For the last SIXTEEN years @JOEL WICK has only posted 60 times. That means 5% of his total posts of all time on this board have been in this thread.

For the last TWELVE years @ADAM HINC has only posted SEVEN times - with 5 of those 7 posts being here in this thread for a total of SEVENTY-ONE percent of his posts since he first joined 12 years ago being contained within this single thread.
It's nice to see you both!

@DAVID BAYLOR - I've read your comments from the past going back quite a ways, I appreciate your lengthy detailed posts.

I've always thought you were on to something when you talk about the importance of balance in a rod. you convinced me while you were talking to others over the years that my X-ray 7109 will likely be met with some lead in the butt. But your most recent comment inspired me to envision it more clearly which sealed the deal and then pushed me to seek the data to back it...

The fishing rod switches between being a 1st class lever and 3rd class lever.

While casting and retrieving the rod is essentially a 1st class lever: the point of hand contact closest to the tip becomes the fulcrum and gravity is the force pushing the tip down towards the water (the load). The parts of our hand behind the fulcrum ( which is likely the side of our pointer or middle finger [I'm sure we could debate the "right" way to hold a bait caster as well]) are immediately exerting opposing effort (force) to hold the rod tip upright away from the water. Essentially like using the 1st class lever backward.

With weight added to the backside equilibrium is reached and there is no effort by the rod handler (or at least significantly less).

So what about that math and data you asked for? Of course this isn’t perfect, but its an attempt to put numbers behind the claim. A lever at equilibrium when a fish creates force pulling on the other end of the rod there is a 100% change in the required effort at the opposite end (like a light switch being 100% on or 100% off). If the rod is not balanced and one must consistently apply effort a slight change on the other end may go unnoticed, like lights being brightened from 83%-85%. You may notice it, the lights or the fish, but with a 100% chance you have a significantly higher chance of noticing it. The closer to equilibrium the lever is the more noticeable the change in the required effort will be. It doesn't matter what numbers you use as the only thing changing is how close to or beyond equilibrium the system is.

But just for example

If there is little less than 2 oz in front of the fulcrum on our rod ( for the sake of clarity we'll 7'10 and fulcrum right at 10 inches) it will require 1 pound of effort force from us to keep it from tipping down and bring it to equilibrium. Now with a gentle take from a fish, say they apply an additional opposing force equal to another .25 oz of weight, we need to apply 1.12 pounds of force. Hold one pound in your hand and add another oz or slightly over - can you feel a difference? Now hold out an empty hand and add 1 oz - can you feel that? Going from zero required effort to any at all is more noticeable than going from a little effort to a very little bit more effort.

Want to feel the difference?
Here is a way you can test - hold a spoon between your forefinger and thumb with the head far out in front and put something in it to add a little weight (maybe drape a cloth or damp paper towel over it to avoid sound giving anything away). Close your eyes and have someone gently add a coin or give a slight touch. Repeat a few times and then hold the spoon balanced between your fingers and do it all again. When balanced you will feel the spoon shift noticeably easier.

@ALEKS- you have done a wonderful job getting this place buzzing again, imagine if every thread got this amount of action, imagine this many people willing to disagree openly and respectfully without feeling like it'll get ugly or they'll be attacked (which has even been mentioned in this thread, and I've seen in others reading years back), imagine a consistently high traffic and thorougly engaged forum...

Honestly, at this point, it's so much more insignificant to determine "who is right" - we should all take a moment and revel in the platform we have and the people in it and that everybody can offer a different perspective and experience. Take it all in as very little is of absolutely no value in life, even if we disagree we can still learn from each other and at least gain greater understanding as to why we disagree.

I appreciate you all

Grace and peace,
El

Building rods in MA, Building the community around the world

lol Joel, it's a wall of text to be sure. (here comes another one) LOL Seriously though, I just love fishing, and talking about fishing. And I love the exchange of ideas.

As far as your question, is a fish sensing vibrations with its' lateral line, or is it sensing changes in resistance?

Both or maybe not both. Both in the sense that the changes in resistance is what caused and created the vibration. The maybe not both in that I don 't know if a rhythmic displacement of water would be termed a vibration? I suppose it would be .... but I'm not sure.

