Phil, what does this latest comment have to do with the subject of the string?

Cline's post does not specify the types of rod blanks he is considering other than mentioning a jigging rod, whose TNF, IP, and AA would be of little interest to most jigging fishermen. I assumed his post referred to rods fishermen cast, including fly casters. I don't know the percentage of plug casters or bait fishermen who check the TNF, IP, or AA when they buy or build their fish rods, but I do know anglers are likely to be more interested in the line speed (AKA distance) a rod creates than in correlating TNF, IP, and AA.

Phil, in seventy years of fishing I have run across only two other people that built rods and one ran a fly shop. It,s not a dying craft. It,s aiready dead. They are the people that may be interested in those numbers but they are so few.

If rod builders are so few I wonder why NFC is offering hundreds of different blanks. Same for CRB. They cannot be all going into factory rods.

Regarding the numbers, those fishermen interested may be in the minority, but I sense the number is growing with the frustration of subjective specs being as many describe, "a crap shoot." I see CCS numbers discussed on this and other forums almost daily, so the number interested is certainly significant. Pretty soon NFC will have published numbers on all their blanks unless their initiative gets cancelled. They already publish a lot of numbers.

In my little world I've run across probably hundreds of different builders. And I've never been to the big rod building show. Tom, what is the usual attendance of that?

Hi Michael here is the 2017

Re: 2017 Expo
Posted by: Tom Kirkman (Moderator)
Date: February 20, 2017 08:48PM

We have to count the tickets but it will be around the usual 3000. Saturday is the big day, Sunday sees much less traffic but often greater sales. There were 678 two-day tickets sold. Still have to count the one-day tickets but they are always the majority by a wide margin.

There were 401 people at the RodMaker Reception.


Tight Wraps & Tighter Lines.

Not cheap, but this or a similar machine would give you the blank frequency in cpm with high accuracy. Or find a local clubmaker who owns one!

david taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> give you the blank frequency in cpm

Hertz.

Frequency can be given in any units one prefers, as in length (inches/feet/miles/mm/meters/etc) One usually chooses the one that makes the most sense for the dimension being specified. For example, it doesn't make much sense to specify the distance between two cities in millimeters.


If frequency is given in hertz, by definition it's cycles per second. But cycles per minute makes more sense for fishing rod blanks. In my opinion.

You're right we should use the correct scaling and that is hertz. It makes the most sense to me. And it is the common standard and nearly all electronic equipment made for measuring frequencies and controlling frequencies is all done in hertz only and this is how it should be in custom rod building in my ever so humble opinion. CPM should be done away with and just use hertz as everyone else in the world does.


The following image shows a standard common frequency counter. Please observe the inputs measure what? Hertz and MHZ and NOTHING else for frequency- but this model does have a time counter showing ms. CPM is not even a choice on professional frequency measuring electronics. Frequency measurements should be done in the standard common scaling of hertz.




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2022 07:50AM by Kent Griffith.

For a number such as 350 cpm we should use Hz as proper scaling? 350 / 60 = 5.83 Hz. I'll stick with cpm. 350. When one can choose between fractions and whole numbers, whole numbers makes the most sense to me. But to each his own.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For a number such as 350 cpm we should use Hz as
> proper scaling? 350 / 60 = 5.83 Hz. I'll stick
> with cpm. 350. When one can choose between
> fractions and whole numbers, whole numbers makes
> the most sense to me. But to each his own.

According to this method every rod made on the planet all fall within a 7 hertz range of 5 hertz to 11 hertz in the infrasonic range. Now fit every rod on the planet into that small window of about 7 hertz. This method puts all rods into close proximity at near zero values. CPM is used to move away from this to create the illusion of bigger numbers showing more distance of difference between rods. And the distance of difference would appear even greater if one were to use CPH,

I don't know about the rest of you, but when I tap my rods I can hear the rod's tone. it is audible. This can only mean the natural resonant frequency of a fishing rod blank is within the audible range of frequencies- not inaudible infrasonic range where this method winds up. Tip twanging is not measuring a rod's audible natural resonant frequency. it is measuring a rod's ability to rebound from being bent and released. That's it. And this is why those results are infrasonic and converted to CPM. And how exactly do you calibrate every tip twang to be the same on the same rod? And then how do you calibrate the one rod to all the others that also cannot be calibrated in any way, shape, or form. Tip twanging cannot be calibrated. This is an issue for me and should be for all since wrong results tell us the wrong information leading to the wrong decisions. We need the right information to be accurate and lead us to make the right decisions when buying rod blanks.

