@David I meant in regards to their testing process for measuring sensitivity.

I think they're as tricky as Shimano claiming the Poison Adrena has 140% increased sensitivity- how did Shimano measure it? 140% more sensitive than what? Just as bad as Tika in one sense - no real point of reference or specific comparison.

Shimano is most certainly selling rods based on that claim, because that's what people want. At least Tika has presented an experiment they conducted, but I'm not in blank manufacturing or an engineer- so I was asking for others thoughts on their "science" since it could very well be as hogwash as Shimano's.

Building rods in MA, Building the community around the world

Thank you, Aleks for commenting on sensitivity and TNF, clever pun in the title. I think a little refresher on this topic is in order. I developed TNF well over a year ago but didn't go public with it. I knew the “ruckus” it would cause, and as it turned out, I was right.

Before I went public I shared my process with a few of the more experienced rod builders on this forum and elsewhere. They confirmed that the process was consistent, easy to do, and we all correlated quite well. Additionally it correlated with a video process, as would be expected if it was consistent. Then before I went public about a year ago I started a thread titled “Sensitivity vs. resonant frequency of a blank/rod” and asked the question: “Defining sensitivity as the transmission of subtle bites to the hand, and resonant frequency as the frequency of free vibration after the tip is deflected and released (butt tightly secured, no weight attached to the tip) , is sensitivity proportional to resonant frequency?” In other words, the higher the resonant frequency the more sensitive a blank/rod is?” There were the usual nay-sayers, as expected, but the conclusion I made from the responses, and some from some pretty educated people in science and physics, was, yes. About 10 months ago I went public with the process offering instructions to any on this forum and another forum for those who were interested. A few responded.

As with the first thread, this second thread prompted a lot of discussion. So that is the history.

Aleks, regarding your comments on this thread:

>> “For the purpose of this discussion, I am defining "sensitivity" as the “measurement of vibration along a tube.” This sounds a lot like “transmission of subtle bites to the hand. . .” That is how I defined it originally. We agree on that.

>> “As a manufacturer that spends thousands of hours on R&D (and hundreds of thousands of dollars annually on R&D) It is difficult for us to stand by and read about TNF/CCF (True Natural Frequency or Common Cents Frequency) as it relates to the "vibrational sensitivity" of a blank.” I never used the term “vibrational frequency” and I never said that sensitivity and CCF were related. Obviously, they are not. CCF, with its added weight to the tip of the blank is clearly not a sensitivity measurement.

Thanks for confirming that NFC has spent so much time and money on R&D. It gives you and NFC credibility. One of my reasons for using the strategy I did for discussing and disclosing TNF was to try to drive the manufacturers out of the woodwork, to get them to stop “standing by,” to go beyond the “wine label” kind of descriptions and bring some objectivity to it. To go beyond the statements like “140% improvement in sensitivity.” You state that NFC clearly has the capability to do that.

>> “What you are measuring by going through the TNF/CCF process, is the recovery of a blank, but that TNF number has nothing to do with a blanks vibrational sensitivity. In fact, the author never mentions sensitivity, and the only thing that I can think of, is that is being imparted onto sensitivity because "frequency" is used.” Aleks, I repeat, I never stated that CCF was a sensitivity method. Not once. It clearly is not. And I mentioned sensitivity many times, including the original thread that asked the sensitivity question. I always stated that TNF was a direct measure of recovery speed, and stated that in my opinion sensitivity was proportional to it. And I repeatedly stated that without a “sensitivometer,” it could not be proven.

But now you state that as a result of all the money and time devoted to R&D in general, and the specific research into all the aspects of “vibrational sensitivity,” you do in fact have a “sensitivometer.” I commend you for your courage; so far you are the only manufacturer to admit that they have a “sensitivometer.” (I expect all the majors do) I can easily see this turning into a competitive advantage.

>> “For those that are using TNF as a measure of vibrational sensitivity - I am hoping to hear "Why." How do you arrive from a high TNF to "more vibrationally sensitive'?” To reiterate, I never used that term. The answer to the “why” is that for many years blank/rod experts have argued that sensitivity was somewhat proportional to stiffness-to -weight ratio, and the natural frequency of a “tube” is in fact proportional to its stiffness-to-weight ratio. Therefore, if one could measure TNF, and the higher priced premium blanks that he was buying had higher TNF's then he could gain confidence that his decisions were resulting in higher sensitivity rods. Same for lighter guides, whether titanium or simply smaller and lighter.

