Pawel,

I wanted to add something from Emory Harry who wrote a very good article on rod sensitivity for the magazine some years ago. We disagreed on one thing and he was willing to try a practical test. Here was his reply which I published in the following issue:


"In my article on rod sensitivity I wrote “… sensitivity comes down to how much of the energy in the fish’s bite gets to the fisherman’s hand in the form of rod movement.” This is accurate but I overlooked one thing that the editor brought to my attention and which I should have considered before allowing the article to be published.

I focused on impedance and frequency in terms of such movement and failed to consider leverage on the rod from the fish or lure. Tom supplied me with a simple test that added a new twist to how we should look at sensitivity. From the fish’s end the rod is a second order lever and any resistance by the fish will be more strongly felt on a longer rod than a shorter rod. I apologize for the error."

Emory Harry

Tom,

thank you for your thoughts, I will try. So does vibrometer make sense to you ? As a device to measure sensitivity of the rod ? Or not ? Can we measure 'a pull or resistance' with a vibrometer ? I know that I am mixing discussion with you and Aleks but I think its might be good to have it all covered in one topic

Best regards,
Pavel

I think there are probably various ways, such as vibrometer, that can measure how quickly, how much, etc, imparted vibration gets from the rod tip to the fisherman's hand. The question is this - does the imparted vibration mimic that of a fish or lure in actual fishing situations? Perhaps it's not necessary that it does, on the other hand, it might be. So the best test would be to use the vibrometer to determine the most sensitive rod out of a set of similar rods and then see if the same results hold true in an on the water situation. The problem then becomes one of an on the water test requiring subjective conclusions from fishermen. There might be a more scientific way to go about any sort of on the water tests, but I suppose first things first.

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

I think it is absolutely Amazing that Aleks is willing to bring his vibrometer to the EXPO, along with some NFC blanks, and let people see the numbers for themselves!!! Bravo! Standing Ovation! Bring your vibrometer to the EXPO!!!

This further solidifies my already high confidence and trust in NFC (and Aleks) that they are willing to step up to all challengers and theories in this "marathon chase of that unicorn, sensitivity".

I hope that Michael Danek will be given some extra grace and time to run tests (and if Michael can't make it to the EXPO, his trusted proxies). This testing could prove him right or prove him wrong based on the objective numbers. Or, it will point to further refinement needed in his theory. Either way, I think we all win as rod-builders.

The very simple question at hand for me: Is there a correlation between a blanks TNF and NFC's vibrometer numbers? Leave out the word "Sensitivity" altogether!!! What do the raw numbers say?

Period. That's all for now.

Pawel asks some great questions, and is right to be confused about what features are PRIMARILY responsible for sensitivity? Could TNF and Vibrometer together give us additional hints?

Well done, Aleks and NFC!

Aleks Maslov Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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?


Thanks Aleks for the in depth response. Just preordered one of your new Steelhead blanks. ST 993-2 (X-RAY LMX) C602 to try out.

So close, yet so far. Indeed unfortunate.

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

In my opinion, the Vibrometer is a way of quantifying the old subjective sensitivity ‘hum’ or ‘Adam’s apple’ test. This subjective test has been around for a very long time. It takes two people to perform. One holds the butt end of the blank/rod and is the vibration Sensor, and the other is the vibration Generator. Basically, the blank/rod tip is placed against the throat of Generator at the V of the neck, who then hummmmmmmms. The Sensor then determines how well these vibrations can be felt. Try it, every blank/rod I’ve tried will transmit these hum vibrations quite well. This test has sold a lot of rods in the past. As Tom has previously pointed out this ‘Adam’s apple’ test works well even using a broom handle or a pvc pipe. Does this mean that almost all blanks/rods are sufficiently sensitive? Vibration transmission may very well be a way for measuring sensitivity, but there may be some other factors involved. I firmly believe that sensitivity is a multifaceted phenomenon, dependent on blank design, materials used, length, weight, line used, etc, etc.