I would encourage custom rod builders to stick with the science and standards. Rod blanks should be measured in hertz only. And their audible frequencies should measured as well. Counting tip swings and inaudible results are less accurate than using electronic frequency counters. I don't know about you, but I would not want to buy a 5.83 rod when I can buy a 5.86 rod, but what if these results are not accurate and the 5.83 rod is actually a 5.9 rod and I just made the mistake of buying the wrong rod because the math is all over the place.

I have tried to explain the problem with infrasonic values so close to zero, but maybe a bad drawing will help me to illustrate the problem and reasoning behind the frequency conversion to CPM. So please forgive me for this fast drawing I did in my paint program where I have to use a mouse to control the drawing and it does not work well on a laptop.

But the image I have drawn does illustrate why there is a conversion to CPM happening. And I don't think it is because of decimal points. I do believe the reasoning is because of wanting to show a greater distance of difference between rods.

So on the following image I have placed 2 short lines very close to zero showing a narrow window of 5 to 11 hertz which ALL of the rods measured and posted here measured within. A small window of only 7 hertz. So if you upscale that small window to CPM, notice how the distance between lines is increasing? This is why the conversion to CPM in my opinion is because to cram all rods into values so close to zero they can trip all over each other and due to the lack of calibration in the method, and the results of it being all over the place, but close some say, there is no room for that kind of uncalibrated error in such a small window. Custom rod builders and their results could put rods in the wrong order. The conversion to CPM away from hertz is done on purpose to give the illusion of greater distance of differences between rods.

So on the left is the TNF values window that is expanded to the CPM scale range, and to take the distance of differences even further, I've added CPH to it to simply illustrate why this method is deceptive and inaccurate. But it is a method for measuring something that some might find useful. And there are those of us who think otherwise.



I just checked calibration for frequency counters and found out that frequency counters start to drop in accuracy below 100 hertz and the closer to zero they go, the more difficult it is for the instrument to read the signal in part due to necessary changes to the sample rate. Lower frequencies require a larger sample rate time to fit complete cycles inside the sample rate limits.

But if I were to use a frequency counter to measure a rod's natural audible resonant frequency or frequencies, they would appear within the audible range and so remain within the frequency counters more accurate readings range of less than 1% accuracy. And this is professional meters. Imagine how far off consumer models are and android cell phone apps? Even worse accuracy tolerances.

So from my perspective of measuring rod blank's real frequency or frequencies, it would not be infrasonic. Anything below 20 hertz can trip all over each other to the point of rendering such a small window of results combined with the lack of calibration really makes such a method just a shot in the dark at best. It would be of more value if every result can be verified by calibration. No calibration, then the results are automatically suspect. And this is where I am at with it.



"The greatest barrier to discovery is not ignorance, it's the illusion of knowledge" - Daniel J. Boorstin



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2022 12:27PM by Kent Griffith.

Well Kent, you are mistaken again. The TNF process (have you tried it, or are you just speculating (again) that it cannot tell significant differences in rod blanks?) is clearly capable of reliably measuring the TNF's of blanks/rods within their range of TNF values, from lesss than 300 cpm to about 600 cpm. (5 Hz to about 10 Hz if you prefer). Two other builders have shared their data with me and we consistently get very similar numbers for the same model blanks. Another builder has an optical process and his data also agree with mine. He has also done studies on the effects of adding guides and seats to the blank and again, the data agree.

What you apparently are arguing is that frequency counters are not appropriate for TNF. You might be right, but I am not using frequency counters. Then you appear to be assuming with no data and without trying the TNF process that I have been writing about that there is no process that can accurately differentiate between blanks/rods with cpm values between 300 and 600. Open your mind to the fact that accurately measuring time is a piece of cake for an Android device. TNF is simply a process of measuring time, the period of oscillation of the blank. Natural frequencies are very consistent and measuring them is simply measuring time. Whether they are within your audible range is immaterial. The blank is oscillating at its natural frequency and can be easily and accurately measured with the right equipment.

