Chris,

Leaving all history of who challenged whom to this debate behind for now....

Why don't we agree to this:

1) Mick puts his TNF data that he has done in good faith in a list to post here on the forum for all to see and evaluate as they wish.

2) Aleks/NFC puts his data he has done in good faith in a list to post here on the forum for all to see and evaluate as they wish. (I hope for a balanced sample size.)

3) We can ALL compare the two sets of numbers to use or disregard as desired.

SIMPLE!

All manner of OTHER theories and ideas have been shared and argued in this thread. Some MAY be valid in one way or another. For THIS debate about TNF as it correlates to Sensitivity, those Other Theories are Strawman Arguments with regards to the Original Challenge, Terms and Definitions. That is, they may have their own points to make, but they are not related to the specific point of debate here. That's how I see them (others will differ) No one is Appealing to anyone's Ignorance that I can tell. I'm trying to rid myself of ignorance with regards to TNF and its correlation to sensitivity through some testing and data.

It's not a GOTCHA debate about right and wrong! It's a Data Debate about TNF, and its correlation with sensitivity, conducted in good faith, for universal benefits. Besides, it was already admitted that TNF is right at least 50% of the time right off the bat. At a minimum, I am curious about where the halves fall on each side of that line. Aren't you? AND, the anomalies/differences will be informative, too, IMO; maybe more so than the examples that fall in line with the theory. In some ways, the anomalies can be a proof of concept, right?

No dog in the Logical Falacies definitions fight. No dog in the Alternate Theories fight. My dog is in the objective data fight on this one. Just like I'd fight for CCS data, too. It's data, not dogma.



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

Kind of funny that objective data is being demanded to prove that TNF isn't an indication of a blank's ability to transmit vibration, when you won't find a spec of objectively obtained data that confirms that it is.

Wny? Because it doesn't exist. It's a belief. A subjective opinion.

David, please keep in mind that I never said that I could prove TNF directly, objectively measured sensitivity BECAUSE AS I REPEATED MANY TIMES there was no "sensitivometer." I stated that it was my opinion that TNF measured sensitivity, not that it was a fact. If you believe otherwise then find and enter the quote where I made that claim. If I made that claim it was a mistake. But I don't think I did.

Aleks claimed he had a sensitivometer (vibrometer) and claimed that it could show that TNF and sensitivity were essentially unrelated, unlinked. The onus is on him to prove his challenge is valid. If he cannot then it follows that TNF does measure sensitivity. If he can, then we all will know that TNF simply measures recovery speed and not sensitivity. We all will have learned a little more about sensitivity. Regardless of whether he can or can't, if he at least tries, the rodbuilding world will be smarter. If he choses to just disappear and doesn't follow through, we'll be stuck in this morass of often flawed opinions. And the "rabbit hole" of unfounded advertising jargon, "wine labels for blanks."

I do have data that show that higher modulus blanks have higher TNF's, that TNF goes down with added weight to the blank, that different testers essentially get the same numbers. I don't, AS I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES, have data that show that TNF directly measures sensitivity. That is what we are trying to sort out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2023 07:23PM by Michael Danek.

I have recently discovered the only one true way to measure sensitivity. Shimano contacted me to contest my claims that their Poison Adrena rod is not 140% more sensitive. I'm assuming they got my email address from the board, they were very cordial in their email but I could tell they were ticked I've been calling them out on here.

First of all I was absolutely floored that somebody from Shimano saw this board and my comments about their claims and then reached out to me. Freakin crazy! In the email they included their engineering process for measuring sensitivity, it was definitely a bit over my head at first and seemed to be more intricate than what Aleks had explained for how NFC conducted their sensitivity testing. I'll share their sensitivity measuring process here so you can see what I mean. But they were ready to ensure that I understood what they were explaining and offered a solution to suit both our needs.

They offered to send me a Poison Adrena and the components for a dialed down version of their testing if I'd pay for shipping and return the equipment, and I agreed to rescind my negative comments about their marketing claims if the results supported their claims. I jumped all over that! They set up a video conference with me so they could walk me through the process and we'd all witness the results live. I'll be happy to walk anybody here through the process too, include the description with their more complicated system below.