What a fish is actually sensing with its' lateral line, is water displacement. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, water is more or less, about 800 times more dense than air. That means that any movement under water is going to be more easily felt, and felt at a greater distance than in air.

The reason I say that what we are feeling with our fishing rods are in fact, vibrations, is because what the lure is doing is causing the line to oscillate. The line has been disturbed from its' equilibrium, and is trying to return to it. Fishing rods get their information from the line running to them. If the line is vibrating, then the fishing rod is sensing those vibrations. I know I brought this same basic thing up in an earlier post, but there was some questioning of that, even after I had posted three separate definitions of what constitutes a vibration.

Anyhow .......

Les, no, thank you. And you are far too kind with your words. As I said earlier in this post, I just love fishing and talking about fishing. Any chance I get to exchange thoughts and ideas in a manner such as this, is the icing on the cake for me.

El, glad I could get you considering how the balance of a rod and reel combination can have a positive affect on how that rod fishes. It can really make a huge difference.

And finally, I don't want to make it sound as if I don't put value in objectively obtained data. To the contrary, I put a lot of value in CCS data. Specifically, IP (expressed in grams) and AA. The TNF work that Michael has done could be telling, I know he believes it is. And the testing that Aleks outlined in his opening post can definitely be telling as well. But .....they're bench tests.

I have mentioned in past threads that I am certain that my counter weighted rods would lose in some bench tests. They would definitely lose in a comparison of stiffness to weight ratio. And my guess is that the weights I have glued in the end of the blanks, would really do a number on the results of the type of testing that Aleks is speaking of. The only testing that I think those weights would show little to no ill effect, is the TNF work that Michael does.

No matter ..... my point is that I don't put all my faith in what a bench test tells me "should be" We're using fishing rods to catch fish. I don't care what the numbers say or don't say. Numbers may not lie, but they can be deceiving as all get out. If I am going to count on anything, I am going to count on feel. Feel while using the fishing rod, on the water, trying to catch fish.

That's all the proof I need.

Edit for addition: El, if you do in fact add weight to the butt of that 7109 blank. I would suggest using tungsten weights. They have a higher weight to size ratio.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2023 05:44PM by David Baylor.

Dave, Bro!, love you more than ever! Some guys are always right even when they're not, and they never seem to be able to let it go.

LOL Lynn .... love you too man !!!

As far as some guys are always right ...... I can honestly say that I can be one of those guys. I can get something, a procedure at work, or an understanding of how something works stuck so deeply in my head, that I can't see it any other way. But when I'm shown that it's staring me right in the face, I will admit that I was wrong. I won't be happy about admitting it, and I will feel embarrassed .... but I will admit it. And trust me, I have felt embarrassed more times than I care to mention.

Anyhow ......... this has been a lot of fun !!!!

So what's going on?

Anybody bring blanks or rods for the competition?

Did NFC win?

Which is the most sensitive blank?

I need to buy another I'm sure!

Building rods in MA, Building the community around the world

El Bolinger Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what's going on?
>
> Anybody bring blanks or rods for the competition?
>
>
> Did NFC win?
>
> Which is the most sensitive blank?
>
> I need to buy another I'm sure!

I am at ICRBE and I understand there were some logistical issues with NFC getting their product to the show (bad weather in Pacific NW and Northern US). I believe some of the NFC Team did arrive today at the Expo but the Sensitivity session scheduled for today was cancelled. There is another one on the agenda for tomorrow. Thus far I have picked up a couple pointblank blanks and Batson Rainshadow blanks and I might take em to the session tomorrow to see how they stack up.... Not sure if will be able to test any NFC stuff since the product didn't make it to NC. More to come.

So, gentlemen, what is the end of this story ? Great discussion, great expectations and now silence.... are the results so shocking that no one dare to report ?

Best regards,
Pavel

No sensitivity seminar at the Expo due to the NFC logistical issues and bad weather in NW and northern part of the country.

So, no merchandise or displays from Batson and PacBay as well? What a shame if the expo was missing such heavy-hitters and reputable businesses.

