Pawel,

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 ?

Remember, that blanks have multiple tapers, for example, Gary's "mag" blanks have three tapers in a blank. A certain taper at the tip, a certain taper in the middle, and a certain taper at the butt. This was done early on in the days of intermediate and standard modulus carbon to affect specifically the recovery of these blanks.

A blank may have an aggressive taper in the tip - because the design criteria is to have that blank recover quickly - but it may have a very slight taper for the rest of the blank for a moderate action. In the case of the above, this blank will have a quick recovery, but a slim butt (lets call this example 1) (by the way, since the butt is slimmer, the blank will have a thicker wall - as there are more wraps of material around the mandrel)

However, if you take the same material and pattern and slow the taper of the tip, as compared to example 1, (just enough to have a slower recovery than in example 1) but use a mandrel that has an aggressive taper all the way down to the butt - you can match the blanks power (both blanks will be equal in flex, as the bigger "hole" picks up stiffness, as does wraps of material in example 1) except in example two, you will have a slower recovery, and higher vibrational sensitivity.

Best,
Aleks


Pawel Tymendorf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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 ?

Aleks, are you or are you not going to verify the integrity of your challenge to TNF by running a few tests to check its correlation with your "vibrometer?"

You issued a direct challenge to the integrity of TNF, you told us of your great research and development capabilities, you told us about your "vibrometer" which you stated measured objectively the transmission of inputs to the hand, and stated without data that TNF would not do the same thing as the "vibrometer." It would only take a few tests, openly disclosed, to verify the accuracy of your challenge. Yes or no, are you going to run them?

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

> 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.

This is absolutely true. And so is the fact that you can have two identical rods, same action and power, but one is longer than the other. The longer rod will have a lower TNF than the shorter rod, but it will be more sensitive in a real world fishing situation.

What I will be interested to see, is how two identical blanks, but one longer than the other, measure against each other on the vibrometer. The results would either validate (for me) if the vibrometer is measuring real world on-the-water "sensitivity" or perhaps something else. And if so, what is it?

I'm willing to set aside an hour on Sunday at the Expo to take these measurements in a seminar setting. Should make for some very good discussion.


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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2023 04:47PM by Tom Kirkman.

I am not going to the Expo. And neither are most of the members of this forum. The expo is not appropriate for running the testing of correlation between TNF and the vibrometer. It needs to be done undisturbed by a crowd and in a lab setting.

In the interest of furthering our knowledge, and in the interest of the integrity of one who has directly challenged another's work, there needs to be an openly disclosed set of tests which either verify or discredit the challenge to TNF.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/28/2023 05:23PM by Michael Danek.

Yes or no, Aleks?

The bulk of the world's major domestic rod blank mfgs will be at the Expo. I know that many major rod manufacturers attend just to get a scoop on something they can incorporate in their upcoming rod models for the future. Seems like the Expo would be the best place to do it and out in front of all the major players instead of in somebody's lab where it can be claimed that that one or two companies stacked the deck in some way. Other than at Icast, where else do this many major rod blank manufacturers show up in these kinds of numbers? This is the custom rod building world's major event each year. So you got Rodgeeks, St. Croix, Thrasher, CTS, Stryker, Rodforge, Northfork and I think some others all in one place at one time. Somebody write down some test criteria and get it done next month. There is an opportunity here that you do not have anywhere else.

Yes or no, Aleks?

I trust Aleks to run the tests at NFC and openly disclose the results. It is not appropriate to run at an Expo. Aleks, yes or no?

Michael,

I would be willing to release data for NFC blanks, however, I would not for any other manufacturer. There are a number of reasons for this, but a main one is the nature of this topic. I would not want anyone to impart from our data that we think/state a competitors blank is more or less sensitive, or that a higher recovery or lower recovery on a certain blank or a brand is good or bad. Which is why I made the point that we will bring a handful of our blanks that show what I claimed above. If folks want to bring their own, or if any other manufacturer wants to join - they are welcome.

I am confident that the results will be replicated as stated both at home or at the expo.

Best,
Aleks

Aleks Maslov Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Michael,
>
>
> 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 interpret this as a definitive statement of our host’s position regarding TNF and sensitivity. It costs real money and very precious R&D time to circle back to something they are confident in having thoroughly tested. It’s fine for there to be different schools of thought and respectful disagreements.

Aleks, you made a direct challenge to TNF as an objective measurement of sensitivity by your own definition of sensitivity. It's time for you to provide the data backing your challenge. Since the tests have already been conducted, according to you, nothing more needs to be done than your publishing the data. You have "thoroughly tested" it, so show us the numbers. TNF vs "vibrometer." I have trusted your integrity up until now, but I'm beginning to doubt my judgment. Publish the numbers.

I'd opt for the testing being conducted independently of the Expo. Enough going on there.

Kendall Cikanek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . It’s fine for there to be different schools of thought and respectful disagreements.
------------------------------------------------------------

I'm with you 100%, but also find it necessary to mention that data and evidence make for the best supported argument regardless of which way we choose to build or test. One may choose to build a rod with 30 inches of thread and epoxy coming down from the tip if they feel so inclined, I will respectfully recommend that they do not do that. I will explain my reasoning, and with anecdotal evidence (and for an issue where empirical data is available I would add that) support my argument against that decision- in the name of helping them grow and learn and elevate. If they still choose to build such a rod, I will also defend them against anybody who attacks THEM and not their decision. Tell them their wrong and explain why - but there's no need to get personal. There are a number of members on this board who have defended all of our rights to think and speak freely, to disagree openly; they have defended our right to be wrong and I am grateful to and for them and will do my part to defend people's right to disagree with me and tell me I'm wrong.

The conversation can, and likely ought to, carry on in the name of progress. When particular discussions pop up again it's often worth it to pursue it once more as things change and science changes and technology changes. In relatively recent history doctors would drain blood from people believing it would cure them, but many of those patients would die. If people didn't continue to question and discuss medicine and science or if nobody was willing to wear the egg on their face we would still be telling people the earth is flat. Leaders need to be questioned, current practices need to be challenged - fire purifies the gold or proves the impurities have been removed, thus we need to welcome the flames.
Grace and peace,
El

Mr. Ballard's post makes a lot of sense .

I’m not comfortable with questioning the integrity and work of giants in the rod building industry, who combine for centuries of experience. Along with Gary Loomis, you can see that people like Don Mook, Yuki Ito, Mike Thorson, Don Green, Dick Posey, and whoever designed Point Blanks at Fuji have gone down different paths than TNF. Tom has been publishing, building, and following progress for a bit of time, too. While their work is different, commonalities do exist that are more directly relatable to physics. Trajectories are also similar with their innovations. Maybe with other more controlling variables being the same, TNF could provide comparative information, but that is a really big maybe. Most of these manufacturers have multiple ties to the aerospace and composites industries. Century in the UK is tied into their F1 race car cottage industry. These companies know more than us hobbyists. It’s quite something to have the access Aleks is providing.

Al Jackson is a guy left off the list and his accomplishments and innovations in the fishing rod industry are beyond measure.

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

Leaving him off is an oversight. There are others, certainly Tom Dorsey at T&T and a bunch of people in the saltwater world.

Al works at Northfork, and I've only heard great things about that man... but @KENDALL thank you for the list, I have some homework to do and I'm excited to dive into some of these names I'm either unfamiliar with or not familiar enough with.

Building rods in MA, Building the community around the world

Al has worked for most of the major fishing rod and blank manufacturers at one time or another.

Another important guy worth mentioning is Jason Brunner.

...........

Stephen Pratt of CTS is also an exceedingly smart man who will be at the EXPO.