IP=699, AA=74, freq = 444 cpm

And what I have said in the past is I highly doubt if a rod blank's dominant resonant pitch is one and the same as the TNF values. And so now you have given me something to work with.

When I tap a rod blank I can hear its pitch or tone. Some rods have a thud, but a couple of my rods actually have a high enough pitch to ring, almost like a bell or crystal glass sounds. But it is a definite tone and one I plan on measuring using electronics.

Now, let's take your results based on tip twanging method... and use the formula for converting CPM into hertz = Hz = CPM / 60.

So let's take just one value... the highest value shown above in your results...

616cpm divided by 60 = 10.26 hertz.

Now let's take the lowest resulting number above convert it: 433cpm divided by 60 = 7.21666 hertz.

So your frequency range for TNF is roughly 7.2 hertz to 10.26 hertz.

Do you see a problem with these values?

They are infrasonic results, or below the ability of the human ear to even hear, hence my claim that the sound I hear when tapping a rod blank can be heard and heard in frequency ranges well above infrasonic sound. A healthy young human ear can hear approximately 20Hz to 20kHz.

These types of infrasonic results deal more with construction referencing than materials referencing. A rod blank's dominant resonant pitch is a sound that can be heard in the standard audible frequency range and is NOT infrasonic. That result is purely referencing tip swings back and forth which distinctly different than the pitch of the materials making up the rod. I view it more or less as construction versus materials measuring and referencing which is why we are on two different pages with this discussion and finding no middle ground to meet in because there is none.

So this is another reason why I cannot objectively use such results. The claimed TNF of a rod blank based on random tip twanging cannot be the same thing as a rod blank's dominant resonant frequency. I hope now this will clear some of this up and why members of this forum remain divided on this method.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2022 07:19PM by Kent Griffith.

Hello Kent.

Is This more to your liking?

NFC MB736 X-ray- IP = 668g, AA = 71, freq = 489 cpm or 8.15Hz.
NFC SJ736 X-ray - IP = 793, AA = 75, freq. = 500 cpm or 8.333Hz.
NFC SJ703 X-ray - IP = 343, AA = 73, freq = 433 cpm or 7.21666Hz.
NFC SJ732 X-ray- IP = 422, AA = 78, freq = 445 cpm or 7.41666Hz.
NFC SB724 X-ray- IP = 463, AA = 74.5, freq = 480 cpm or 8Hz.

PB691MXF - IP=541, AA=77, freq = 600 cpm or 10Hz.
PB691MLXF- IP=512, AA=77, freq = 592 cpm or 9.8666Hz.
PB701MLF- IP=570, AA=77, freq = 616 cpm or 10.266Hz.
PB731MLF- IP =599, AA=73, freq = 510 cpm or 8.5Hz.
PB731MXF - IP=764, AA=82, freq = 610 cpm or 10.1666Hz.
PB731MHXF- IP=826, AA=79, freq = 600 cpm or 10Hz.

MHX MB843 - IP=699, AA=74, freq = 444 cpm or 7.4Hz.

Tight Wraps & Tighter Lines.

Bob,

New Bern, NC.

I did the frequency measurements on some blanks, and got very reproducible and objective results. They also compare very nicely with the measurements Mick Danek got on some of the same blanks I used. Now, we would like others to compare the results they get with their frequency measurement methods, to what we got. These are early steps in determining the role of frequency in blank performance, and as far as I know these are the first such frequency values ever to be posted on rodboard or possibly any other place. The frequency of a blank, in my opinion, is a measurable physical characteristic of a blank, and it changes when you add more weight to the blank, as one one would suspect. As I have mentioned several times before frequency is not a direct measurement of sensitively, it just a measurement of frequency only. The nice thing about using the frequency counter app. is nothing is attached to the blank, which would add additional weight and slow the frequency. You basically use the same set up as doing the other CSS analyses (IP andAA).You just twang the tip, let it strike the device screen, and have the app. measure the frequency. Very easy! Many have hypothesized that blank frequency may be related to sensitivity. If you believe that sensitivity is related to frequency, then yes a blank with a frequency of 616 cpm would theoretically be more sensitive than a blank with a frequency of 444 cpm. I supplied some frequency measurements, now let’s see what others come up with.
As a note, the frequency determinations were performed at least 10 times/blank and the data points were all very close. It is reasonable to think the harder you twang a blank the longer it takes to recover, but the frequency doesn’t change. Give us some comparative data please, and let’s see what we get. Opinions don’t work, but data does.
Norm