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

I think it is in order to remind that the reason the "vibrometer" was pulled from the advertising jargon "rabbit hole" and promised to perform at the Exposition was to prove that True Natural Frequency (TNF) was not an objective measure of sensitivity as claimed in the original post made a month and a half ago. It was not to find the most sensitive blank or to determine a “winner.” We now find ourselves at over 5800 views and almost 200 posts and yet no objective data supporting that challenge has been provided in spite of the almost unlimited resources of the original poster and the plethora of blanks from which he could choose. All we have gotten is the challenge and a tutorial on blank design.

Then there is the "leverage" argument which states that with two blanks of equal characteristics except for length, the longer will be the more sensitive. While there likely is some credibility in this theory, the theory offers no objective way of measuring or predicting sensitivity differences between blanks especially if all other characteristics (power , weight, modulus, action, material) are not equal. And they usually are not equal.

Which leaves us with the only easy, affordable, quick, accurate, repeatable, and objective method for the measuring of a blank's sensitivity and recovery speed: TNF.  It does not require calibrated inputs or sensors and no expensive equipment. While there may be exceptions to the correlation between TNF and the vibrometer, our experience over many years and technical logic indicate they are likely rare.  It has not been objectively proven that there are any exceptions.   The TNF process finds that the pricier, higher modulus blanks have the highest TNF's, and sensitivity is one of the most important and obvious reasons for using higher moduli.  Repeatedly manufacturers feature sensitivity in their advertising text for their top of the line, highest modulus, blanks. TNF also shows objectively the differences that guides and tiptops of different weights make on blank performance. Furthermore,  it has been objectively proven that different testers with different Android devices, at different times and in different places, correlate well with each other.   Even if correlation between TNF and the vibrometer is not a perfect measure of sensitivity, it is a valuable tool in our arsenal of practical tools for blank and rod objective evaluations.

If there are those who disagree that TNF is generally an accurate, objective measure of sensitivity it is clearly appropriate for them to state what the action plan is to objectively prove it is not, to get on with executing the plan, and to publish the results. It is obviously of high interest and long overdue. I welcome this initiative. Regardless of how it turns out we will all be enriched by a better understanding of sensitivity.

Many of us find this entire topic a bit silly. There are practical tests that do not require any specialized testing equipment to prove that actual on-the-water sensitivity is not entirely linked to either stiffness to weight ratio and/or frequency. Some heavier, lower frequency rods and/or rods with a lower stiffness to weight ratio are, in fact, more sensitive than some rods with higher frequencies and higher stiffness to weight ratios. A longer rod IS always a more sensitive rod than the same rod in a shorter length in any actual fishing situation even though it will have a lower stiffness to weight ratio and a lower frequency. Even Emory Harry, who was quite astute in these matters, conceded that length is the major factor in on-the-water rod sensitivity.

I have watched the lures in my various tackle boxes over the years and have yet to see any start vibrating. Perhaps they're doing it when I'm not looking.

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

Please provide details on the practical, objective, tests for sensitivity. My post is aimed specifically to the challenge brought up by the original poster.

I have a hard time believing that a 9 foot 3 weight fly rod is more sensitive than a 6 1/2 foot ERN 16 blank that weighs 1.5 oz. lf you object to the different ERN's of my example, that is exactly my point, that the leverage theory has no objective test. If I'm wrong, please provide details of the test.

I've provided that test and others, several times in these discussions, the magazine, etc., etc. Yes, the longer rod is always the more sensitive rod and it is so obvious in practical use that even subjectively there is no question about it. In fact, lever mechanics alone is enough to prove it.

In terms of stiffness to weight ratio and frequency, you are looking at measurements that have more to do with rod speed (response and recovery) than "sensitivity."

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

Tom, I've read the magazine for years, participated in this rodbuilding forum and a number of others involved with rodbuilding and fishing for years, and I don't recall ever seeing a practical objective test for sensitivity. I have issues of the magazine that go back many years, so if you provide the issue information, I most likely can find it. So far in these last posts you are providing subjectivity, not objectivity. I submit that lever mechanics without the consideration of lever rigidity proves nothing.

Yes, I realize, as I have stated many times, that TNF is obviously a good indication of recovery speed and since high recovery speed is positive to the performance of a rod, TNF has value in that regard (as well as indicating objectively the sensitivity of a blank/rod, until it is proven otherwise). I'm still looking for that vibrometer data that proves the challenge to TNF to be valid. Respectfully, opinions just are not going to cut it.

