Thanks, Aleks. Nice to see some data! Do you know the TNF's of the two blanks?

I notice the geometry of the two blanks is quite different, the higher mod blank being much larger in diameter at the butt. Much different power and weights.

Would you say that "generally" the higher mod blanks are more sensitive than lower mod blanks? You have definitely proven that it is not always the case. But if it is not "generally" true, then why should we buy higher mod, higher priced blanks?

While some may argue that vibration is not the same as the "thump" of the bite of a fish, I maintain that it is. A "thump" is simply a single cycle of a vibration and a blank that better transmits vibration will better transmit a "thump."

Do you know what it is that makes one blank "damp out," stop vibrating when deflected like you did early in the video, quicker than another? 6 vs 14 seconds?

Thanks again! Very interesting.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2023 06:18AM by Michael Danek.

The test is interesting but does not surprise me. So frequency is not a good indicator of sensitivity. I would say frequency relates to rod speed as many others have been saying for years. So now the question would be what made the lower modulus blank more sensitive than the higher modulus blank? Taper, weight distribution?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2023 09:18AM by Mike Ballard.

The experiment showed that high modulus does not necessarily result in higher sensitivity. It did not address TNF. Hopefully that will come, but so far it has not. Of course TNF relates to rod speed (recovery speed), but that doesn't mean that it doesn't relate to other things as well.

It should not be difficult for Alex to run the TNF numbers on those two blanks. If he can get around to doing it I suspect that from the hand oscillation count the slower action and lower modulus blank will still be found to have a lower TNF than the higher modulus blank and yet it will remain more sensitive. So I would like to see the TNF numbers on those two blanks to confirm.

Aleks thanks for the methodology needed to objectively measure frequency transmission of a blank. However, there are some concerns about the experimental design. It seems that some controls are lacking.

If one is trying to linkTNF/modulus in either a positive, negative or null fashion to frequency transmission, why compare two very dissimilar blanks for the initial experiment? I think it would be more meaningful to initially compare two similar blanks that only vary in modulus. For example, IM vs HM FW701 and IM vs HM MB705. In these cases, length weight, power, action, surface area, taper, butt and tip diameters are all more similar making for a more controlled experiment. From there one can move on to measuring the effects of other blank parameters to signal transmission.

Is there a difference when the signal is applied to the tip and measured at the butt vs vice versa? This would be more similar to the way one would sense vibrations when fishing. I know doing the frequency measuring in this direction is more difficult, and you may need to get rid of the table and use a CCS-like support for this.

Do different frequencies transmit the same way? In other words, do some blanks transmit certain frequencies better than other blanks.

Your objective method for measuring frequency transmission, reminds me of the old subjective hum or Adams apple test for accessing rod vibrations. In my experiences, I’m convinced that sensitivity is a multifaceted phenomenon involving multiple parameters. The more objective testing we do, the closer we get to dissecting this phenomenon into its component parts.
Norm

Michael,

In terms of Geometry of the blanks - yes, they are different, one is a small diameter, thicker wall blank, the other a larger diameter, thinner wall. (I have mentioned a number of these before in the main post - a number of factors affect the "sensitivity" of a blank, geometry being one of them.

The reason why those blanks were chosen, was to showcase the vast difference in recovery (that can be seen visually) and this is the reason why TNF was not measured, I will find some time hopefully in the next week to measure the actual recovery, my best estimate is one will be on a scale of 2x of the other.

"Do you know what it is that makes one blank "damp out," stop vibrating when deflected like you did early in the video, quicker than another? 6 vs 14 seconds?"

- Yes, in this specific case it was the diameter of the mandrel. The bigger the mandrel diameter, the "stiffer" the resulting blank is - which is also a point that I made in the very first post, you can achieve faster recovery by increasing the mandrel diameter.

"Would you say that "generally" the higher mod blanks are more sensitive than lower mod blanks? You have definitely proven that it is not always the case. But if it is not "generally" true, then why should we buy higher mod, higher priced blanks?"

- It depends on how the lower modulus blanks are designed (Sorry, we will not go into what can make a lower modulus blank more vibrationally sensitive than a higher modulus blank, its a number of factors, and they go into the "trade secret" category) Remember, there are at least 6 HUGE variables in blank design (That I will talk about) - 1) The pattern of the blank, 2) The mandrel and mandrel taper 3) The material/modulus 4) What "fillers" are used in the material, like resin systems and scrim, 5) The density of the overall laminate (the amount of pressure it is rolled under), 6) The shape of the fiber (more oval vs. more round).


The formula that our factory holds is "weight is a deterrent to performance" and we have for 40+ years. When we introduce a new material, we focus on reducing the weight, while keeping the same breaking strength as the prior model, or in increase in strength, the sensitivity will land where it lands. At least 6 variables is A LOT when trying to arrive at an answer of "does higher modulus result on higher sensitivity - the closest answer that I can give is not for every blank. If we claim that a blank and a material is more sensitive than another, it’s based on our data and measurements - what others means by that, I’m not sure.

In general, there are a number of reasons why you would want to buy a higher modulus blank that does not relate to "sensitivity" - 1) Reduction in weight 2) Increase in break strength (tensile) 3) Increase in recovery (TNF)

Those companies that claim that they have achieved better "sensitivity" due to an increase in modulus, should have their feet held to the fire and always asked "compared to what?" Your prior version of this blank? Someone else's with the same properties like ERN/AA?

Aleks



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2023 01:57PM by Aleks Maslov.