You're right, that's a bad drawing and it proves nothing relative to the ability to reliably measure and differentiate between the frequencies we are dealing with.

"Rod blanks should be measured in Hz only." This makes as much sense as saying that length should be measured only in inches. If you prefer Hz, then measure them in Hz. But measure them. Get some data.

The difference between 5 and 11 Hz is significant and easily and accurately measured (sorry to be so redundant). By your logic the difference between 50 miles per hour and 110 miles per hour is too little to be significant or accurately measured. And the difference between 500 Hz and 1100 Hz is too little to be siginficant or accurately measured. The higher is over twice the lower; clearly significant and easily measured.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well Kent, you are mistaken again.

Of course I am. I will never be right will I?


>The TNF
> process (have you tried it, or are you just
> speculating (again) that it cannot tell
> significant differences in rod blanks?) is clearly
> capable of reliably measuring the TNF's of
> blanks/rods within their range of TNF values, from
> lesss than 300 cpm to about 600 cpm. (5 Hz to
> about 10 Hz if you prefer). Two other builders
> have shared their data with me and we consistently
> get very similar numbers for the same model
> blanks. Another builder has an optical process
> and his data also agree with mine. He has also
> done studies on the effects of adding guides and
> seats to the blank and again, the data agree.

Your opinion of course.

I can show you a longer list of custom rod builders who say otherwise.


>
> What you apparently are arguing is that frequency
> counters are not appropriate for TNF.

Yep. Frequency counters actually measure frequency unlike tip swinging counting. That is measuring something else but called a rod's frequency when it can't be accurately measured because of lack of calibration. To each their own.


>You might
> be right, but I am not using frequency counters.

Yep, you use android phone apps I have read about. What is the accuracy tolerances of them and then combine that with the accuracy tolerances of the device and ask yourself if the microphone in the device is also calibrated to the scale. Without calibration the results are not of much value. Surely scientific minds can grasp this. Accuracy is a must especially with how close your results are leaves lots of room for errors. Is the rod a 5.83 or a 5.86? If you toss in the accumulated accuracy tolerances you might find that your results could put rods in the wrong order. And this would completely nullify the method and time spent on it, only to choose the wrong rod because of inaccurate results. Custom rod builders deserve to know this other side to that which you promote heavily around here.

> Then you appear to be assuming with no data and
> without trying the TNF process that I have been
> writing about that there is no process that can
> accurately differentiate between blanks/rods with
> cpm values between 300 and 600.

Say what? I used YOUR data! lol Your infrasonic data tells the story while audible sounds from the rods mysteriously appear to the ears that TNF knows nothing about.


>Open your mind to
> the fact that accurately measuring time is a piece
> of cake for an Android device.

Really? Since when is measuring time called TNF? Not the same thing.

I have asked for the accuracy tolerances of the app itself and then asked for the tolerances of accuracy the device has, and if the microphone has been calibrated to the output so we can all be sure of accuracy. But, we are not getting any tolerances because that would show that there is so much room for error here that rods can and will be misread and put into a list in the incorrect order all switched around and this is not something I would want any part of and I hope you can accept that.




> TNF is simply a
> process of measuring time, the period of
> oscillation of the blank.

yep. Gotcha. You just contradicted yourself and science itself. TNF stands for "true natural frequency". Time measurements and frequency measurements are two different things. I am not gonna let you get away this type of thing. TNF is NOT a measure of time. you are counting the number of tip swings in a given time frame which is also not calibrated in any way. To measure tip swings you have to find a time limit to the count so the results can be of use. And with all of these issues not calibrated they add up to a huge discrepancy where accuracy is concerned. So huge the results can put the rods into an incorrect order and completely mislead the rod builder. Is this what you want?