I don't understand resistance to gathering objective data. What is so controversial, risky, or objectionable about data?

IMO, let the numbers speak for themselves. Rod-builders can decide how to interpret the information, and if they value the the data.

I think of all the objective data I rely on in rod-building: RPM's, conversions between standard and metric, O.D's and I.D's., temperatures, and CCS.
So many numbers and the data is all relatively easy to prove and show my work.

How about this: We obtain TNF data on a reasonable and fair sample size of blanks, analyze the data, then pick up the debate again afterwards. What is the harm in that?

Tom Kirkman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> A longer rod IS always a more sensitive rod than
> the same rod in a shorter length in any actual
> fishing situation even though it will have a lower
> stiffness to weight ratio and a lower frequency.

Tom, I use lots of salmon & steelhead rods + 9 ft long but for walleye jig fishing where sensitivity is important I prefer shorter / lighter / more responsive blanks 6'6-7'6. I tested various lenghts in the real fishing situations and I rearly find long rods better performing. I mostly use spinning rods btw.


> Some heavier, lower frequency rods and/or rods
> with a lower stiffness to weight ratio are, in
> fact, more sensitive than some rods with higher
> frequencies and higher stiffness to weight ratios.

> ................

Frankly speaking, I can not recall a single rod I used that would support this opinion...

Best regards,
Pavel



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2023 12:36PM by Pawel Tymendorf.

As part of the Original Challenge, a Definition of Terms is reasonable, logical, for defining objective data points. I thought the terms for this challenge were already defined as, "Sensitivity = Transmission of Vibrations Through a Tube (rod blank) as set by NFC vs TNF."

With all due respect, I didn't see a different Definition of Sensitivity put on the table for this specific challenge. (If others have Another Idea of Sensitivity, then that is a set of definitions and parameters for discussion and testing. And I'm 100% open to learning and evaluating the results. So, it's like I am hearing: "Sensitivity is Vibration transmission versus Sensitivity is leverage. Two different arguments. Not necessarily unrelated, but different.

Otherwise, my dog definitely hunts better than anyone else's dog.....because its MY dog hunting the way I want my dog to hunt. Who can convince/prove me otherwise? Answer, no one. However, if I say my dog can jump a twenty foot fence and retrieve a bull elk to my hand, we all might want to SEE that in some way. Likewise, I don't have a dog in the fight for a particular set of tests.

"Actual fishing situation" seems to be a key caveat in this discussion. It is not a factor, however valid it may be, in the Original Challenge, IMO.

Again, it is just data. I want the data based on the specific questions at hand to make up my own mind.

If I'm a fool, it's my fault, not anyone else's.

>>As part of the Original Challenge, a Definition of Terms is reasonable, logical, for defining objective data points. I thought the terms for this challenge were already defined as, "Sensitivity = Transmission of Vibrations Through a Tube (rod blank) as set by NFC vs TNF."

That is the definition that Aleks defined in his challenge. I had defined sensitivity as the ability to feel a bite. I thought his definition was close enough so I didn't quibble about it. I believe that Tom is arguing that leverage allows one to better feel a bite so I won't quibble about that either. Maybe it's a lot like what one judge once said about pornography: " I cannot define it but I recognize it when I see it."

I'm not going to participate in any more subjective debates on this subject. All I am interested in is this:

If there are those who disagree that TNF is generally an accurate, objective measure of sensitivity it is clearly appropriate for them to state what the action plan is to objectively prove it is not, to get on with executing the plan, and to publish the results. It is obviously of high interest and long overdue. I welcome this initiative. Regardless of how it turns out we will all be enriched by a better understanding of sensitivity.

Very long overdue.

Well...there it is, Mick.

This particular barrel of whiskey has been distilled enough.

We gonna get to taste it or not?

Let's see some data....and continue the debate after we've sipped a glass or two.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If there are those who disagree ... it is clearly appropriate for them to
> state what the action plan is to objectively prove
> it is not,

A valid point...to a point.
You cant make a claim and then shift the burden of proof away from yourself.
This type of argument is called an appeal to ignorance
If you make a claim...its up to you to have proof...same goes for Alex.