Michael, in spite of all that, I feel very confident that I know how to build what I can call an extremely sensitive rod.

More sensitive than any production rod offered in the market, and I'm sure that many experienced rod builders here feel the same way.

In a practical sense, perhaps that is the benchmark we should be looking for.

Les...I got nothing after that riposte.

...waves white flag...

Chris,

Salute! And well played!

Let's have all interested parties get one thing straight. The rule for this discussion was set forth in the opening post of this thread. That "rule" being, that the definition of sensitivity for the purpose of this discussion was a tubes ability to transmit vibration. Despite calls that interested parties stick to the definition of sensitivity that was laid out in the opening thread, it is sufficed to say that, that particular rule was not followed. .

I some instances, such as with that whole nonsense that what we feel with a fishing rod is leverage and not vibrations, it wasn't even close to being followed. Had that rule been followed from the outset, this thread would have went 3, maybe 4 pages. Instead its' gone into its' 12th page, and we still have examples of people continuing to use their own definitions, 10 pages in.

" 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"

The ability to feel a bite, is not dependant on a blank's ability to transmit vibration anymore than a blank's ability to transmit vibrations, is dependant on its' recovery speed. Numerous examples of how a bite can be felt have been given in this and other threads throughout the years I have been a member of this site. Many of them having no mention of vibrations being felt through the rod.

Aleks said they have done tests, and that rod speed recovery does not play a role in a blank's ability to transmit vibrations. I take Aleks at his word, and find it completely logical that how fast a blank recovers wouldn't be tied to its' ability to transmit vibration. That doesn't mean that blank recovery speed doesn't have anything to do with feeling a bite. Because I believe that it does. But feeling a bite is not the definition we are supposed to be working with.

Anyhow .... somehow this became termed a "challenge" issued by NFC to validity of TNF as an indicator of vibration transmission. More accurately, a challenge to the opinion that TNF does in fact correlate with a blank's ability to transmit vibrations. An opinion unsubstantiated via any objectively obtained data whatsoever. Now I personally don't have a problem with subjective opinions being expressed as fact, unless of course they prove to be logical fallacies, but I'm also not one that clamors for someone to provide objective data to prove what they believe, or what they have claimed.

Michael, you're right. You have never said TNF is a way of measuring a blanks ability to transmit vibration. You just believe it does. You strongly believe it does. But isn't it a bit hypocritical to demand objective data to prove your belief wrong, when you can't provide objective data to prove it right?

Nobody has challenged your TNF process as a measure of rod speed recovery. Nobody has challenged your belief that blanks and rods with higher recovery speeds, make it easier to feel a bite. As far as the implications that some parties are unwilling to provide simple experiments to prove what they say ...... do you not believe the physics that a longer lever brings to the table? Of course you do, you're a technical kind of guy. Does that mean that a longer rod will always feel more sensitive. It will be more sensitive to input, but that won't always translate to feel while in use.

And instead of this "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). Maybe there is a very large number of builders that know that there are factors in play when you put a fishing rod to use, that objective measurements and physics can't account for. I know I fall squarely with the latter, rather than with the former. Show me on the water.. If it shows up there, I'm all in. Otherwise, well .....

As far as whether or not I buy TNF as being a measure of sensitivity. If we are using your definition of sensitivity as being able to feel a bite.Yes, I would likely agree with that. I find it easier to feel certain kinds of bites, with faster action rods. And there is no doubt in my mind than TNF numbers are intricately related to rod and blank action. It's a measure of recovery speed, it's logical that it would be. Especially if you are only deflecting the tip 2 inches, as I read was the procedure earlier in this thread.

But I'm not buying that a blank's action has anything to do with how well it transmits vibration from one end to the other. There is no logical reason that it would.

Oh well ........ that's all I got. This has been an interesting, and in some cases, an extremely eye opening thread.

David, I think you are off base with your first paragraph. Let's not forget that this is a wide open public internet forum, and not a focused technical discussion where confined pretenses are established and accepted.

Aleks stated definitions in his post for his part and a start of the discussion. I think the whole point of having a discussion is to challenge definitions, applications, and pretenses. The fact that the discussion progressed to other related concepts is the whole point of the discussion to begin with.

Sorry this thread has gone 12 pages, and not the three or four that you think it should have, but I think the general topic was stated in the thread title. Anyhow, it occurs to me that in subsequent paragraphs you do exactly what you've complained about in the first. lol.

I still recommend that *everybody* here follow the Shimano method for measuring sensitivity, its a simple test I laid out the steps for on page 11. If you follow those simple steps please post your results here to appease the crowd.