We just finished this meeting and have the results, and I must admit I was absolutely floored! Honestly the at home testing could probably be conducted by any of you with a little bit of shopping and a YouTube video or two if you're not familiar already with some light physics and engineering.

I couldn't believe such a simple test could correlate so precisely with their much more complex in house testing, but it did! The Poison Adrena is one hundred percent 140% more sensitive! All the testing I conducted garnered the same results, again and again without fail the Poison Adrena was 140% more sensitive. I was convinced, and I have to apologize to Shimano.

I'll share the sensitivity test with you all here.

IF you want to measure sensitivity all you have to do is the following:
Close your mouth and stick your tongue out, then force air out as hard as you can!

If that didn't make you chuckle, you're probably 140% more sensitive haha

Okay, my tongue is numb now. What's the next step?

Does it include a flashlight, a burlap bag, and snipe hunting in the woods at night?

El...you rascal! Hahaha!

What happened to hashing this all out at the expo? Never mind just read that NFC wasn't there.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2023 09:45PM by Lynn Behler.

So where has all of this gotten us??? With over 6000 (!!!) views and more than 200 (!!!) replies, it should be obvious that this is truly a “sensitive” topic in more ways than one for a multitude of inquisitive individuals, mostly rod builders. But it seems as though we are all dressed-up yet cannot unify on where to go, consequently we are all staying at home; indeed unfortunate. So close yet so far!!!
Attempting to Identify and measure a blank’s “sensitivity” in a truly objective, numerical manner has been an ELUSIVE goal for decades by many different people and an equal number of different approaches. With all the variables intermingled, it may never be solved; but that only inspires and compels the inquisitive and intellectual individuals to keep pursuing the lofty, elusive goal.
Enter Michael Danek’s TNF. This is the first viable contribution to measuring ANY blank’s oscillating frequency utilizing very easy to use, precise, repeatable, readily available, inexpensive (free) software. I (we all should) commend Michael’s intelligence and perseverance in developing TNF.
A bit later, Aleks of NFC entered their “vibrometer / sensometer” which measures the difference of induced harmonic vibrations at the tip compared to at the butt. Commemorations are due as well. As revealed, the vibrometer required extensive resources of time and money to produce. Unfortunately, that makes it virtually unavailable to the masses.
Both TNF and the vibrometer are attempting to come to the same conclusion yet from different tacts. I have stated from the onset that I believe they may be intermingled and related to one another; afterall, both deal with a blank’s unique frequency albeit one oscillating and the other vibration = both frequencies within the same unit nonetheless.
I am not including the “thump” or “leverage” aspects brought up above because that is missing the point of these measuring attempts. Neither TNF nor the vibrometer are concerned with measuring the actual thump or leverage; they are simply attempting to compare and measure which blank may transmit more input from the tip to the butt, whether it be a thump, vibration or anything else.
While there has been no absolute proof that the frequency (oscillating or harmonic) is an actual indication of a blank’s “sensitivity”, it is safe to say that many (myself included) believe it is extremely possible. That is what we have at this present time and, until proven otherwise, we should go with it!
In the end, we have all been spinning our wheels and going nowhere through talk, what if / what not, opinion, hearsay, denial and egos. Combined efforts, NOT competing efforts, will afford all of us traction to overcome the elusive goal of measuring a blank’s “sensitivity”.
Let’s all go out and dance rather than sit home alone!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Mark,

I have tried to use Keuwlsoft Frequency Counter.
I found it a total pain in the ass to even get a measurement consistently.
I'm also using an app called Smart Meter Pro that has a vibrometer....it works pretty well.
Is there anyone here that has used Keuwlsoft with much success?

Smart Meter Pro uses the phone accelerometer to measure a vibration.

I have shared the process using the Keuwlsoft app with 3 other builders who have used it successfully. Yes it takes a little getting used to, but if one wants to make it work it is easily possible. If one doesn't want it to work he can find problems he cannot or will not solve. Another builder uses a video process, and the Keuwlsoft process correlates well with the video process.

I expect there are other apps available for both Android and Apple devices that will accurately measure the period of a vibration but I have not needed to look further.