The whole idea about Dr Hanneman’s CCS methods for measuring rod power (IP/ERN), action angle (AA), and rod frequency (CCF) was strictly for comparison purposes. CCS IP and AA are straight forward and easy measurements to make without the need for expensive equipment. These measurements have proven to be very popular and valuable to many when comparing different blanks to each other. Dr Hanneman believed that Rod Frequency (the frequency at which a blank will vibrate when set in motion) played a role in recovery and ‘Feel’, he NEVER mentioned sensitivity. He stated that most fishing rods had a natural frequency between 100 - 600 cpm, to fast for the human eye to count and thus required expensive equipment to measure. His simple and inexpensive method for measuring frequency was to add weight to the tip to slow down the frequency so it could be counted. He used this method to quantify frequency on a relative scale. However, this CCF method always seemed artificial and not very satisfying to me, so I never used it. It is also apparent that not very many other people used it. Micheal Danek’s method, using a frequency counter app, quantifies rod frequency on an absolute scale. Some people have argued that rod frequency may play a role in sensitivity. It may or may not, I don’t know. I have been very consistent in stating that natural frequency measurements are not measurements of sensitivity, but rather just frequency, nothing more nothing less. Rod frequency along with CCS IP/ERN, CCS AA, length and weight, are all measurable characteristics of a blank and allows the blank to be compared to others. Nothing more nothing less. It’s up to you to determine the blank attributes you want.
Norm

Yes, Norman, TNF may or may not play a role in sensitivity. Logic would say it does since premium blanks test higher than low mod blanks. And what is the reason for premium blanks? Recovery speed and sensitivity. Maybe durability, but I doubt it. I have stated all along that without a "sensitivometer," we don't know.

But now we know that NFC has the "sensitivometer" and the resources to use it.

Which brings us back to the simple question: Will NFC conduct the reasonably small number of tests necessary to confirm or reject Alek's challenge of TNF as an objective indicator of sensitivity?

I have no problem whatsoever how the tests turn out. We will learn either way. And speaking of learning, the threads I have started on sensitivity, TNF, and Alek's challenge have clearly resulted in an expansion of knowledge on blank design, manufacture, and performance. And that is good.

This should ALL be considered a collaboration rather than a confirmation or contest let alone a conflict. OPENLY conducted and accepted, the findings could rival that of the milestone introduction of CF to the entire rod building world, from manufacturer to end user! Again, so close yet so far. What a shame and waste it will be to let it all knowingly sift through our fingers to no avail. The time has not only come, with modern available technology, it is well overdue!!!

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

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TNF may or may not play a role in
> sensitivity. Logic would say it does since
> premium blanks test higher than low mod blanks.
> And what is the reason for premium blanks?
> Recovery speed and sensitivity….

I just see this as a observed relationship that can be explained by factors not necessarily related to sensitivity in actual fishing situations. The logical linkage between a cause (TNF related factor) and an effect (sensitivity to the angler) isn’t inherent to me in this statement. Premium blanks feature many elements intentionally used for sensitivity. They may positively or inversely correlate to high TNF. Decreasing resin should increase TNF. Increasing the diameter of a blank while maintaining its mass should lower its TNF. A cross woven blank should vibrate slower and less than one with only longitudinal fibers. Tone woods, such as the more desirable spruces, have long and straight grain. The American sycamore has very interlocked grain and luthiers don’t build many guitar backs out of it, especially ones where projection is a key objective.

While all objects have a natural frequency, creating sinusoidal oscillations that will travel the distance of several feet requires energy inputs with appropriate force over appropriate impact times. Too little of an inertial force (what the resistance of the fishing line would impart) won’t create a dynamic balance with the object’s restorative force (the elasticity or ability of the object to return to it’s equilibrium position). The equal and opposite reaction of these two forces creates the oscillation until friction or another force brings the inertial force to below that of the restorative force. Too long of an impact time can completely dampen the oscillation, Having the impact occur over a surface distance that exceeds wave cycle length could also dampen the oscillation. The length of the rod tip tube could theoretically be of interest here (I don’t really know the wavelength of various blanks). Every guide wrap is also going to act as a “snubber” on the inertial force. Thread art in front of the reel set, hmm…



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2023 01:57AM by Kendall Cikanek.