Grace and peace,
El

Joel, I certainly respect your point of view. And yes, this is a wide open public internet forum, but that's where my agreement with your first sentence ends. Reason being, one simply has to read the opening post to see that this thread started as being quite technical in nature, With a definition given to set the parameters for the discussion. To keep the discussion focused on one aspect of fishing rod sensitivity. It didn't work to well, did it?

As far as the what the point of discussion is goes, doesn't it depend on if it's an open discussion or not? If it's a pointed discussion, "For the purpose of this discussion, I am defining "sensitivity" as the measurement of vibration along a tube", shouldn't the discussion also be pointed? As for the title of the thread being a general topic for discussion. I certainly didn't see it that way. It was a pun. A pretty clever one. A way of Aleks saying that some people aren't going to like what is going to be said in the opening post. And it's pretty clear that some didn't.

And I didn't say how many pages this thread should have went. I said how far it "would" have went. Without all the other stuff I believe it would have ran out of steam. Did I complain about the thread going outside of the definition set for the purpose of discussion? I sure did. And did I contribute to discussions outside of that definition? I sure did.

The way I see it, my contribution to, or denigration of this thread (depending on one's point of view) goes something like this.

I asked for the barn door to be closed before all of the horses got out. Once it was clear that those responsible for opening the door weren't going to close it, I peeked inside the barn, and saw that all of the horses were gone. They had all been set loose, and were being allowed to run wild in any manner they so pleased.. Closing the door after all the horses had been let loose wouldn't help. So I had a choice to make ..... I could choose to just sit there and watch as the horses ran wild, or I could choose to take action and try and reign some of the more wild ones in. I chose to take action and try and reign some of the more wild ones in.

Some appreciated my efforts. Some not so much. And I'm ok with that.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2023 03:22PM by David Baylor.

I think it worked very well; this discussion has made me, and seemingly other rodbuilders as well, think about rod sensitivity, how it's defined, and how it applies to fishing situations. In my opinion that is a rousing success. Read the very first sentence of Alek's post.

Then, read the second sentence of Alek's post: "The below is meant to kick off a discussion on a topic that gets a lot of attention, specifically "sensitivity" as it relates to fishing rods or blanks." Seems pretty simple to me, and very open ended. Note he even places the word "sensitivity" in quotations.

It is not until the seventh paragraph of the post that he offers his definition of sensitivity for the sake of his discussion points, not for the rest of us to address and use exclusively and solely. I take that definition as an invitation to address his definition in subsequent discussion, and so did many others.

I think your expectations are unrealistic. When in the history of internet forums has a thread of any sort gone the way you suggest this one should have?

I think it appropriate to mention that I had defined "sensitivity" earlier in the TNF discussions as the ability to feel a bite. A discussion does have to have a commonly understood definition to try to assure everyone is discussing the same thing. Then Aleks in this thread changed that definition to "measurement of vibration along a tube." I didn't quibble about the redefinition since it was very close to mine, since feeling a bite has to be done at the grip of the "tube." Then he claimed that TNF was not an objective measure of HIS definition of "sensitivity." And he committed to provide data to back up his challenge.

He has not yet produced any data to fulfill his commitment. His definition was not and should not be taken as an invitation to address his definition. Or change it. He defined it, he promised data, and he should deliver it.

Joel, I agree that certain aspects of this thread went very well. Some, not so much.

I know I learned more about how some of the technical aspects of blank design can be manipulated, in order to bring forth certain aspects of a rod blank. And I had no idea that a carbon fiber could be coated with a metal. That is some cool stuff right there. And if any of my contributions to the other debates contained within this thread caused people to rethink their position. Then I am happy about that.

As far as the lines you mention in the very opening lines of the thread. You are absolutely right. That second sentence would seem to invite an open discussion of what "sensitivity" as it relates to fishing rods or blanks" means to each individual. You are also absolutely right that it wasn't until the 7th paragraph that he offered his definition for the purpose of discussion. But considering what the paragraphs and sentences between the second sentence and the 7th paragraph were about. the definition for the purpose of this discussion, came very early in the thread.

We will have to agree to disagree concerning his reason for offering his definition of sensitivity. I posted why I thought he posted it, in my prior post.

Aleks has been around here a long time. He knows how certain topics of discussion can go. As do I. I had no unrealistic expectations of how this thread would go. I knew exactly how at least one aspect would go, and it went exactly as I expected it would. As far as some of the other debates that developed are concerned, I was dumbfounded by some of the theories I saw being put forth. And I am certainly guilty of going off topic from time to time. In my own defense, it is usually when the entire discussion has already went off course. But ..... I can also admit that at times I am guilty of steering a topic off course.

As far as how many times in the history of internet forums has a thread of any sort stayed on topic .... .I have been a member of this forum for I think it's going on 9 years. In that time I have participated in hundreds of threads that stayed on topic, and read without participating, just as many. It's only when certain topics come up, either here or on other message board websites I belong to, that topics can go wildly off course.

