OK , 8 pages in and I think we can all agree we can scrap the vibrometer , what we really need is a resistance leverage meter .

The first to criticize are often the last to contribute or compliment. I commend both Michael and Aleks for at least trying amongst so much flack. Anybody else have something better???

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

I am reluctant to add another idea that is likely to be misrepresented and attacked, but here goes: Is it not possible that the blank which best transmits vibration and possibly has the highest TNF is also the blank that best transmits the "leverage" that is characterized by the comment " I can't imagine this is even debatable." ??

It is pretty obvious that everything is debatable.

I will remind, regardless of the issue of sensitivity, that TNF provides an easy, cheap, quick, repeatable measure of the recovery speed of a blank/rod, even showing how it changes with the addition of guides, wraps, and tiptops. One that any builder can accomplish in minutes at his rodbuilding station. As such it is a valuable indicator of how well rods will fish at least some techniques. Until TNF there was no way for the average builder to objectively characterize the dynamic performance of his product, no way to see how its dynamics changed with the build decisions he made.

chris c nash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OK , 8 pages in and I think we can all agree we
> can scrap the vibrometer , what we really need is
> a resistance leverage meter .


LOL, good one. Tom - you have ruined it all, how could you.

Best regards,
Pavel

Pawel Tymendorf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> chris c nash Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > OK , 8 pages in and I think we can all agree we
> > can scrap the vibrometer , what we really need
> is
> > a resistance leverage meter .
>
>
> LOL, good one. Tom - you have ruined it all, how
> could you.


At least somebody is capable of recognizing a post that was designed to break up the tension . Glad my email address is hidden otherwise it would be flooded with hate mail lol.

"For the purpose of this discussion, I am defining "sensitivity" as the measurement of vibration along a tube." - Aleks, NFC

(thousands of views later....)

"You can't change the definition to fit your own definition, and then call someone out with things like put up or shut up, or say that he is wrong. In an earlier post to this thread I said that we have two parties that are clearly not working with the same definition. I was wrong ..... it's a lot more than two." - David Baylor

Spot on, David!

Simply: Aleks and Mick have made a challenge to each other about a correlation of TNF to sensitivity.

* They both agreed on Aleks' definition of sensitivity to use for the tests from the very beginning.
* They both agreed on the testing equipment to use (vibrometer).
* Numbers will be generated by this test that we can all hopefully see and evaluate.

That's it! Straightforward as can be to me: Theory>Test>Evaluate the Data.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A topic for another thread: What would a test for "Leverage is Real Sensitivity" look like? (Maybe don't answer that question here, but with another thread topic.) I ask because I could have sworn I felt vibrations when I fish. Hey! Let's correlate TNF with Leverage next! Why limit TNF to just vibration?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2023 10:14PM by Les Cline.

In case you missed it...(this is about 7% increase in distance)

(from US10005889B2)

The average cast using the nickel-coated carbon fiber fishing rods 10 was 75 feet, while the average cast for the plain carbon fiber fishing rods was 70 feet.
Although this test assumes that the caster has ability to make identical casts each time, the averaging over one hundred casts for each type of rod would still suggest that the conservation of energy in the nickel-coated carbon fiber composite fishing rods 10 results in enhanced distance in casting.

Tom it's not debatable. What is happening at the lure end of the line and what it causes the line to do, is the text book definition of what a vibration is.

[www.rodbuilding.org]

They feel like vibrations in the rod, because that's what they are. If there is any misinterpretation going on, it's the misinterpretation that what we are feeling, is leverage. Just like we use our ears to hear sound, we are using leverage to feel the oscillations of the fishing line. A longer rod is more sensitive because its' greater length makes it easier to feel those oscillations,

It's like you guys think that no fishing lures vibrate. If a spinnerbait arm doesn't vibrate, then a tuning fork doesn't vibrate after it's been struck on an object. I can't be the only person in the world that has ever had to hand line a bait like a spinnerbait or a chatterbait in, and felt the bait shaking as I pulled it straight up from the bottom. I'm pulling it straight up, What kind of leverage am I using? Leverage. for a lack of a better term at the moment, amplifies what we feel. It doesn't create it.

Earlier it was said "I can't imagine ...." What I can't imagine is that we are talking about, and accepting as fact, the physics of a longer rod and its' affect on a rod's feeling stuff in general sensitivity, yet the text book physics definition of what a vibration is, is being completely ignored.

David Baylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
.....
> It's like you guys think that no fishing lures
> vibrate. If a spinnerbait arm doesn't vibrate,
> then a tuning fork doesn't vibrate after it's been
> struck on an object.
...

Spinner bait is a classic example...as a matter of fact we can impart vibration back on to a lure.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/01/2023 05:26PM by Chris Catignani.

Chris, we sure can.

Shaking a small original Rapala can be, and is a deadly way of catching bass in early spring. Toss it out and let it sit then just shake your rod tip so it shakes the line,and making the bait (wait for it) ......... vibrate. Sometimes they blast it. Other times they just come up and suck it in.

It's also killer when you have Cicadas that fall on the water in the hot summer months. My dad and I dang near won a tournament on the Ohio River using that technique and bait when there were hundreds of Cicada on the surface.

If we had landed all the fish we had on, we'd probably have won by about 4 lbs. Gotta love the way smallies jump.......... except on tournament day. Stay down !!! Stay down !!!! But they rarely do. LOL

Getting back to the subject of this string of posts, blank/rod sensitivity, and the "leverage" idea. While there may be some truth to it in concept , it really has no value in either subjectively or objectively trying to determine which of my rods is more sensitive and by how much. 10%? 20% 2% ? Or of any value in predicting what purchase I should make with the objective of getting the most sensitive blank/rod. There is no way to put numbers on it. Is my 6 foot 1.5 oz medium power fast action RX8 more sensitive than my 7 foot medium light power moderate action RX6 blank, and if so, by how much? Even if the CCS numbers are known, there is no way to quantify sensitivity with it, or to even understand sensitivity differences of rods of different lengths/weights/powers/actions. And are we to believe that modulus has no effect on sensitivity? If that's true, we have been for a long time victims of one big scam and have wasted one heck of a lot of money. And the beat goes on.

I expect to be again told I am wrong. But I also expect that there will again be no objective data provided to prove it.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Getting back to the subject of this string of
> posts, blank/rod sensitivity, and the "leverage"
> idea.

Mick...the subject of the thread is about nickel coated carbon fiber ... "fishing rod with enhanced tactile response".
Why Alex decided to also debate with you on your Natural Frequency hypothesis is a mystery.

After 30 years of rod building, and working with lots of anglers - I find matching the rod to the person as important as what the rod is on it's own. So many variables.

Chris, I respectfully disagree. The subject of the thread is a challenge of the ability of TNF to objectively measure sensitivity.

"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."

The "tutorial" on all the other stuff was just to create credibility in challenging TNF. But in the end, no data. Just a promise. "See me at the Expo" We didn't get 9 pages in just based on "nickel coated carbon fiber."

Furthermore, there has been no answer to the question of why CCF was even brought into the discussion since it has nothing to do with sensitivity.

Mick, why dont you download Vibration Meter by Smart Tools from the Google Play Store.
Its a free app that uses the phones accelerometer.
I have the Smart Meter Pro also by Smart Tools.
There is nothing to set..it records vibration just like you would think...

Got it , will try it.

Can't figure out how to get rid of the casino ads.

Don't see how to get a frequency, but will work with it. If you want to give tips, email me to get it off this thread. thanks,

David Baylor (and others),

(Skip these comments if you want to stay focused on the original challenge of TNF as it correlates to sensitivity.)

What does the quote below mean to you about sensitivity? I'm asking because I don't get the concept of rod length as an "absolute" about rod "sensitivity." I understand the levers of all types previously mentioned and how a longer lever works in terms of things moving.

Sincerely curious, not sarcastic! I am here to learn!

The quote:

"For the time being I'd start with something we know to be absolutely true and even in subjective terms there is no doubt about it - a longer rod is a more sensitive rod."

I'm taking this statement, from the person I have learned more about rod-building than anyone I know, at face-value here.

Is it an 'absolute' that a longer rod is more sensitive than a shorter one?

An extreme and absurd example to clarify the statements:
Is a rod that I whittle out of a 7'6" willow branch with my pocket knife more 'sensitive' than a 7 foot NFC X-Ray blank? I'm giving up 6-inches of length here, too!

If someone knows Absolutes about Sensitivity, then, I'm all ears!!! how can I add it to my CCS numbers!

Les, I would say it depends on if you're talking about the kind of laboratory tests that are being talked about in this thread? Or if you are talking about calculating for mechanical advantage of a lever? Or if you're talking about actually holding a fishing rod in your hand, and feeling things while using it?