>>"I just see this as a observed relationship that can be explained by factors not necessarily related to sensitivity in actual fishing situations."

Yes. "can be. . ." might be. might not be. By the way , TNF shows a definite difference between titanium and SS micro runners. It can guide one in his decisions on what he is adding to the blank to complete the rod.

Which brings us back to the simple question: Will NFC conduct the reasonably small number of tests necessary to confirm or reject Alek's challenge of TNF as an objective indicator of sensitivity?

Kendall Cikanek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Michael Danek Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > TNF may or may not play a role in
> > sensitivity. Logic would say it does since
> > premium blanks test higher than low mod blanks.
>
> > And what is the reason for premium blanks?
> > Recovery speed and sensitivity….
>
> I just see this as a observed relationship that
> can be explained by factors not necessarily
> related to sensitivity in actual fishing
> situations. The logical linkage between a cause
> (TNF related factor) and an effect (sensitivity to
> the angler) isn’t inherent to me in this
> statement. Premium blanks feature many elements
> intentionally used for sensitivity. They may
> positively or inversely correlate to high TNF.
> Decreasing resin should increase TNF. Increasing
> the diameter of a blank while maintaining its mass
> should lower its TNF. A cross woven blank should
> vibrate slower and less than one with only
> longitudinal fibers. Tone woods, such as the more
> desirable spruces, have long and straight grain.
> The American sycamore has very interlocked grain
> and luthiers don’t build many guitar backs out
> of it, especially ones where projection is a key
> objective.
>
> While all objects have a natural frequency,
> creating sinusoidal oscillations that will travel
> the distance of several feet requires energy
> inputs with appropriate force over appropriate
> impact times. Too little of an inertial force
> (what the resistance of the fishing line would
> impart) won’t create a dynamic balance with the
> object’s restorative force (the elasticity or
> ability of the object to return to it’s
> equilibrium position). The equal and opposite
> reaction of these two forces creates the
> oscillation until friction or another force brings
> the inertial force to below that of the
> restorative force. Too long of an impact time can
> completely dampen the oscillation, Having the
> impact occur over a surface distance that exceeds
> wave cycle length could also dampen the
> oscillation. The length of the rod tip tube could
> theoretically be of interest here (I don’t
> really know the wavelength of various blanks).
> Every guide wrap is also going to act as a
> “snubber” on the inertial force. Thread art in
> front of the reel set, hmm…


I think the technical term you are looking for is simply "damped." Vibrations can be damped which would mean slow or reduced. Dampen or dampened would mean to make it wet.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2023 09:44AM by Mike Ballard.

I agree, but our overlord named Siri says otherwise.

Mike - you're dampening the vibes around here

Building rods in MA, Building the community around the world

I always learn so much from threads like this. The more I learn, the more I understand how "Dampened" behind the ears, and "Damped" in the brain, I am. (I wish I knew 1/100th of what Mike Ballard knows - that's 100% for sure!)

Historically speaking, did CCS (including CCF and "feel") generate interest and controversy when it came out back in the day? The word "sensitivity" seems to arouse so much passion...and perhaps rightly so. Is it asking too much to use Numbers to begin to define a vague concept of sensitivity? Are there downsides to testing and trying?

What I've learned from this thread (and others):

A.) Materials, mandrel, pattern and prepreg, taper, rolling pressure/density, action, length, diameter, etc. all play a part in a blank's physical properties and behavior. There are many variables.

B.)These properties/variables can be measured and quantified for comparative purposes in simple and complex ways from bags of pennies (CCS) to "vibrometers" and electronic sensors. Companies that make blanks are also testing and quantifying/measuring their products continuously. These are just numbers and not good, bad, or otherwise.

C.) Laws of physics, and the formulas for describing the physical world in numbers, apply to all blanks and their variables. (My deepest respect to all engineers in all fields of science.)