Robert A. Guist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello Kent.
>
> Is This more to your liking?
>
> NFC MB736 X-ray- IP = 668g, AA = 71, freq = 489
> cpm or 8.15Hz.
> NFC SJ736 X-ray - IP = 793, AA = 75, freq. = 500
> cpm or 8.333Hz.
> NFC SJ703 X-ray - IP = 343, AA = 73, freq = 433
> cpm or 7.21666Hz.
> NFC SJ732 X-ray- IP = 422, AA = 78, freq = 445 cpm
> or 7.41666Hz.
> NFC SB724 X-ray- IP = 463, AA = 74.5, freq = 480
> cpm or 8Hz.
>
> PB691MXF - IP=541, AA=77, freq = 600 cpm or 10Hz.
> PB691MLXF- IP=512, AA=77, freq = 592 cpm or
> 9.8666Hz.
> PB701MLF- IP=570, AA=77, freq = 616 cpm or
> 10.266Hz.
> PB731MLF- IP =599, AA=73, freq = 510 cpm or
> 8.5Hz.
> PB731MXF - IP=764, AA=82, freq = 610 cpm or
> 10.1666Hz.
> PB731MHXF- IP=826, AA=79, freq = 600 cpm or 10Hz.
>
> MHX MB843 - IP=699, AA=74, freq = 444 cpm or
> 7.4Hz.
>
> Tight Wraps & Tighter Lines.


Yes it is Robert, but look at the results. Can you hear any of those resulting hertz measurements? They are infrasonic and below the human ear's ability to even hear. Tap a rod and you hear something. Therefore, they are not the same results.

Not a single one of them crosses the threshold for human hearing. Not a one.

As the old saying goes... Houston, we have a problem.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Norman Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The frequency of a blank, in my opinion, is a
> measurable physical characteristic of a blank, and
> it changes when you add more weight to the blank,
> as one one would suspect.


There is a misconception surrounding this so called "frequency" of a blank.

As shown now there is a difference between counting tip swings which results in infrasonic results around 7 to 10 hertz only which CANNOT be the same as what a person will hear when tapping a rod.

So we are dealing with 2 results going under the same title of rod frequency. So let's break this down some...

I agree with you that when you add weight to a blank blank that it will slow the ability of the tip to swing as fast or as easily as it did when blank. And you consider this change a change in the rod's frequency.

So if your measurements are already at the 7 to 10 hertz range before adding weight and the weight slows it down even more now your results are dropping even closer to zero to below possibly 7 hertz.

All of this is inaudible to the human ear.

The sound I hear or the tone or pitch of a rod blank that I can physically hear has to be well above 20 hertz. If I can hear it, then it has to be within the range of 20Hz to 20kHz.

This means two concepts flying under the same title which is leading to a misconception over what a rod's "frequency" truly is. One can be heard, the other impossible to hear and can change with weight to an even lower value.

Let me switch over to a bell for my example on the second frequency situation...

When you tap a bell it will produce a specific unique tone or pitch you can hear. This tone can be measured. This tone or pitch of sound created cannot be changed until the physical structure of the bell itself is changed.

Other physical objects exhibit this same characteristic. A rock. A tuning fork. A steel pole.

Now add weight to the object. Take the bell. Add guides and thread wraps and epoxy to the outside of the bell. Do it to a rock. Paint it. Glue rubber on to the outside of it. Do anything you want to it to add weight to it.

Are you changing the object's natural resonant frequency?

