Mike: Where did you find the terms "static length" and "static weight" and what do they mean? Sounds like hogwash to me - sorta like the "soulful action" a rod company used to advertise. Rods, like cars, are bought because of their dynamic (moving) qualities - the exception being the rods and cars built for display, not fishing or transportation. You know the ones - rods with long, intricate, multi-color wrappings, often two to three layers thick - and rods with handles filled with lead for leverage - just like some cars have body lines created with lead and covered with chrome for static, not dynamic reasons. FYI: "static" refers to situations where movement is not involved - like the length of a rod. "Dynamic" involves situations where movement IS involved, like a cast. You don't have to take my word, ask around. You may be surprised how many people know this!

Please stop feeding the troll!
Norm

Ewaniki, make your email public

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mike: Where did you find the terms "static
> length" and "static weight" and what do they mean?
> Sounds like hogwash to me - sorta like the
> "soulful action" a rod company used to advertise.
> Rods, like cars, are bought because of their
> dynamic (moving) qualities - the exception being
> the rods and cars built for display, not fishing
> or transportation. You know the ones - rods with
> long, intricate, multi-color wrappings, often two
> to three layers thick - and rods with handles
> filled with lead for leverage - just like some
> cars have body lines created with lead and covered
> with chrome for static, not dynamic reasons. FYI:
> "static" refers to situations where movement is
> not involved - like the length of a rod. "Dynamic"
> involves situations where movement IS involved,
> like a cast. You don't have to take my word, ask
> around. You may be surprised how many people know
> this!

Good dodge Phil.... I ask again, tell me what measurements do you want measured and how you could do that "dynamically." Be specific --- what dynamic measurements do you want? Length, weight, action power, action? Which ones? You're as bad as the marketers you keep complaining about.

The vibration frequency of a rod, a dynamic quality, can be measured and expressed as a NUMBER* - and the vibration frequency absolutely does influence the feel and casting performance of a blank. The stiffness - aka modulus of elasticity - of a blank can be measured and quantifies IN NUMBERS* the "feel" of a blank - all before the buyer plunks down his $. That's as plain as I can make it. If you don't want or need this information then ignore it, and don't worry about the added cost of printing those two numbers . . . chalk it up to education.

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The vibration frequency of a rod, a dynamic
> quality, can be measured and expressed as a
> NUMBER* - and the vibration frequency absolutely
> does influence the feel and casting performance of
> a blank. The stiffness - aka modulus of elasticity
> - of a blank can be measured and quantifies IN
> NUMBERS* the "feel" of a blank - all before the
> buyer plunks down his $. That's as plain as I can
> make it. If you don't want or need this
> information then ignore it, and don't worry about
> the added cost of printing those two numbers . . .
> chalk it up to education.

And this is what the CCF does. You seem unaware of the measurement tools available to you.

.........

CCF does not measure vibration frequency of a blank/rod. It is very valuable in describing the most important attributes of a blank, but does not describe its natural frequency or its recovery speed.

To determine those attributes requires sophisticated/expensive equipment. . . or the TNF process that can give you those numbers utilizing equipment you probably already have.

But I have invited Phil to partake of the details of the process before, and he prefers to complain rather than learn. His loss.

CCF measures the relative frequency between blanks which is the important thing if you're wanting to make comparisons. Some find it hard to do and they can check with you for your process if they want an easier way. Obviously, that's not what Phil actually wants.

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

Agreed, Tom. I forgot about the CCF process, which I consider so difficult, cumbersome, and "contrived" with weight added to the blank that it's a non-starter in measuring dynamic properties. And yes, Phil doesn't want to do anything to satisfy his never-ending questions and demands.

Keep in mind that the CCF wasn't intended to measure "dynamic properties," only relative properties for means of comparison.

.........

I'm having a hard time understanding how "frequency" is not a "dynamic property." The word "dynamic" implies movement doesn't it? Please elaborate.

Mike: A dynamic measurement quantifies movement, whether referring to fishing rods or pogo sticks. Users of both implements are more interested in their dynamics in use than in measurements taken while they are at rest. How long has it been since you saw a rod blank described as having a "parabolic action"? They are still being sold, and with all kinds of different guides. Would you like one? Would you rather know how easily, how fast, and where a rod blank bends and straightens before you have received and paid for the blank, or would you rather pay up and hope for the best? Say, you don't suppose blank vendors shun dynamic facts about rod blanks because they actually don't vary appreciably, regardless of hype or price? Don't shoot the messenger. Disprove the message.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm having a hard time understanding how
> "frequency" is not a "dynamic property." The word
> "dynamic" implies movement doesn't it? Please
> elaborate.


I don't care if something is static or dynamic in terms of making comparisons of rod speed and adding weight to take the measurement doesn't change anything. If you had a number of items and you wanted to know which one was the heaviest of the lot, you could weigh them. And you could add a pound to each one of them and not change the outcome. The heaviest item would still be the heaviest and the lightest would still be the lightest. The CCF was intended for making comparisons in rod speed.

.......

Phil,

Please list the "dynamic measurements" you think manufacturers are failing to provide.

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2022 12:01PM by Tom Kirkman.

For starters, when rod blanks are bent and released in a cast they oscillate (dynamic measurement) at different frequencies and of different lengths of time. The deeper the oscillations and the longer they persist the more friction is created and the less efficient and shorter (dynamic measurement) the cast is. Every choice is a trade-off. The longer/deeper a blank oscillates the more friction the guide train creates with the line and the shorter the cast. If there is evidence (versus opinion) to the contrary I would be interested in examining it.