>> “A fishing rod blank is the combination of four things - the material (fiber) used, the pattern, the mandrel, and the process (what yields a denser laminate)” Yes, I totally agree.

So where do we go from here? I suggest that in your whole argument you have not proven with objective data that sensitivity, or “vibrational sensitivity,” if you prefer, is not proportional to TNF.”

With the tremendous expertise and resources that you have at your disposal, and the “sensitivometer,” it would be very easy to take a few blanks with different moduli (and resultant price) but the same CCF numbers and length and test them with both the “sensitivometer” and TNF to see if TNF correlates to the “sensitivometer.” l will gladly send instructions on how to measure TNF as I have been doing it.

If you find they do not correlate, then so be it. But TNF is still easy, cheap, and effective for measuring recovery speed and how it is affected by price, titanium vs SS guides, and other weights added during the build process. To me higher recovery speed rods fish better. And I believe, at least theoretically, they cast farther. And, to repeat, in my opinion, they have higher “vibrational sensitivity.”

If you find that TNF and the “sensitivometer” do correlate, then we builders have an easy, cheap, and effective tool for measuring “vibrational sensitivity” as well as recovery speed. And we can be confident that the prices we are paying for titanium guides and premium blanks are affecting sensitivity positively.

Before I get a bunch of objections to the term “sensitivometer,” It is defined as the ability to objectively measure “vibrational sensitivity.”

I can easily see the risks involved in finding the answer, but I think the time has come in the TNF discussion to objectively answer the question originally proposed. Especially considering your challenge to its credibility. You have convinced us that you can do it. So please do it.

It would be informative to see if there IS a correlation between TNF and TVF (Tube Vibrational Frequency) with data for both placed side-by-side. But how do you get the TVF data? It may be prohibitively expensive to run tests. This is where we rely on others for help. It appears to me that Aleks and Mick may be having different arguments that lead to the same conclusions. IMO, Mick has made a very solid argument for a correlation of TNF and that Briar Rabbit aka Sensitivity.

How many blanks would be needed to test for a convincing sample size to establish a 'reasonable' correlation? There are the Four Variables of A Blank that Aleks mentions which are important to include.

I'm sold on the science of it all. I get it. Show me the numbers. All else is poetry. No slam on poetry....its just not science. (Your surgeon is a great poet, sir. So, don't worry...ha.)
Beauty is in the EYE of the Beholder and Sensitivity in the HAND of the Holder. True as far as poetry goes.

I believe it would only take a dozen or so blanks to run the experiment to check correlation between the "sensitivometer" and TNF. All you need are a few blanks with low mod and a few with high mod that have the same or very similar CCS numbers and the exact same lengths. Should be a piece of cake.

It is APPARENTLY LOGICAL (please note the caps) that Aleks’ “TVF”, Michael’s “TNF” and Tom’s “thump / deviation” are interrelated concerning what an angler actually feels in his hand while fishing; afterall, they all induce some kind of harmonics / oscillations to the blank whether high-pitched or a thump. But then, a tuning fork seems to resonate louder at its tuned frequency than either side of that, up or down.
A low frequency thump would be difficult to precisely reproduce repeatedly, TVF involves a prohibitive "sensitivometer", while TNF utilizes rather common apps to accomplish its task. Other than actual test application, I believe that all are interrelated and that would be revealed with a controlled, simultaneous test of all three.
In conclusion, a sincere thanks to Aleks, Michael and Tom for their independent input on the subject. By joining forces, a long-standing, overdue issue could be resolved in which all sides could benefit and thrive. I’m here to learn.

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

"Thump Deviation" is not my term and misses the mark. Lures, bottom structure, fish, water tension, etc., don't "thump" anything.

.........



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2023 09:31PM by Tom Kirkman.

Kerry,

Thanks for the question -

It is actually backwards.

Pre-preg received from the manufacturer has a certain percentage of fiber and a certain percentage of resin (and in some cases, a certain percent of scrim)

If you are rolling under a low amount of pressure, you want the material to be an ample amount of resin so that it can properly coat the fibers, permeate through the layers so that you can have a good laminate with no "dry" fiber within it.