The answer is no. No you are not because you are not changing the physical structure of the object itself. All you are doing is adding weight which merely mutes or dampens the objects ability to vibrate.

Have you ever watched a drummer hit a cymbal and then mute it with his hand? Same thing. His hand is not changing the physical properties of the object, he is merely muting it. And this is precisely the same thing happening to a bell when you add things to it. Paint a rock and its physical properties of natural resonant frequency is NOT changing.

A fishing rod is no different.

Please read what Michael posted in another thread:

[www.rodbuilding.org]

Here (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. "


The good doctor says some truth and includes the misconception as well:

1)"Every fishing rod blank possesses a unique intrinsic property known as it "natural frequency."

This is true.

2)"This is a measure of how fast it can recover from being flexed and is the net result of many undefinable things"

This statement is however misleading and only partially true.

Think about this.... tap a rod. What do you hear? A tone. A clear tone. Right? And then the good doctor goes on to say: "This is a measure of how fast it can recover from being flexed"

Um no. No it is not. We are talking about 2 different frequencies. One is a definable tone, and one is measured by tip twanging to measure how fast a rod blank can recover from being flexed. One rod blank frequency is set in stone, while the other is ever changing with the wind based on build or construction. And we need to separate these two ideas once and for all time.

The doctor goes on to say "is the net result of many undefinable things" which is also misleading because in physics the characteristics can be defined. He was merely trying to simplify his statement with his aim towards the first idea of rod blank frequency measuring by counting tip swings within a certain time frame to come up with his results which have now been shown to be inaudible and distinctly different from the tone or pitch that can be heard in high range of frequencies.

3)"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."

This statement is true.

And it is precisely the same thing I have said above about a bell or rock or tuning fork. Its resonant frequency is indeed fixed at birth and cannot be changed until the physical structural properties of the object are changed and the doctor even says so which is a mirror image of my own thinking on this subject.

And in his next sentence is where the doctor strays from this claim...

4)"On the other hand, anything and everything you normally add in converting that blank into a useful fishing tool will lower that value."

In 3 he said it was fixed at birth. In 4 he now says it can change. Which is it?

Its both because he and we are dealing with 2 distinctly different measurements of a rod's natural frequency. One is measured by counting tip swings in a given time frame and the other is measured by pitch of an audible tone.

And it is a given that a rod tip will indeed slow down when weighted down with guides, thread and epoxy. No doubt about it.

But, this will NOT change the second concept of measuring a rod blank's dominant natural resonant frequency which is indeed fixed at birth and cannot change until the physical structural properties are changed.

I hope I am explaining this correctly, but herein lies the problem this forum is having in trying to discuss this issue of rod blank natural frequency because we are not talking about the same thing or same measurement of rod blank frequency. One can change with added weight and one cannot change with added weight and can only be changed by structural change of the object, not by adding additional weight to it.

So for purposes of this forum, the ever changing rod blank frequency measurement process should keep its name of TNF which to me is misleading since natural means natural and changed unnaturally, but the other measurement by audible tone could be referred to as DNRF or dominant natural resonant frequency.


And for my part, with this issue laid to rest and finally divided up as it should be, there is an issue with the process of tip swing counting I'd like to mention...

Norman Miller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The
> amount of deflection you give to the tip of the
> blank doesn’t affect frequency, just amplitude.
> So a little bit of deflection will give the same
> frequency as a greater deflection."

At present I cannot challenge this claim. But I do want to prove or disprove it.

As a kid growing up I noticed the sound something like a comb or other would make when sprung same as what is being done with a rod tip. And I have noticed that as the swings of the object get smaller, that my ears have noticed a slight increase in pitch. A noticeable rise in pitch to rest.

When an object like a rod tip is sprung, it has long swings that progressively get shorter which means the physical time it takes for the swing full cycle to take place is reducing along with amplitude.

So what I would like to do is use a digital oscilloscope which can track the entire process from when sprung to rest and record it so I can go back and play the recording at precise intervals in time and repeat it long enough for the sample rates of frequency counters to measure it at each point in time.