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If one doesn't want it to work he can
> find problems he cannot or will not solve.

Mick...if your referring to me your barking up the wrong tree.
I have repeatedly tried to make it work...following direction verbatim.
I have also reach out to Mike Kosiba, whos doing the video analysis.
Now...when I reach out to you and share a way to use an accelerometer...you act like a deer in the headlights.

I'm not hear to argue with you. I have been over-the-top patient with this whole process.
@#$%& I drove seven hours to be there at the Expo to make sure your side or the argument was represented.

One problem I have with Keuwlsoft and your testing process is this:
You say...bend the blank tip two inches and let it lightly touch the face of the phone.
Mick...that is useing the phone microphone to record the frequency...totally bogus IMO.

Now...when I reach out to you and share a way to use an accelerometer...you act like a deer in the headlights.

I had little interest in buying equipment and setting up another system when I had one that worked and had a lot of other things on the table. While it may seem so, this issue is not my whole life. The problem with your system is that there is no way for you and me to have the same calibrated input, and without that correlation between different testers. it is impossible to assure correlation on the output, which is what you want to measure. Furthermore, I'm not sure that all accelerometers, vibrometers if you will, correlate. Which is why I was lobbying for the correlation work between TNF and the vibrometer to be done in a lab where everything could be controlled and calibrated. . I could run a few experiments with your system keeping the system constant and get relative values, but for you and me to correlate on actual numbers would be problematic.

Android devices measure time very accurately and that is what the app does. If the system I am using is bogus I wonder why a number of testers all get well correlated numbers, whether using the video system or the Android system? If it were bogus I would expect significant variation. I have used two different Android phones and my Kindle and they all have correlated well. "The crystals in your phone or computer are the same as the ones in a quartz watch. They provide the clock speed for the processor. The MEMS are Micro Electro Mechanical Systems. That is microscopic moving parts etched out of silicon.The beauty of quartz is that it can be made to resonate fantastically accurately."

Thank you for sacrificing so much of your time and expense, and driving 7 hours just to make sure my side was represented.

What we really need is for the original poster who made the challenge, to utilize his resources, technical expertise, and a few of his blanks at his to back up his challenge. I'm sure his system has a well calibrated and documented
input



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/03/2023 11:09AM by Michael Danek.

"I had little interest in buying equipment and setting up another system when I had one that worked and had a lot of other things on the table. "

Mick...its a fee app for your phone.

"Android devices measure time very accurately and that is what the app does."

The app your useing is using the microphone.

From their website [keuwl.com]

Audio Frequency Counter Summary

Frequency counter based on the microphone input. Counts when the input rises or falls past a set level and converts into into frequency or a time period. FOR INDICATION ONLY. Results depend on your device and its hardware. If you just want to know the frequency of a sound with harmonics (e.g. mucial instrument), a FFT based app such as keuwlsofts spectrum analyser, harmonicity meter or guitar tuner will be better. This app can provide more accurate frequency measurement for single frequency input signals.

Features of this audio frequency counter:

• Graph of input signal, 2.5 ms/div up to 640 ms/div.
• Gate time of 0.1s, 1s, 10s or 100s.
• Gain from x1 to x1000
• Trigger on rise or fall
• AC or DC coupling
• Settable noise level so new event is not triggered until the signal has first passed this level.

It clearly says microhone input...also cleary indicates Results depend on your device and its hardware

We are not using the app to measure frequency. We are not using the app to measure sound level. We are only using the app to measure the time in milliseconds between two strikes of the tip on the device. The fact that multiple devices in multiple users correlate well indicates we are measuring that time event accurately. We even correlate with an oscilligraph for time. The fact is that the weakest part of the process is reading the scale on a small device, but that has not prevented us from correlating well.

The question is not whether we are measuring the event (time which directly calculates to frequency) correctly (correlation proves that), the question is as it has been for a month and a half, does natural frequency really measure sensitivity, and that can only be answered by 1. Believing that the vibrometer measures sensitivity (which Aleks believes, many others believe, and Tom K does not) AND 2. Running vibrometer tests on a number of blanks to see if the highest TNF blanks also show the highest vibrometer sensitivities.