I am a lone voice of reason it would seem just trying to point out why us custom rod builders need to pay attention to the science and accuracy even if you don't. What you are doing is taking a time limited measurement of counting tip swings within a given time frame and calling that a frequency. Try doing this with a bell please. We can all hear its TNF. We can do the same with a rod. But counting tip swings cannot possibly be accurate without everything being calibrated. Close don't cut it when your values of 5.83 and 5.86 are so close they can move back and forth and if this happens then what is the value of all of this?

Custom rod builders deserve both sides of what you promote. Sorry if I give the side you don't agree with. I guess I was educated and trained differently and spent an entire career working with frequencies in sound and electronics communications systems and yet still I am always wrong and have no clue. Got it.I am OK being told I am always wrong by someone who can't prove their claims.



> Natural frequencies are
> very consistent and measuring them is simply
> measuring time.


Seriously? Not again! This is the second time you have misstated science incorrectly. Frequency is measured within a time frame, but frequency measuring and time measuring are not the same thing. You are wrong on this one and clearly do not understand the science or necessity of accuracy especially at the next to zero values you work with believing you are 100% correct with your opinion depending on an app's accuracy and some android cell phones accuracy and lack of calibration and together they all add up to NOT ACCURATE and with the closeness of your results being so close to zero there is almost imperceptible differences in those results so to expand them to CPM to make them appear larger is clear to as being deceptive. So this TNF method is based on uncalibrated inaccurate tip twanging and measured by consumer grade apps and cell phones, and you try and tell people who worked in engineering this is as good as it gets and best thing since sliced bread, and it isn't- and you know the truth of it should be discussed rather than hidden as I see it so I am voicing my opinion disagreeing with this tip twanging nonsense and that is just the way it goes.

Measuring frequency is not the same as measuring time.

This says all we need to know...



>Whether they are within your
> audible range is immaterial. The blank is
> oscillating at its natural frequency and can be
> easily and accurately measured with the right
> equipment.
>

If only you had the right equipment and could produce calibrated accurate scientific level quality of results you might have a point. Until then... I cannot accept your results or method and everyone should see both sides. Hopefully I can save some from getting lured into wasting time, effort and life on something that really has no value unless accurate which you cannot prove. You cannot prove every tip twang will be exactly the same. You cannot prove your app is accurate. You cannot prove the android phone is accurate. You can't prove that you start your clock on counting tip swings at precisely the same mark every time. Rods slow down. So you know when do you start your clock and is it precisely the same each and every time? Of course not, and you can't prove it is. Well I can't prove it isn't either, but physics leads one to the natural conclusion on this one.

You can tell me your opinion they are accurate, but opinions don't count in science. None of these are professional measuring devices and NASA would never accept this type of so called science. Men did not land on the moon with math all over the place. And I won't build rods based on inaccurate numbers either.


> You're right, that's a bad drawing and it proves
> nothing relative to the ability to reliably
> measure and differentiate between the frequencies
> we are dealing with.


You are right. It was not meant to prove that. It was meant to show the deceptive nature of changing the scale to fool custom rod builders into a mind trap. I provided the way out of the trap in words and images.

And again you contradict yourself.

You said

> nothing relative to the ability to reliably
> measure and differentiate between the frequencies
> we are dealing with.

Above you said you were measuring time and calling it frequency. Now we can't differentiate between frequencies because you said you were measuring time. Houston, we have a problem here! Notice on the professional frequency counter I posted an image of that shows time is measured separately and differently than frequency which is measured in hertz and time in ms. You keep combining the two as if they are one and the same which shows a lack of scientific understanding.


>
> "Rod blanks should be measured in Hz only." This
> makes as much sense as saying that length should
> be measured only in inches. If you prefer Hz,
> then measure them in Hz. But measure them. Get
> some data.

I did. Your data.


How odd you would say this!

I was trying to get you into the right scale but you want out of it.

Honestly, your TNF method is doing the measuring in inches and stretching it out to make it look like more space between rods when there isn't. I was the one who suggested changing scale to fit the results. I think your scale is the one that is off. Its ok to disagree right?

One has to ask why a person would be so hostile and resistant to agree to a simple scale change? Why is this? Why are CPM's so important I can only wonder?