But at present let me just say I have my doubts about the frequency remaining constant throughout the tip swinging process that is being measured to come up with a rod blank's ever changing TNF.

For one, tip twanging is not a precise calibrated method of stimulation. No two twangs will be precisely the same. And this will skew the results.

But this is something I plan on taking a look at with oscilloscopes.

------------------------------------

That said, another issue I have with this method of measuring a rod's frequency by counting tip swings in a given time frame can be skewed in another way.

How are you mounting the rod blank?

If you mount it at the butt end, how much of the blank is being muted by the mount? And if you shorten the rod length some by moving the mount ever closer to the tip how does this affect the tip swings? The good doctor says it will increase the frequency and he is right.

So once you mount the rod blank into some kind of fixed mount, no matter where it is located on the rod blank, it is indeed changing the blank's ability to vibrate and changing the results of the tip swinging method. Move the mount and the results will vary.

And yet we keep hearing how this method is measuring the true natural frequency yet it can be changed by various factors and is never the same. So is it really a true natural frequency? In my world I say no.

The only true natural frequency for me is the carved in stone, fixed at birth, dominant natural resonant tone pitch that I can hear with my own ears. Any measurement that can be changed by the addition of weights or changed by the placement of the mount is not a true natural frequency. It is anything but.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2022 07:46AM by Kent Griffith.

Hello Kent & Norman.

Just trying to learn here.

I have some questions;

1. does vibration of an object create sound?

2. as you move away from a vibrating object does the sound change?

3. could frequency change with distance away from the vibrating object?


Thanks guy's this is realy interesting.


Tight Wraps & Tighter Lines.

Bob,

New Bern, NC.

Robert A. Guist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello Kent & Norman.
>
> Just trying to learn here.
>
> I have some questions;
>
> 1. does vibration of an object create sound?
>

Yes it can if it is strong enough in amplitude, and physically large enough to move air like a speaker operates. And frequency of vibration also must be within the frequency range of human hearing ability.


> 2. as you move away from a vibrating object does
> the sound change?
>

It gets progressively weaker in amplitude and dissipates. There are formulas for it- on axis and off axis is usually enough to get an idea of it.


> 3. could frequency change with distance away from
> the vibrating object?
>

Frequency should not change but amplitude would. However in sound we dealt with the doppler effect of loud speakers that have a compression zone and decompression zone which can change the appearance of a sonic image same as a train passing by you. The sound the horn is making is consistent but how the ear perceives it based on speed in air changes perception of it while the source is consistently the same as it moves towards you and then passes you by the sound changes to your hearing, but the source remains the same. Sorry if I am not explaining it well in words, but generally whatever the source is once the sound wave is created it remains what it is, but amplitude dissipates over distance.

Compressing sound waves in air tends to push the wave lengths closer together increasing a change in perceived pitch differences, and when the sound source passes you by now the sound waves are being stretched out and lengthened which gives the opposite sonic appearance of pitch dropping when in reality it is merely your stationary perception of it because of the physics of sound waves moving through air.

Not a very good explanation as I am not great with words.

Chris and Kent, I’m quite fine with what you say, and what you are doing. There may be better ways to measure frequency, but please give us an easy and inexpensive way to determine frequency in a comparative fashion, and some objective data to go along with it. I did the measurements shown above, and the data I got is the data I got, you can’t argue with it. It may not be what you think it should be or how it should be measured, but my data is real for the way it was performed. Try the free frequency counter app method and compare it with yours and then get back to us. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not criticizing, I’m extremely happy to hear you are trying to measure blank frequency. The more input the better. I’m certainly not a sound engineer, or a physicist, however, before I retired as an Emeritus Professor of Microbiology and Immunology, I was a scientific researcher and teacher and have published numerous peer reviewed articles in many respected scientific journals, so I know how to do a very simple experiment. So please post your experiments and let us see the data. It would be of great help in moving forward. I have very poor hearing and wear hearing aids, so subjective ring tones mean nothing to me.
Norm

Nicely stated, Norman. All your posts. Better stated than I ever could.