This attack on the accuracy of our testing is just noise in the system. Whether you can get the process we are using to work or not does not alter the fact that others are making it work well. There are other apps available for Android and Apple devices that will also work, and some may work better. But the fact remains, we correlate and the question remains, is the challenge by Aleks valid and only Aleks can answer that. Until we get that answer all this other debate is just noise and a distraction.

Micheal said, "The problem with your system is that there is no way for you and me to have the same calibrated input, and without that correlation between different testers. it is impossible to assure correlation on the output, which is what you want to measure."

To back up some...I was telling Michael that he could prove his point about TNF with a phone app that uses an accelerometer. He was concerned about the test procedures...the results and the way in which you measure.
I assured him that as long as it was consistent (by the tester) that the results would correlate.

My example is this:
We both have two blanks. Blank A and Blank B.
Say I test Blank A and get a reading of 100 and test Blank B and get a reading of 50.
Then someone else tests Blank A and get 80 and tests Blank B and gets a reading of 40.
We can safely say that we are both coming up with Blank A being twice as sensitive as Blank B.

...anyway...that was the premise of that conversation.

Its not noise...

I'm trying to show you a way to verify TNF and your just ignoring it.
You calling my post noise is (and Les will love this) an Ad Hominem fallacy.

I tell you the app uses the microphone...you say it uses the crystals.
I prove that the app uses the microphone and ....to be honest....I have no idea what your saying.

"We are not using the app to measure frequency. We are not using the app to measure sound level."
So...how does it measure the sound? A: With the microphone.

I'm not debating the accuracy of a system that correlates between multiple testers and even more devices.

But the fact remains, we correlate and the question remains, is the challenge by Aleks valid and only Aleks can answer that.

I went to False River yesterday and frequently landed many largemouth. Not sure what the frequency level is on the NFC blank that I used.

Chris,

I love it! I laughed out loud at your perfect touche! I was only okay at fencing in my college phys. ed. elective class.

Maybe we can generate a list and definitions of Logical Fallacies for forum use, and combine it into an informative book, "A Rod-Builder's Guide to Logic: How to Lose Friends and Influence Nobody."

Already sounds like an old Patrick F. McManus article from Field and Stream decades ago.

I appreciate you, Chris! I hope this post comes across that way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/2023 03:45PM by Les Cline.

LOL Les. I know you're kidding, but if anyone ever wanted to start a list of logical fallacies, this thread would a great place to get it started.

I can think of at least two points of discussion in this thread that would easily qualify as worthy of being on such a list..

Definitely some head scratching, you gotta be kidding me kind of stuff going on in this thread. lol

Here is what's going on in this thread. A challenge was made to the credibility of TNF as an objective measure of sensitivity. Then we got a long tutorial on blank design but no data supporting the challenge. Then we got a promise to provide evidence supporting the challenge at the Expo. Then the equipment was not at the Expo. The challenger was disappointed. Other debates have been introduced diluting the focus on the original challenge. The challenger has somehow disappeared. I wonder if it's because lawyers got involved? A few doubting Thomas types made sarcastic remarks. A mention was made of many objective, practical sensitivity tests that have been featured in the magazine, and a request was made for details on where to find them. There has been no response to that request. And the challenge remains unverified. Leaving us without verification or discreditation of TNF as an objective measure of sensitivity. Come to your own conclusions.

So what has all this drama, promises, broken promises, sarcastic posts accomplished? First, we builders have learned that blank makers have a device that they think measures sensitivity. And we have learned that they have no interest in providing objective data off that device. We have learned that one of the foremost rodbuilding experts in the land doesn't believe that those devices really measure sensitivity. We have learned that there are a very large number of builders who really are not that curious about objective measures of blank performance. (You were right, Tom, most just really don't care to know). Has it been worth it? It has been for me, and I still look forward to the data that will either verify or disprove that TNF is a valid objective measure of sensitivity. And when that happens, if it does, I will have learned more.

But for those who do care, and want to know how to test your own blanks/rods for recovery speed and probably for sensitivity, my email address is open. Just ask.