Phil Ewanicki Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For starters, when rod blanks are bent and
> released in a cast they oscillate (dynamic
> measurement) at different frequencies and of
> different lengths of time. The deeper the
> oscillations and the longer they persist the more
> friction is created and the less efficient and
> shorter (dynamic measurement) the cast is. Every
> choice is a trade-off. The longer/deeper a blank
> oscillates the more friction the guide train
> creates with the line and the shorter the cast. If
> there is evidence (versus opinion) to the contrary
> I would be interested in examining it.

So how do you propose that manufacturers measure this for you? I see a lot of gibberish here but no practical means of taking such a measurement. A good rod builder would arrive at the answer by considering the blank's length, power, action and frequency. Others, like yourself, are asking for a measurement that does not and cannot exist.

...........

I propose rod manufacturers use precisely the same means and terms - such as "frequency" - that are used in any enterprise which includes oscillations. Nobody would HAVE to pay attention to rod frequencies, but if you had a rod that "felt" good and you wanted a rod that felt and performed like that first rod - even if it was out of production - you could have a practical frame of reference. I reassure you a rod blank's frequency can be determined easily , and will provide more useful information than "medium" or "extra fast". Most anglers are bright enough to understand "cycles per second" as well as or better than "medium" or "a little faster than medium" [?!!].

" The CCF was intended for making comparisons in rod speed." If by speed you mean the velocity it attains when recovering from deflection, then it's dynamic, relating to movement. If you mean by speed the action description, defined objectively by AA then it's static. And CCF is not involved. It is unfortunate that way back when the terms "fast/slow," normally describers of velocity, were used to describe taper. I still don't see how you can not consider CCF, a number describing the velocity of recovery, as not being "dynamic."

Phil, I've offered a number of times to tell you how to measure "frequency" and you still just keep complaining. Rather than doing anything.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> " The CCF was intended for making comparisons in
> rod speed." If by speed you mean the velocity it
> attains when recovering from deflection, then it's
> dynamic, relating to movement. If you mean by
> speed the action description, defined objectively
> by AA then it's static. And CCF is not involved.
> It is unfortunate that way back when the terms
> "fast/slow," normally describers of velocity, were
> used to describe taper. I still don't see how you
> can not consider CCF, a number describing the
> velocity of recovery, as not being "dynamic."
>
> Phil, I've offered a number of times to tell you
> how to measure "frequency" and you still just keep
> complaining. Rather than doing anything.


Mike,

The distinction between static and dynamic wasn't my point. I was trying to point out that CCF isn't "resonant frequency" and was never intended to be. It was simply intended as a means of comparing rod speed (reaction and recovery) by relative means, from one rod or blank to another rod or blank. And that adding weight to the process does not change the relative nature of the results.

.......

Phil,

No, most anglers are NOT interested in "cycles per second" or anything of the sort. This is why the "species specific" rod labelings has been the most productive rod sales tool in the past 100 years. They just want to go fishing and they want to be able to obtain rod that somebody else (the manufacturer) assures them will do what they want to do without having to give it a second's thought.

.........

Thanks, Tom. I appreciate your prospective but do not agree that CCF is of much value. It depends on a weight added to the blank/rod which is dependent on ERN which itself is dependent on a value which is assigned and not measured. If the weight were dependent on IP then I would have less trouble with it. But my main point was not whether CCF was of any value, but was that CCF is a dynamic measurement. You seemed to be denying that it was a dynamic, movement-oriented attribute.

While most anglers are not interested in "cycles per second," the most curious anglers are. We are not the majority, but we are the most knowledgeable. I personally am not interested in being a part of the lowest common denominator. Phil's problem is not his curiosity; it's his lazyness in not being willing to do anything to satisfy his curiosity.

I should clarify my statement. While CCF is, in my opinion, of value in the case of fly rods where it was intended to simulate the feel/performance of the fly rod OUTFIT (rod/line), I don't think it has much value for our typical baitcasting and spinning rods. For them a much better and easier dynamic measurement is the True Natural Frequency, which can easily be measured with equipment most of us already have. TNF yields a true, accurate, pure measure of the recovery speed of a rod/blank and has the resolution to accurately evaluate the effects of adding components to the blank. Whether it measures sensitivity is certainly debatable. I think it does.

Here are a few excerpts from the CCF section of CCS: They clearly indicate that Dr. Hanneman considered frequency a dynamic attribute of the blank/rod which was directly related to the "feel" of the rod.

The introduction headline: "Dynamic Characterization of Fly Rods Frequency and More"


"Determining the frequency of a fly rod blank or a finished fly rod using very simple or inexpensive instruments has so far proven to be impossible. This is due to the high frequencies (100 to 600 cycles per minute) they exhibit. Also, while the characterization of bare blanks or rods can produce some interesting data, there is really very little one can do with them. This raised the question, “Could there be a more fruitful approach?”

"Any further characterization of fly rods, addressing what is commonly referred to as feel, requires the introduction of a dynamic test which reflects the properties of the fly rod in motion. The Common Cents Frequency (CCF) determination described in this paper is proposed to supply that dynamic test."

"For the sake of simplicity and ease, the weight of the fly line is simulated by the use of weight attached to the tip top of the rod. "