Just to be clear. As Norman points out, TNF is not a sensitivity measurement. I stated that in my introduction of it. I never claimed that it was the only way of obtaining objective numbers that could be related to sensitivity. I do truly believe that the ringing of a blank when struck properly is relevant, as I told K. Griffith a couple weeks ago. It may be that with development it becomes a valuable tool in our continuing development of fishing rod knowledge.

I was pretty sure going into this discussion that it would get ugly. Therefore I was reluctant to present it, as I discussed with a few other builders. I was encouraged to present it.

I had opened a string of posts months before to generate opinions on whether or not a blank's sensitivity was believed to be proportional to its natural frequency. I had the TNF process pretty well developed at that time. I wanted to get the relevance discussion out of the way before presenting the process. The consensus was that yes, sensitivity is proportional to natural frequency. As many of the past icons of rod building had believed and stated.

So I presented a process which is possisble today due to the technology that was not freely available to the pioneers of objective rod evaluations, most notably Dr. William Hanneman. If I can be of help to others wishing to use it, feel free to contact me. My email address is open.

I will add that I also found a free app that will allow the ringing frequency to be easily determined and offered that in support of those working on ringing. Until then ringing was totally subjective. Now it can be objectively evaluated without buying anything more than a cell phone.

I look forward to the development of any process that can further our knowledge of fishing rod blanks which will allow us to be even more predicitve of the performance of finished rods before we ever start the builds. I will support that effort in any way I can.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2022 03:11PM by Michael Danek.

Oops, hit post too soon.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2022 03:09PM by Michael Danek.

Just some personal observations .... I personally would put more stock into the information Michael and Norman are speaking of as being helpful in blank selection, rather than the tone a blank emits when tapped. It seems to me that measuring tone, would be what started this thread in the first place, and that is simply out of curiosity, to see if coincided with peoples perception of sensitivity. Based on my experience with blank tapping and my perception of sensitivity of the various blanks I've tapped ..... the higher pitched blanks feel as if they transmit vibrations better than blanks with lower tones.

If TNF ends up being a measure of, or a component of the measure of sensitivity, then to my ear, the two coincide.

As far as TNF not converting to sound audible to the human ear goes .... would you expect it to? I'm not a scientist or a sound engineer, but I wouldn't expect it to. There are plenty of sounds, both natural and human generated, that are not audible to the human ear. Why MUST cpm convert to sound audible to the human ear, to be considered?

Kent, unless I read you wrong, and evidently I did ......I thought you were setting up to do vibration transmission tests on blanks, and looking for the amount of degradation in those vibrations from one end of a blank to the other? IMO, and I would hazard a guess, the opinion of the majority of other anglers, sensitivity is considered to be a blank's ability to transmit vibrations. It seems to me, testing vibration transmission could be the wedding ring slipped on the finger of TNF and blank tapping.

As for the numbers Norman provided, I find them quite useful, and more than a little depressing, Useful for the CCS numbers provided. He listed a blank that I have been considering for a build for some time. And the numbers are right for what I was hoping it to be. Depressing in that the sale on X ray blanks is no longer in effect. Now if I want said blank, I am going to have to wait until they run another sale.

I don't mean to minimize the cpm data he provided. I am sure the cpm numbers have meaning, but right now it is a developing hypothesis. One that I am interested in seeing where it goes.

From what I have seen in the relatively short time I have been reading other rod building related forums, and building rods, this kind of thinking is far from the norm. It really could be ground breaking, and IMO, just as useful in blank selection as CCS measurements can be for rod builders. The trick is going to be making it relatable to the non brainy people like me. No offense to Dr Hanneman, but ERN doesn't do me a lot of good, because I can't relate it to something I am familiar with. Now IP in grams, I can relate to.

Keep going guys, This is good stuff !!