If you are rolling under a high amount of pressure, you can have a much lower resin content - a good example is 35% resin content (common) versus 28-29% resin content (very uncommon) if the 28-29% material is not processed under high pressure, the layers do not get a good "wet out" which causes dry spots, and when put under load - that's where the blank will break.

Less resin in pre-preg, that you can properly process into a denser laminate (through high pressure) reduces the overall weight of the blank.

Stated in a different way - if you take two patterns of material that make a blank, one at 35% resin content, and the other at 29% resin content and change absolutely nothing about the production process, but roll the 29% one under high pressure - you get the same result - a structurally sound blank (both will be sound) but one will be a lot lighter in weight, as the extra resin is unnecessary.

Best,
Aleks

Kerry Hansen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aleks Maslov Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Chris,
> >
> > It's a balancing act for sure - we roll our
> blanks
> > under 250 psi, the industry standard is about
> > 40psi. This means that we can do get a dense
> > enough laminate with less resin in the
> material.
> > Less resin means that you can put more of the
> > "good stuff" in the blank (more fiber for
> > strength, a scrim, etc.)
> >
> > I am not worried about someone trying to use
> the
> > information above...I wish them luck with the
> > learning curve, and our lawyers are pretty
> good.
> > It is more for the annoyance of someone saying
> > that they are using a "metallic" fiber in their
> > pre-preg, even though they are not...in case
> that
> > happens (and it will) you heard it here first
> :D
> >
> > Aleks
>
>
> Aleks, thank you for your discussion on your
> research. I guess it must be obvious to everyone
> else, but help me understand how rolling a blank
> under higher pressure gives you a rod with less
> resin when the Resin in the scrim is solid when
> rolled?

El,

My thoughts echo David's below, but to add even further, the published paper does not have a source of who did the testing (what lab, research center etc.) If you are proud of your results and they are truly incredible - make them available, describe the process, and open it to academic scrutiny (as done in the sensitivity patent by G. Hansen) This includes their claim that the rods cast 26% longer on average based on "internal data". The same comment goes towards Shimano and their claims around the Poison Adrena/140% more sensitive.

Look - I get it - most companies do not have the luxury of having a researcher on staff, or may even not know which subject matter expert to turn to. We at NFC certainly didn't - but I believe that it goes to the core of a companies DNA - one of our goals is to learn, the other is to teach, - which at times means taking a stand against technobabble and fake tech. Just like ICAST, there are industry tradeshows like SAMPE and CAMX, where most of the composite manufacturers are represented - which according to Gary is where he met George Hansen, also a fishermen, an inventor, a musician, and an entrepreneur. As mentioned in the very beginning, our companies teamed up on a number of projects (I even think that I missed an additional arrow shaft patent in there [patents.google.com]) which led to a Joint Venture called "Vapor Shaft". What followed was years or R&D, visiting composite industry tradeshows to talk antennas, making fishing rod blanks out of nickel fiber with various percentages of nickel in them, going to more tradeshows, breaking them, asking people to hold blanks with their eyes closed and putting their tips on textured walls, on speakers to first get a sense of which "felt" more sensitive. George took that further on the academic side, quantified that with data, a defined repeatable process, and got a patent granted as a result.

I am weary when someone makes claims like the above, without something that a factory can repeat, or even test our rods against.

Best,
Aleks

El Bolinger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ALEKS et all please share your thoughts on the
> link below.
>
> [trika.com]
>
> Link to testing process
>
> [cdn.shopify.com]
> iles/FULL_TEST_RESULTS.pdf?v=1670516398

Michael,

"So where do we go from here? I suggest that in your whole argument you have not proven with objective data that sensitivity, or “vibrational sensitivity,” if you prefer, is not proportional to TNF.”"

Actually, I believe that this is the exact point that I am trying to make and here is why.

1) There is a correlation between the modulus of the blank and the vibrational sensitivity of a blank, the higher the modulus the more sensitive the blank is (usually)
2) There is a correlation between the modulus of the blank and the stiffness of a blank, if a fiber is higher modulus it is stiffer than one that is lower modulus.
3) There is a correlation between the recovery/dampening of a blank and high modulus - the higher the modulus, the quicker the recovery (and yes, higher CCF)

Here is where we run into trouble. If you look just at the above, it is very easy to say, the higher the CCF/TNF/Recovery then ergo the blank is more sensitive.