To all custom rod builders, don't get caught in this useless trap! Think your way out of it by ignoring CPM's. Work in hertz which is the norm and standard across the country. The CPM results are designed to deceive and hide the truth of this method I am simply trying to reveal the other side so we can all make better decisions based on accurate factual information rather than junk science and consumer grade inaccurate measuring devices no real science laboratory would ever use. Do you want your list of rods to be out of order because of this method's lack of calibration and lack of accuracy proof?



>
> The difference between 5 and 11 Hz is significant
> and easily and accurately measured (sorry to be so
> redundant). By your logic the difference between
> 50 miles per hour and 110 miles per hour is too
> little to be significant or accurately measured.
> And the difference between 500 Hz and 1100 Hz is
> too little to be siginficant or accurately
> measured. The higher is over twice the lower;
> clearly significant and easily measured.


Whatever that was, not applicable. That is your interpretation of what I said to fit your own narrative. The image clearly demonstrates to all what you are doing.

If it will make you feel better I am AOK with being wrong.

Just wish you could prove it rather than opine.

So far, your own words demonstrate you cannot tell the difference between measuring time versus measuring frequency. You said it more than once. But if this is the science you believe in then all the best to you. We have nothing to discuss since your science and my science are quite different.



Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well Kent, you are mistaken again.

"The greatest barrier to discovery is not ignorance, it's the illusion of knowledge" - Daniel J. Boorstin



Edited 19 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2022 12:28PM by Kent Griffith.

I give up, Kent. You are right about everything.

How do these differences in Hz reveal themselves in a rod's performance numbers - say, distance, or accuracy? Got numbers?

Phil, ask Kent. He knows everything.

Nice



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2022 06:31PM by Kent Griffith.

No answer to the question "How do these differences in Hz reveal themselves in a rods distance or accuracy?" suggests differences in Hz are inconsequential to actual rod performance: distance and/or accuracy, or even hoop strength.

Well there is a way for us to "look" at it without empirical data of any value as of yet...

The higher the audible resonant frequency, the easier the rod blank can transmit vibrations from input at tip to output at handle. So higher frequencies are believed to make a rod more sensitive, but there are other factors involved such as size, density, shape, weight, construction, and materials, etc. which contribute to this.

Since we all know a rod is basically a spring when we cast it, softer rods or lower frequency rods would not have as much return to normal ability as a rod with a higher frequency being harder it takes more pressure to bend it depending on size, density, shape, weight, construction, and materials, etc, but when compared to a similar sized rod, the stiffer harder higher frequency rod should have greater strength for the return to normal spring effect which in theory could zing a lure out there a little better or further than the softer rod could with less return ability strength and speed.

The lower frequency rods should have less return strength when spring effect is released in cast, and the speed of return would be slower as well which would not cast as far as I see it than say a stiffer faster rod could since it should have greater return to normal strength (notice I am avoiding power) and a faster return speed which in theory should aid the cast better than softer rods. That's how this 'he who knows everything' sees it anyway. Wish I did! I'd be rich right now.

Who knows maybe this is what Dr. Hanneman was really aiming for with his method rather than what it has been turned into.



Edited 32 time(s). Last edit at 06/27/2022 08:31PM by Kent Griffith.

And Phil when I cast, I am using that unloading rod spring effect to NOT push the lure out there or push a rope as you say, but my rod tip is pulling the lure at a stronger, faster rate than softer rods, so yes rod construction can help casting to go further as we push deeper into the rod's spring loading and unloading effect. My rod tip is PULLING the lure until release so there is no pushing as I see it.

When I fish secret spots deep in the Florida jungle where few are willing to travel and I see areas of sunshine bass and black bass schooling up on baitfish all around me I put all rods down except for one... a 7'6" raw blank of super high speed and super stiff and extremely fast and I pair it up to a Shimano Stella, sustain, or a stradic and maybe 10lb all braid line with no leaders ever, and slap a rat'l trap on it and I can cast that sucker out of sight and across the river, so where ever those fish move to and I can't chase them down, my rat'l trap can get to them with that rod. If I use a shorter rod with less stiffness I can't cast half as far. So yes the construction of the rod is most definitely an important issue to unlock, but it won't happen unless we have competent engineers who know what they are doing and talking about.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 06/27/2022 09:14PM by Kent Griffith.