David, regarding the cpm numbers, it all depends on whether you think sensitivity is proportioinal to TNF. If you don't , forget it. If you do, then it's simply that the higher the TNF cpm number, the more sensitive the blank is likely to be. On ERN, the more you use it, the more it will mean to you It is really quite logical, the higher the number, the more powerful the blank/rod. In time you will get to relate ERN to the descriptive terms used by different blank/rod makers (L, ML, M, MH, H) . I'm now pretty confident of the ERN of a St Croix M power spin blank.

David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just some personal observations .... I personally
> would put more stock into the information Michael
> and Norman are speaking of as being helpful in
> blank selection, rather than the tone a blank
> emits when tapped.

Really? Well this is something to get into then.


>It seems to me that measuring
> tone, would be what started this thread in the
> first place, and that is simply out of curiosity,
> to see if coincided with peoples perception of
> sensitivity. Based on my experience with blank
> tapping and my perception of sensitivity of the
> various blanks I've tapped ..... the higher
> pitched blanks feel as if they transmit vibrations
> better than blanks with lower tones.
>
> If TNF ends up being a measure of, or a component
> of the measure of sensitivity, then to my ear, the
> two coincide.
>

And that they do. That they do. Different points of reference aiming for the same conclusion.


> As far as TNF not converting to sound audible to
> the human ear goes .... would you expect it to?
> I'm not a scientist or a sound engineer, but I
> wouldn't expect it to.

Well if the measured frequency is below 20 hertz then no I would not expect it to be heard at all. But likewise if you can tap a rod blank and actually hear a tone emanate from it, then why would this be ignored so one can focus on a small range of frequencies at the extreme low end that you cannot hear? I have always correlated what I hear when tapping a blank to how sensitive it is. I have also considered the relationship between how fast a rod can settle down to how sensitive it can be. Rubbery rods are not as sensitive as stiffer rods. Rubbery rods absorb vibrations more while stiffer harder rods transmit those vibrations better as I see it.

Twanging a rod tip is quite obviously one method some like to use, but its not for me. I want to explore what a rod can do well above 7 to 10 hertz which I would not expect to hear these results, but for what I am aiming for I should be able to.


>There are plenty of sounds,
> both natural and human generated, that are not
> audible to the human ear. Why MUST cpm convert to
> sound audible to the human ear, to be considered?
>

All I can do is give you my perspective of it based on decades in the sound business.

So let me switch over to another analogy or two...

If you had a sound system to judge, would you consider judging it by listening to only extreme low frequencies and nothing else?

And how can frequencies so close to zero be a good end-all method of judging what is happening in the higher frequencies?

Another analogy would be airplanes. Using frequencies next to zero is akin to judging how airplanes fly based on how slow they roll around on the tarmac. Can you truly judge what an airplane can do when it is going so slow on the ground?

And likewise, how can we truly accurately judge fishing rods based on frequency values so close to zero -especially when you KNOW when you tap a rod and it makes a sound you can hear, then why would you use frequencies you KNOW you cannot hear to judge by while ignoring what you can hear?

The point is, if you want to get a better idea of what a rod blank is all about then you gotta expand your point of reference to a range of frequencies more in line with what we as humans can relate to. I am not saying to not keep and use the infrasonic results, only expand beyond them.

How can any member here ever develop an ear for determining pitch if the reference scale used is outside the range of human hearing? Its not going to happen. In fact, it is impossible. We should be open to judging with a wider range of reference from what is available.

I will admit there is a correlation between the results of this "process" that creates inaudible infrasonic results, and the distinctly different audible dominant natural resonant frequency of a rod blank. I think what I will find through calibrated measuring is that what I find in the higher frequency ranges will correlate to the results found at the infrasonic level, but will be more defined in the higher ranges and show a wider difference and greater distinction than can be determined from values as close as those infrasonic results are in the 3 to 4 hertz range. Honestly they are so close any difference or distinction between them is barely perceptible in those results.