That however is not true, and this part is important. Since we agree that a blank is a combination of material, mandrel, pattern, and process - we can give you the following:

By changing the mandrel to a multiple taper mandrel (which is becoming more common) we can use a standard modulus material that will have a higher recovery, and thus a higher TNF than a "high modulus" blank of similar power, action, ERN etc. (the blanks may even weigh very similar) but due to the design of the mandrel at the tip, and the resulting diameter of the blank at the tip, and change in diameter going down, the low modulus blank will recover quicker, but will undoubtedly be less sensitive than the blank made with the high modulus material.

The point is that "recovery" can be achieved by modulus, but also a combination of pattern and mandrel (whichever the designer/engineer decides to use - it could be a design constraint and a requirement of the customer to use a low modulus blank but to have a quick recovery based on the use case scenario, or a requirement of more durability, etc. on whether one or the other is chosen, and just because a blank recovers faster, does not mean that it is more sensitive.

On another note -

Yes, we have a vibrometer, I am willing to bring it to the custom rodbuilding show, along with high modulus blanks (ours / competitors, folks can bring their own) to illustrate what I am describing above, which is a complete disconnect between recovery (CCF) and sensitivity.

Best Regards,
Aleks

The one thing I make clear about the design and build of custom made surf blanks that I have ordered from CTS, ( CTS is the only manufacturer I know of that will build a blank to your specs, I have asked others to no avail) is I tell them that durability IS NOT a concern of mine and just build it for maximum performance with the carbons I specified . What terrifies me is manufacturers building blanks with maximum durability in mind , I avoid those like the plague lol.

Keep up the great work Aleks , really appreciate how open you're with the tech stuff . Don't forget about those higher tech surf blanks in lengths in the 10-11 foot range , with the new tech I think they will be big sellers . That new high tech 12' is just a little too long .

If i had known you would bring that device I would've told my wife I have a very important meeting with the very important machine I can't miss, after I got done explaining that it's not a meeting with the Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 AkA T-800 I would've convinced her it was still good for the future of humanity for me to attend this expo - I mean very important meeting. Then I coulda bought a plane ticket or rented an RV, it's only a 13 hour drive so I could really just drive all night, be there all day, then drive home hmm... How far of a drive is it from Boston to Woodland?

I appreciate the response @Aleks. I take it you don't think much of their testing process haha, seemed significantly less scientific and intricate than the one you conducted for sure. I respect and laud your work towards being a transparent company with scientifically backed products.

Building rods in MA, Building the community around the world

"I would've convinced her it was still good for the future of humanity for me to attend this expo, how far of a drive is it from Boston to Woodland"?



Ha ha ha ha ha ha , two to three hours tops from Boston to Woodland El .

@Chris awesome ????I think you're right, if I drive 1,055 MPH I can get there in about 3 hours. I just finished shoveling out the cars and drive way, I'm leaving now to account for bathroom breaks and snacks - I stop for food like bass gently lift my lure and stick it into a log just in time for my hook set - often!

Building rods in MA, Building the community around the world

>> "Here is where we run into trouble. If you look just at the above, it is very easy to say, the higher the CCF/TNF/Recovery then ergo the blank is more sensitive." Aleks, why do you keep bringing CCF, Common Sense Frequency into this. It has nothing to do with TNF, nothing to do with sensitivity, and very little if anything to do with recovery. Are you unfamiliar with the actual running of CCF, or is it just a matter of typos?

This thread, which started as a clear challenge to the validity of TNF as an objective measure of sensitivity has evolved into a tutorial on blank design and manufacture. And there has been a lot of text supporting the challenge. But the challenge has not been confirmed objectively.

Aleks, a simple question which needs a simple answer: Are you or are you not going to run the relatively small number of blanks on the vibrometer to objectively confirm or discredit your challenge to TNF as an objective sensitivity measure?

Dr. Hanneman never claimed the relative frequency measurement (CCF) had anything to do with sensitivity. It is a relative measure of rod speed/recovery or what Dr. Hanneman often called "feel" (not to be confused with sensitivity).


.........