David, regarding: "But isn't it a bit hypocritical to demand objective data to prove your belief wrong, when you can't provide objective data to prove it right?"

No it is not .
Aleks challenged the my opinion of the validity of TNF as an objective measure of his definition of sensitivity AND committed to providing data. All I'm trying to do is get him to deliver on HIS word.

Keep in mind that before he stated that he had the "vibrometer," no one on this forum had known there was a "vibrometer." At least no one admitted it. I suspected there was, and my comments on my belief that true natural frequency was in fact a good measure of sensitivity are the only reason the existence of a "vibrometer" came out of the woodwork. He came out with it and has since disappeared.

Regarding: "Nobody has challenged your belief that blanks and rods with higher recovery speeds, make it easier to feel a bite." Ability to feel a bite was my original definition of sensitivity and is basically the same as the definition stated by Aleks. And he did in fact challenge that. That's what this issue is all about. Let's not rewrite history.

Michael,

“He came out with it and has since
> disappeared”

On the contrary - my travels can be tracked via our FB page. I am currently in Korea for the KoFish 2023 Show, and will be here for a few more days, a few more trips (three to be exact and I should be back in the office by end of March.

If you are trying to suggest that I flew my team to NC - as we were there and walked the show both days - paid for the booth space, paid for the airfare, lodging, (I’ll let you estimate the cost, but it’s not in the single digits of thousands for us to get to the show, to “disappear” or for some reason other than a freak weather event that paralyzed Portland and surrounding area, which caused our blanks, new chuck, reel seats, grips to not even leave PDX after being shipped priority overnight on Tuesday (and no, it’s not possible to ship everything earlier, as we do shows the week before, so booth/setup equipment is coming from show to show) and ships to another show right after (in this case the PCS show in California, and the Korean Show right after)

It’s kind of hard to do a promised demo without the tools to do it properly - I.e. demo blanks that were stuck in PDX to showcase what was stated on the initial post, the vibrometer that didn’t make it, etc.

Rest assured, despite your continued “shots across the bow” I will provide a video of what was supposed to be shown/demonstrated at the show as soon as I have a few days to do so from my grueling travel schedule - the topic is important, but so are my responsibilities and commitments as a full time manager of a company that has dozens of folks across numerous counties - I don’t have time to reply to every post or insinuation - and will post an promised demo/update in the next month or so as I get it recorded.

Take care for now -
Aleks


Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> David, regarding: "But isn't it a bit
> hypocritical to demand objective data to prove
> your belief wrong, when you can't provide
> objective data to prove it right?"
>
> No it is not .
> Aleks challenged the my opinion of the validity of
> TNF as an objective measure of his definition of
> sensitivity AND committed to providing data. All
> I'm trying to do is get him to deliver on HIS
> word.
>
> Keep in mind that before he stated that he had the
> "vibrometer," no one on this forum had known there
> was a "vibrometer." At least no one admitted it.
> I suspected there was, and my comments on my
> belief that true natural frequency was in fact a
> good measure of sensitivity are the only reason
> the existence of a "vibrometer" came out of the
> woodwork. He came out with it and has since
> disappeared.
>
> Regarding: "Nobody has challenged your belief
> that blanks and rods with higher recovery speeds,
> make it easier to feel a bite." Ability to feel a
> bite was my original definition of sensitivity and
> is basically the same as the definition stated by
> Aleks. And he did in fact challenge that. That's
> what this issue is all about. Let's not rewrite
> history.

Hello from Korea!

I kept this response in reserve in order not to prolong this post, but since it made it to the top again I am compelled to respond.

It looks like the combatants have whittled down drastically and hopefully though attrition this post will die a merciful death.

As of this writing there were over 6900 views and 200 posts. Crunching the numbers that's about 3% posts per views. Crunching these numbers may be misleading, but I am erring on the conservative side because if one considers majority of the respondents are the same small group that perpetuates the post, thus driving the interest ratio even lower.

I am responding because I am very interested in the views and of opinions of passionate folks when they are debating a subject in which I have very little interest..because, there is always something to learn. Oddly enough all was not lost.

From this post I have gleaned;

1. NFC is experimenting with including a metal component to their blank to enhance the sensitivity of the blank....... Very interesting I will follow their progress.

2. There is very little agreement what sensitivity correlates with, or how to define or measure it........ I'll keep an ear out in case the climate changes.

3. The saying "One can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink" was never so true...... I try to know when to back off.

4. Trying to be the worlds mother is a difficult challenge, often unappreciated and unrewarding.......Result of trying too hard.

5. My vocabulary expanded by addition of "Ad Hominem Fallacy" to my arsenal of razor sharp wit and lightning fast repartee.....Sharpening ones communication skills is always a plus.