D.) Rod-Related words like Power, Action, and especially Sensitivity are subjective. Numbers are a more precise language for describing these attributes. Numbers allow for correlations between other numbers. (This is the common-man's CCS for me)

E.) What would make for a legit TNF test to establish number-correlations, or not, with the above variables and laws of physics in mind? Could a test control for one variable at a time? Basic Scientific Method?

Curious in Kansas City.

>>") Rod-Related words like Power, Action, and especially Sensitivity are subjective. "

No, power and action are clearly objective as measured by CCS. Sensitivity is subjective except for tests like TNF and the "vibrometer." But the vibrometer tests remain elusive

Which brings us back to : "Will NFC conduct the reasonably small number of tests necessary to confirm or reject Alek's challenge of TNF as an objective indicator of sensitivity?"

Sensitivity will always be subjective. ALWAYS. Why? Because it involves feel. You guys can test to your hearts content, and it will never replace feel when it comes to sensing a bite through a fishing rod. NEVER !!!!

Michael and David,

I agree with you both.

Michael - My emphasis is that the WORDS Power and Action (and Sensitivity) are subjective, not the NUMBERS that CCS yields. I was not clear enough about that. Numbers are a more precise language for describing physical properties, in my view - especially if one wants to show correlations or quantify differences between things. I agree that CCS shows objective and measurable numbers for comparative purposes. (Mohr's Scale of Hardness does a similar thing for rocks, minerals, and gems - all based on numbers. Dr. H was a gemologist, too.)

I am curious about the relationship between TNF numbers and Vibrometer numbers. Just the numbers. Leave out the WORD sensitivity for now.


David - I also agree with you about sensitivity being a subjective quality in the hand of the holder. I would be the last person to tell you what sensitivity means....especially because you catch too many fish to argue against!! I don't see this as a debate/discussion about Defining Sensitivity for Everyone. For me, it is about establishing a data base of numbers the rod-builder can use in making informed choices. Just like CCS is very helpful and useful, TNF can be also?

>> "
I am curious about the relationship between TNF numbers and Vibrometer numbers. Just the numbers. Leave out the WORD sensitivity for now."

Yup. It's about time to get 'R done.

Michael,

Which brings us back to : "Will NFC conduct the reasonably small number of tests necessary to confirm or reject Alek's challenge of TNF as an objective indicator of sensitivity?"

Prior to making this post, NFC has performed many, many tests that all reject the fact that TNF equates to sensitivity. (hundreds?) I do not know how I can be more blunt about that with my post. Blank recovery MIGHT have a correlation with the sensitivity of a blank, but to claim that a higher TNF(a measurement of recovery) equates to higher sensitivity is not true.

I have offered to bring a vibrometer to the expo, a number of different blanks and let people compare our TNF numbers and vibrometer readings to verify that the claim that a higher TNF equates to more sensitivity is not true. From the NFC side, not only have we have already confirmed it, but have also gone further (as to describe and measure vibrational sensitivity).

As mentioned many times before - the word sensitivity is not ever mentioned in the article describing TNF, and the best that I can see is that it was inferred due to the use of the word frequency in the article.

Here is what you will find :

Some blanks with a high TNF will have a high vibrometer reading
Some blanks with a low TNF will have a higher vibrometer reading than those with a high TNF.

The ratio is not 50/50, the ratio depends on the blank design and the materials used, which is the uber point that I am making: recovery does not equal sensitivity.

See you at the show?

Best,
Aleks


Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >>") Rod-Related words like Power, Action, and
> especially Sensitivity are subjective. "
>
> No, power and action are clearly objective as
> measured by CCS. Sensitivity is subjective except
> for tests like TNF and the "vibrometer." But the
> vibrometer tests remain elusive
>
> Which brings us back to : "Will NFC conduct the
> reasonably small number of tests necessary to
> confirm or reject Alek's challenge of TNF as an
> objective indicator of sensitivity?"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2023 04:12PM by Aleks Maslov.