What are the emerging correlations from CCS and TNF testing you are noticing? Any close relationships emerging from the data? I am on the front end of CCS testing and have not done any The Natural Frequency (TNF) testing. I hope to go to the TNF level next, once I am on solid ground with CCS. Getting there.

A couple questions about your theories and/or analysis of the data collected:

1.) What is the relationship between AA and TNF? If little or no correlation between the two, what do you think may account for this?

2.) What is the relationship between AA and IP? I can imagine a High AA number and Low IP number, and vise versa. I can also imagine both numbers being low or both high. Taper design and material used play their parts is my guess. Just curious if you see any ratios popping up that make you go hmmmmm.

3.) Any reason why Dr. Hanneman chose 1/3 of the blank length as the basis for the IP standard deflection? Would measuring 1/2 the blank length deflection show anything different in terms of IP relativity? My guess is that taper and materials used play their parts again. For example, would one rod have a higher relative IP at 1/3 but lower relative IP at 1/2? Or vise versa? (This question jumps to mind when I watch videos of slow jig fishing - those rods can bend into an insane parabola (slow action - low AA?), yet are very powerful IP rods.

Leslie, my best shot at answering your questions:

I believe without extensive data that high AA's give the best chance of high TNF's. But, usually premium blanks will usually have higher TNF's at the same AA's as lower tech blanks. From my testing we do get higher TNF's with higher mod blanks. Worth it? Up to you to decide.

There is no relationship between AA and IP.

Hanneman, I believe, chose the test parameters based on his judgment on what would most likely give appropriate data. I think based on my experience he chose well. I cannot answer the detailed questions in # 3 with data, but expect that regardless of the stress fraction of length, higher IP's at one fraction would have higher fractions at another. Look at the detailed specs for Point Blanks for some data that I believe confirms my expectation. They used an RDA method, similar to CCS , and give data for both.

Regarding your comment on the insane parabolas, I think that most of the "insanity" comes from the video distortions made by wide angle cameras, like Go Pros. I don't think the rods are really that wild.

Leslie Cline Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What are the emerging correlations from CCS and
> TNF testing you are noticing? Any close
> relationships emerging from the data? I am on the
> front end of CCS testing and have not done any The
> Natural Frequency (TNF) testing. I hope to go to
> the TNF level next, once I am on solid ground with
> CCS. Getting there.
>
> A couple questions about your theories and/or
> analysis of the data collected:
>
> 1.) What is the relationship between AA and TNF?
> If little or no correlation between the two, what
> do you think may account for this?
>
> 2.) What is the relationship between AA and IP? I
> can imagine a High AA number and Low IP number,
> and vise versa. I can also imagine both numbers
> being low or both high. Taper design and material
> used play their parts is my guess. Just curious if
> you see any ratios popping up that make you go
> hmmmmm.
>
> 3.) Any reason why Dr. Hanneman chose 1/3 of the
> blank length as the basis for the IP standard
> deflection? Would measuring 1/2 the blank length
> deflection show anything different in terms of IP
> relativity? My guess is that taper and materials
> used play their parts again. For example, would
> one rod have a higher relative IP at 1/3 but lower
> relative IP at 1/2? Or vise versa? (This question
> jumps to mind when I watch videos of slow jig
> fishing - those rods can bend into an insane
> parabola (slow action - low AA?), yet are very
> powerful IP rods.


1. Two blanks with similar power, but one with a faster action than the other, will typically possess greater rod speed. Action (or taper) influences speed but it is not the only factor regarding rod speed (frequency).

2. Action and power are independent characteristics.

3. Dr. Hanneman tested dozens of rods from various manufacturers during his research. Plotting his results on a graph he found that optimum loading of the various rods seemed to converge on a deflection amount that was roughly equal to a distance equal to 1/3rd rod length. That standard is correct by his definition.

The "RDA" was a knock off taken from the CCS "Big Picture" article. The "RDA" has no standard regarding across the board measurements as the portion of the handle, which is going to vary from builder to builder and from rod to rod, is not included in the procedure (CCS uses a standard of 10% of blank length for forward support). Therefore, unless you are building a rod with the same handle length as the next guy, your RDA results will vary from his.

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

I am a fan of Dr. Hanneman's efforts to quantify the physical performance of rods. However, I was taught that speed depends upon mass, energy and resistance. Given the same amount of energy used in a cast of two different rods with the same weight, length, flexibility and line, science predicts they will cast the same distance. Science does predict that a rod that bends the least (which makes it effectively a longer rod) will result in greater rod tip speed - and a longer cast. Rod speed, not advertising or pricing, determines a rods' casting characteristics. Don't blame me - these are Isaac Newton's claims.

Rod speed is related to reaction and recovery time. "Science" has not taken into account that the rod casts a lure or line that remains attached to the reel while it is traveling to its destination. One of the ways that rod speed affects casting distance, has to do with how far and for how long a rod oscillates before returning to absolute straight. The human hand and arm, not being rigid, damp out some of this, but the initial oscillation (or two) after the release of the line or lure will create additional friction of the line through the guides which can decrease distance.

...........

Good points, Tom. Where can I find a credible source of rod oscillation rates - and oscillation duration?