My guess is that you're talking about actually holding a fishing rod in your hand, and feeling things while using it? If my guess is correct, and I am working with the same definition as you, then I personally would say, not necessarily.

Greater length adds mechanical advantage to a lever, so any input to the end of the lever is multiplied at the opposite end. It is that mechanical advantage of a longer lever that Tom and others are basing their statement that a longer rod is more sensitive. Tom has gone as far to add in words about in a real world fishing situation. Or something to that effect. Which I think is key. We're talking about actually holding a fishing rod in your hand, and using it to feel things. That longer lever has the benefit of greater mechanical advantage, but it comes with a disadvantage. That disadvantage being weight. The longer lever is not only going to weigh more, but it's going to have weight that is further from the point of effort. Which in a fishing rod's case, is somewhere near the reel seat.

This is where balance comes into play. And I can hear others now ......Oh here goes Dave on his balance kick. You're talking about the comfort of using a fishing rod Dave. No I'm not. A balanced beam is more sensitive to input than an unbalanced one. And before anyone starts saying that I am ignoring the mechanical advantage of a longer lever, I'm not. A lever doesn't have to be supported in its' middle to be balanced. If a lever is balanced and one end of it extends further past the balance point than the other, and the input to that lever is on the longer end, that input will have a greater affect on the lever's balance than the same input on its' shorter end.

Remember, we're talking about actually fishing and detecting a bite with a fishing rod while holding it in our hands. At least I am. Earlier in this thread i mentioned the additional weight of a longer lever. In the case of a fishing rod, that weight is prior to the point of effort. That is weight that we have to hold up if the rod and reel combination aren't balanced. We have to grip the rod more firmly, and gripping the rod firmly can affect our ability to feel certain types of bites. If we read back through this thread, we've seen how many different ways there are to sense a bite. And sensing additional weight on the end of your line is one of those types of bites. It is definitely easier to detect those types of bites when you're working with a balanced rod and reel combination, that you don't have to grip tightly. And for you show me the data guys, I have no such data that I can express in a way that would be acceptable to you. It's the type of data that you can only mention on cable TV...... it's subjective.

Anyhow .....

Is a balanced rod and reel important with every bait we fish. No. If you're fishing a cast and reel type bait like a spinnerbait, there is no way you could balance a rod to fish a spinnerbait. You have the water resistance of the bait as well as the line in the water to deal with. You also have the increase or decrease in water resistance that comes along with different speed retrieves. If I am using a cast and retrieve type bait, and I want to feel that bait to the best of my ability, I am going to choose the longer rod, because it's going to allow me to feel more. But if I am fishing a bait like a jig, or a worm, or any bottom contact bait where the line is not under a lot of tension, and I need to feel sometimes very subtle bites, I would choose a balanced rod and reel every single time. Even if it's shorter,

If people don't agree, I am fine with that. They aren't the one using the fishing rod. I am.

Oh, and I know this is a really long post. But it's on topic. Or it's at least on topic for one of the several topics in this thread.

And before I go ......... Les? As far as an answer to the whittled rod being more sensitive than the X ray blank question you posed above...... Maybe ........ if the whittled rod was 10' long, and had the proper balance. LOL

David, in your wall of text (lol) you've summed up much of my opinion.

Questions to ponder about the debate we are not having; if a fish feels a spinner spinning with its lateral line, is it sensing vibration, or changes in resistance? If we feel that same spinner through the line, rod, and reel, are we feeling vibration, or changes in resistance?

If it is a large wobbling spoon, where each change in resistance can be felt individually, are the definitions the same?

Would rhythmic changes in resistance be called vibrations in this case?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2023 12:19AM by Joel Wick.

Thank you, David! You hit it over the wall!

I appreciate your thorough explanations and numerous examples (here and elsewhere)! You helped me grasp the rod-length concept more fully.

There are, indeed, very MANY definitions and experiences of sensitivity for different people. I'm curious about all of them. However, I must admit the more scientific (and testable) definitions of sensitivity are more appealing and useful to me.

And I love the anomalies and nuances to the rules, too. What can the oddballs teach me? (My dad said he always liked the 'speckled pup' in the litter best.)

This whole debate, and the many thoughts shared, have broadened my knowledge base and stimulated my curiosity even more about TNF.

A special thanks to David for all his time and thoughts!