I don't know if I am explaining this right off the cuff so to speak, but you know if you can tap a rod blank and hear its tone, then why in the world would anyone ignore it and instead use inaudible frequencies to judge by? To me it is akin to trying to judge a high powered sound system by only listening to the low frequencies it can produce while ignoring the mid's and hi's. More is available so why not go there?


>
> Kent, unless I read you wrong, and evidently I did
> ......I thought you were setting up to do
> vibration transmission tests on blanks, and
> looking for the amount of degradation in those
> vibrations from one end of a blank to the other?

No you did not read me wrong. By using calibrated measuring equipment I want to measure more than just what a blank can transmit. I want to measure a blank's dominant natural resonant frequency NOT to be confused with any infrasonic TNF results, and I want to observe a direct input to output comparison for level differences, and I am also interested in resolution transmission of the input signal known to be clean, and see how it is changed at the output. So it is not only level differences of vibration transmission, but also quality of signal transmission. What if one blank has an input to output signal that are virtually identical in shape, while another rod blank's output signal is distorted and misshaped that looks quite a bit different than the input signal? I am really curious about this as well.

A solid built rod blank should give a clean output, but if say for example I find a particular brand of rod blanks that is consistently producing a distorted wave shape on the output this could indicate loose material inside the rod blank that is adding in distortion from movement within the blank. Something like this could steer me away from a particular brand or steer me to a particular brand. It is just a what if at this point and just an idea to consider, but with a controlled input and good measuring equipment, it could find something like this if it exists. The math process that creates infrasonic results will never give data of this sort. Not possible.

Another thing the digital oscilloscopes can do is measure the time a blank requires to settle down far more accurately than tip twanging. And I can record it and play it back endlessly and show results on big flat screen TV's. Can't do that with infrasonic results on paper.

Another thing I have noticed visually when doing a hand held bounce test on rod blanks is that I can see two distinctly different vibrations going on at the same time. I can see the tip swinging back and forth and I can also see the entire rod blank vibrate in a much longer wave form all along the blank from end to end. So my hand held bounce test produces at least two distinctly different wave forms happening at the same time. These can be viewed and measured on an oscilloscope (I am hoping) and recorded if they are. I would suspect the longer wave form is probably going to be closer in frequency to the infrasonic TNF results. Extremely low frequency.

I also want to be able to graph or chart level differences of vibration transmission at different frequencies. I suspect the most efficient transmission will happen around the blank's dominant natural resonant frequency and taper off as I move away from it in either direction. But I will never know unless I can measure it and prove it or disprove it.

The point is electronics measuring devices can give me far more to look at and far more to measure than simply twanging a rod tip. And isn't that what some of us would like to see as data? So I can't stay in a mindset of judging from one set of values on the extreme bottom end of the scale.



> IMO, and I would hazard a guess, the opinion of
> the majority of other anglers, sensitivity is
> considered to be a blank's ability to transmit
> vibrations. It seems to me, testing vibration
> transmission could be the wedding ring slipped on
> the finger of TNF and blank tapping.
>

Could be. But I do predict there will be a direct correlation between higher frequencies and the infrasonic frequency results but it will be more pronounced and distinctly different in the higher frequencies than it is in a range of only 3 to 4 hertz as I have seen so far from about 7Hz to just over 10Hz. Where I am going with it could be hundreds of hertz differences.

>
> Keep going guys, This is good stuff !!

Yes it is. Gives a retired old fart like me something to do- and spend money on... my first goals to start off with would be...

1)measure a blank's dominant natural resonant frequency, one that can be heard in the audible range- the same as I have been listening to for decades when judging by ear.
2)measure a blank's ability to transmit vibrations from tip to butt at different frequencies and measure the level differences.
3)Observe input to output signal shape changes and try and determine what the differences are and why if any.

Later on the results of the above can be compared to the same blanks once built on to see how things have changed.

I truly believe electronics measuring can produce more data sets and more info than trying to judge based off an extremely low infrasonic frequency value measured from random tip swings. Just my perspective though...



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2022 11:14PM by Kent Griffith.