You can't. So do it yourself.


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

Ditto Tom’s reply!!!

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

Thank you for the detailed answers, gentlemen! All you said makes sense.

Tom implied that action (taper) was only ONE factor in rod speed (frequency). What are the others? And do they all come down to some kind of weight-to-stiffness ratio?

Tom also said, "One of the ways that rod speed affects casting distance has to do with...oscilation..." (paraphrased) This makes sense, too. It also piqued my curiosity about the "other" factors that may affect casting distance.
If I were to guess, I'd chime in on:

* Rod (lever) length.
* Weight of cast object.
* Friction and resistance from line (size), guides (slap and taming), and environmental factors (wind).
* Reel characteristics such as spool diameter, spool friction, etc.
* Lastly, the caster's skill.

Did I miss anything?

This might make a decent New Topic on the board, too!

Les

Leslie Cline Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for the detailed answers, gentlemen! All
> you said makes sense.
>
> Tom implied that action (taper) was only ONE
> factor in rod speed (frequency). What are the
> others? And do they all come down to some kind of
> weight-to-stiffness ratio?
>
> Tom also said, "One of the ways that rod speed
> affects casting distance has to do
> with...oscilation..." (paraphrased) This makes
> sense, too. It also piqued my curiosity about the
> "other" factors that may affect casting distance.
> If I were to guess, I'd chime in on:
>
> * Rod (lever) length.
> * Weight of cast object.
> * Friction and resistance from line (size), guides
> (slap and taming), and environmental factors
> (wind).
> * Reel characteristics such as spool diameter,
> spool friction, etc.
> * Lastly, the caster's skill.
>
> Did I miss anything?
>
> This might make a decent New Topic on the board,
> too!
>
> Les



Many things influence rod speed. Weight. Weight distribution (taper) Length. Material (which parlays into weight).

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

Thanks, Tom!

Why don't rod blank makers or marketers reveal the oscillation rates of their rod blanks? Have they decided a blank's oscillation rates is not a valid indicator of a rod blank's casting performance? Are differences between oscillation rates of different blanks too small to be of any concern to buyers? Or have blank advertisers have concluded rod builders simply are not interested in oscillation data? Many anglers and rod builders are sophisticated enough to realize that "rod speed" does not refer to how fast the rod propels a fly, a lure, or a sinker - but how quickly the rod STOPS moving after the cast is released.

From the Glossary: Speed
Within the confines of rod building it is generally used to define the rate of response and/or recovery of a rod. Otherwise, velocity.

It's not worth the effort since most builders don't care, or don't understand, and some will argue with the makers' data. Since the makers are getting along quite nicely now, with no real demand, why expend the resources? Imagine the job it would be with the offerings of NFC.

I have been told that one maker had equipment to measure True Natural Frequency, but the observer didn't know whether the maker was currently using it. I think it would be valuable for a maker to compare different materials. And designs.

If you want to measure your own True Natural Frequency, (TNF) which is a good indicator of recovery speed, send me an e-mail. It is easy and quick and for most of us, costs nothing for equipment-we already have it.

Phil,
The “oscillation rates” you ignorantly boasted are precisely what TNF measures and affords = wake-up. Until then, leave the rest of us normal thinkers alone. Quit stirring-the-pot only to see what rises to the top!!!

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

Leslie Cline Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for the detailed answers,....
> ...
> * Lastly, the caster's skill.

I think that "caster's skill" is potentially the most important aspect of casting characteristics.
It controls all aspects of what "we think" we can build into a rod: Accuracy, distance and even sensitivity.

If true natural frequencies were advertised or communicated BEFORE a rod builder bought a blank they could be of use to a rod builder. If true natural frequency truly indicates a rod's performance - in feet and inches - rod builders would be foolish not to demand this information BEFORE they bought a blank or a rod. Rod marketers religiously ignore mention of TNF. Ever wonder why? Wake up.

Rod oscillation occurs while the rod is not under tension and bent, that is, after the line has been released - the cast has been made. Such oscillation of a slack string, even if it could exist, would have little impact measurable upon the lure or weight flying along at the end of a slack line.

Knowing the natural frequency of blank and then trying to predict the natural frequency of the final build is quite a stretch. With the infinite combinations of components, thread wraps and finishes, predicting the completed systems frequency IMO is virtually impossible.
Knowing the natural frequency of a blank may point you in the right direction but by no means guarantees positive results

With my experience so far with TNF I can pretty well predict how a blank will change with SS reduction guides, all SS guides, all titanium guides (Fuji KLH-KB/KT). Not exactly, but I know about what advantage there is to titanium guides and tiptops of the Fuji design with typical wraps and epoxy.

Blanks with the highest TNF's make rods with the highest TNF's all else equal. Sort of like ERN's that Tom mentions, you know an ERN 9 is more powerful than and ERN 8. A blank with a TNF of 450 will make a rod with a higher TNF than a 400 blank will. With the same guides.

The longest cast is released when the lure or bait reaches its peak forward speed - and consequently the rod is bent the farthest backward. The rod does not accelerate the cast after the line is released. The caster is the sole source of energy here, not the rod. The rod provides friction from the guide train as the line moves through it.