I will continue to view this post and express my appreciation for any additional benefits gained.

Just an observation, if it is appreciated great! If not "Sea La Vive".
Have fun
John

C'est la vie.. You might earn your Registered Coonass card one day. LOL!!!!!!

Aleks!

Safe and enjoyable travels to South Korea!

How I would love to spend a day, a week...a year talking and fishing with that group of fishermen in your picture! What's their perspective? How is it the same and different?

Maybe we can look forward to another discussion and testing time at Next Year's ICRBE Expo:
* A year to prepare all the equipment and test examples.
* A year to distill the parameters and definitions of what is being tested.
* A year to build anticipation and interest in one of the forum's most viewed topics of all time.

Your world travels put you in contact with some of the best and most innovative engineers, manufacturers, and fisherfolk...ideas that come home to us through your NFC blanks. Keep it up!

This makes me think of those tournament days when I started the day with a certain bait, and catch a couple of nice fish right off the bat. So what do I do? t keep fishing that bait the entire day, despite seeing signs that I should have at the very least, changed up my presentation. Those days don't usually turn out to be days when I have a shot at collecting a check.

I spend the ride home from the lake thinking, "man, if I had only done this"

We are now over two months in on this thread which has turned out to be one of the most viewed that I can remember. “Sensitivity” is obviously of high interest to rod builders. It started as a direct challenge of the opinion that True Natural Frequency, the only easy, inexpensive, practical, and objective method for builders to measure the dynamic response of blanks and rods, was an objective measure of sensitivity, the ability to feel a bite. A mention of a sophisticated “vibrometer” which could measure the response of a rod to an input was made, but no data were presented. I have experimented with a cell phone version of a “vibrometer,” but it clearly is not the correct process for documenting rod response. I, unlike the challenger, do not have a wide selection of blanks to be tested nor do I have the sophisticated laboratory equipment (accelerometers/oscillographs, etc.) needed to properly measure blank/rod response.

Based on the apparent reluctance of the challenger to provide data, I don't expect any data will be forthcoming. Which leaves me with the same opinion I had two months ago, that TNF is an emulator, an indicator, of sensitivity. It unquestionably is a direct measure of recovery speed, and has shown that the higher priced, higher modulus blanks, have higher natural frequencies than similar lower modulus blanks. Manufacturers invariably claim that their higher modulus, premium, higher priced blanks have higher sensitivity. TNF as an objective measure of sensitivity makes sense and will continue to make sense until objective data proving otherwise is presented.

Dear All,

Thank you for your patience - In light of the robust discussion above, I wanted to have a way to describe our findings at NFC, but with the ability to be repeated at home - one of the reasons why I can get behind ERN/CSS is that you can replicate it with relative ease, and fairly low cost. (For example, you can invest in a Fluke Vibration meter, as we have if you are doing this repeatedly, or you can use one that will showcase the same results, but will not have the same level of peak vibration limits)




(specifically, measuring vibration as it travels from the tip of the blank, to the butt) It is clear from the discussion that ensued as a part of this thread, that there are several meanings of what sensitivity means. As stated in the very beginning, for our purposes, it is how much "louder/stronger" the vibrations are as measured from one blank relative to another. Why do we choose vibration transmission as a definition? When you get that "thump" on your lure - that vibration travels through the lure/line/blank into your hand. So if a blank passes more vibrations/louder though one blank than another - we deem that as more "sensitive".

While higher modulus of a blank can be an indicator of higher/better sensitivity, it is definitely not a rule or a "law" of sensitivity.

As the video below shows, you can have a slower recovery speed of a blank (slow action AND lower modulus) but have a higher transmission of vibration than a blank with faster recovery and a higher modulus. The blanks that were tested were the FW701 in IM and MB705 in HM, the IM blank is more "sensitive" than the HM blank. Those blanks were selected to prove a point - recovery of a blank/TNF has a very loose correlation to sensitivity.

[northforkcomposites.com]
[northforkcomposites.com]

The Video: (Click Settings : Gear Icon in the video and select HD)


[www.youtube.com]



Link to speaker that we used:

[www.amazon.com]

Link to vibration meter that we used in the video:

[www.amazon.com]

Link to a cheaper vibration meter:
[www.amazon.com]

Link to a Fluke Meter:
[www.amazon.com]

Link to a 60hz sound/video used.

[www.youtube.com]

Finally,

Do your own tests! Use the blanks that we used above, or select some blanks that are glass, and some that are carbon - I think that you will be very surprised with the results. If you have any questions, email me or post them here.

Aleks

Aleks Maslov Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While higher modulus of a blank can be an
> indicator of higher/better sensitivity, it is
> definitely not a rule or a "law" of sensitivity.

Well...there ya go. Thanks for the update.