Aleks Maslov Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Yes, we have a vibrometer, I am willing to bring
> it to the custom rodbuilding show, along with high
> modulus blanks (ours / competitors, folks can
> bring their own) to illustrate what I am
> describing above, which is a complete disconnect
> between recovery (CCF) and sensitivity.
>


Well, I think this is a great idea. I hope that many will take this opprtunity and bring their blanks for measurements. Maybe we will be able "once and for all" to find corelations not only between "sensitivity" and "recovery" but also other 'interim' properties of the blanks such us material, length, weigth and so on.

On a side note, I remember an interview with Garry when he - that was my impression - described a correlation between 'recovery' and 'performance' of the rod / blank. While the term 'performance' is probably lager than'sensitivity' nevertheless I find quite revolutionary to hear about 'complete disconnection' between sensitivity and revovery. This might be one of the most significant threads in the history of this board. I am very curious about the end results and comparison of the blanks measurements by 'sensitivometer' and 'TNF' devices. Since we already have some data regarding TNF of certain blank models, the easiest way would be to bring those blank models and measure their 'TVF' with sensitivometer(or vibrometer) during the show.
It would be also great to measure not only blanks but finished rods as well and try to establish is there a correlation about 'TVF', 'TNF' and weight for instance. Great opportunity.

Best regards,
Pavel



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/24/2023 11:08AM by Pawel Tymendorf.

@Aleks

While we're on the topic - from your research is there any measurable difference in sensitivity/performance between blanks that are sanded vs un-sanded?

Is there a measurable difference between bare blanks and blanks that have either been coated or painted?

As I search through the catacombs of this forum reading threads long forgotten, many of the topics are still alive and well creating this seemingly unforgiving divide among builders with differing opinions. Some things will always be a matter of preference, and should be able to be shared openly and discussed without the risk of feeling attacked for it afterward. I see many calls for data, I think this may be one opportunity to give scientific evidence supporting the claims from either side on this specific topic.

The remaining topic would be is it worth it or discernible to a human - which will likely still have differing camps that hopefully can disagree peacefully. Some people like chocolate ice cream and others vanilla, some like both. Still, others may prefer an ice cream that, regardless of its flavor, is the coldest - which is a measurable trait.

I like slow churned cold stone cookies and cream ice cream -@ALL what's your favorite?

Building rods in MA, Building the community around the world

also a question to Tom Kirkman:

Tom if I got you right, your opinion from another topic is that a fisherman actually do not feel 'vibration' and that we should not refer to sensitivity as an ability to transfer 'vibrations' - did I get you right ?

If so, what is your opinion about 'TVF' - does vibrotemeter make sense ? Do you think results of measurements with vibrometer can be used as an objective way to mesure sensitivity ?

Best regards,
Pavel

Pawel,

You would have to define "vibration." A pull or resistance on the end of your line does not become some sort of electrical or harmonic pulse that travels up your line, down the rod and to you hand. Rather, it's a movement or change in movement that you feel because it resists you. You may interpret it as a vibration, but that's not what it is.

Frequency and/or stiffness to weight ratio play more into rod speed and recovery than sensitivity, although they do play a role. Take two rods which are identical other than length. The shorter one is apt to have a higher frequency and certainly a higher stiffness to weight ratio. But the longer rod will be more sensitive.

As far as any of these test equipment pieces go, ask yourself how closely they duplicate what is actually taking place in a real world fishing situation. And if you really want to learn something about sensivity, get a fishing buddy and find a swimming pool and go at it. You will be amazed at what you can do with a passing lure that the fisherman will never feel. And also note that anything you can feel with the rod you can also see in the rod tip.

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

Aleks Maslov Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
but
> due to the design of the mandrel at the tip, and
> the resulting diameter of the blank at the tip,
> and change in diameter going down, the low modulus
> blank will recover quicker, but will undoubtedly
> be less sensitive than the blank made with the
> high modulus material.
>

Aleks,

in the first post of this thread, in pt. 3) of the findings you wrote that there is a direct correlation between the taper and the ability to transfer vibrations and - If I got you right - the bigger the tapper of the blank the better the transmission of the vibrations is. So, theortically, big tappered , thin walled, lower modulus blank can have the same (or better)sensitivity as higher modulus blank of slim design - or not ?

I am getting little bit confused here, which feature is primarily responsible for sensitivity ? In the first post you wrote that 'high modulus' meaterial do not guarant better sensitivity so why you later write that low modulus blank will 'undoubtedly' be less sensitive ?

Best regards,
Pavel