How much high mod material is really used in the manufacturer of a blank can vary widely and where is that material located is what I would want to know but the chance of getting that answer is slim to none . I know a few manufacturers that openly admit that they only use higher modulus material in the butt section of their best blanks to reduce weight but that's the extent of it .

I paid for CTS to design and manufacturer a few surf blanks for me that were higher modulus than what they offered to the public and they weren't cheap but they're super light and incredibly powerful and responsive . Those blanks have high modulus material throughout the entire blank except the tip and you can really feel the difference between them and other surf blanks . I love it but I think many others would find them a little over the top .

Thanks Aleks. I appreciate your straighforward, direct (not evasive) answers.

In addition to the concerns of Norman Miller, I question laying blanks on a table due the possibility that one, with a different taper, might interact with the table differently than the other. And yes, in my opinion it would be better to test blanks similar in geometry to isolate the effect of modulus better.

But I don't wish to leave the impression that I disbelieve the experiment in total. I think it is a valuable contributor to our knowledge, as are your explanations/answers. I understand that you may have "trade secrets" that you do not wish to divulge.

Norm,

Two thoughts:

One of the primary points of TNF is that the higher the TNF number, faster the recovery, the more “sensitive” a blank is. Then the connection is made that higher Modulus blanks have a higher TNF, and ergo they must be more sensitive.

There is no statement that the blanks must be the same Modulus for this to be true, or the same action, or even made out the same material rather than material blends - just that if it had a higher TNF, it’s more sensitive.

This is why I picked two blanks - one that recovers slower, and another that recovers faster, and pointed out, that based on our past/similar experiments, blanks that recover faster are not necessarily more sensitive.

That’s it.

If folks want to make the case that you need two blanks of a similar action, similar style, similar wall thickness, similar weight - but just controlling for high Modulus / low Modulus and measure their TNF, that’s another statement all together. Then the statement needs to be revised that it’s not “absolute recovery” that they mean, but relative to the same blank family and the same manufacturer, etc etc. How many caveats do we include until we can say - how fast a blank recovers, has no effect on how “sensitive” it is.

I think the video shows that - and folks should be able to replicate those findings at home with the way we set up the experiment. If they would like to change where the blank is measured, they should, as long as they keep it the same for both blanks being measured - it didn’t make a difference for us in terms of a result / but it did make easier to have both blanks on a flat surface and rest the measuring device on them, at the same location, rather than resting the blank on the measuring device - as they start to “buzz” they fall off the little platform that records the vibration.

Aleks

So when they start to buzz and fall off the device, that would mean the buzz is actually a physical movement?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2023 05:27PM by Mike Ballard.

Mike Ballard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So when they start to buzz and fall off the
> device, that would mean the buzz is actually a
> physical movement?


Yes, these vibrations are physical movements. If they weren't, the blank wouldn't move and fall off the device.

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

Aleks, Was the object of the experiment to prove that TNF and sensitivity were unrelated? Or was it to isolate the influence of modulus to determine if higher modulus always means higher sensitivity? I respectfully submit that there is some confusion here. In your video introduction you state the experiment objective and mix terms so that it's not clear just what you're trying to prove. TNF vs sensitivity? Modulus vs sensitivity?

I thought your experiment was designed to show that higher modulus doesn't always result in higher sensitivity. Since you did not measure TNF how could it have been an experiment to compare recovery speed with sensitivity? Even if it were the latter the blanks should have been much closer in power than UL vs MH. And with the variability of subjective descriptions that have been well understood for a long time, CCS numbers for power would be in order.

"How many caveats do we include until we can say - how fast a blank recovers, has no effect on how “sensitive” it is." Just a couple. Same length, similar power.

I would like to see two blanks of different modulus but similar powers compared for sensitivity. It's not that complicated. Comparing a 1.3oz. UL power blank to a 2.1 oz MH blank is, IMHO, a bit of a stretch. The blanks have two entirely different jobs to do. With blanks with the same jobs to do, does higher modulus always (or even mostly often) yield higher sensitivity?

Am I mistaken or did you not in the video at about 1:40 state that the theory states that higher recovery speed blanks have higher sensitivity? Do you believe that or not?

I'm not trying to be a trouble maker here, but I genuinely am confused as to what you are trying to prove. If you think I'm out of order, review the first part of the video and note the mix of terms/objectives/blank characteristics.

Michael,

“ 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.”

Is you statement word for word a few posts up.

In my opinion, the ONLY thing TNF measures is recovery rate/speed.

In the video - I am paraphrasing the incorrect assertion of TNF - one that states, and that you repeat, is that a higher TNF means a higher sensitivity.

This has proven not to be true, as seen in the video, where a blank that has a higher recovery, thus higher TNF, and higher Modulus, is less sensitive than a blank that has a slower recovery, lower Modulus and a higher sensitivity as registered on the vibration meter.

I am not sure I can be more clear. Feel free to repeat the experiment with a variety of blanks, or not. Feel free to change if, add to it, or not.

I will come back and update the actual TNF numbers for each of the blank, but they will only validate what I have already stated. One blank recovers slowly, and was chosen on purpose, the other recovers fast, at roughly double the rate, again, selected on purpose.

One has a higher recovery - which means a high TNF
One had a slower recovery - which means a low TNF

The blank with the low TNF, transmits more vibration.

You asked for some data - and it was provided, with a request for others to try the same thing and share their results.

The postulate : higher recovery (TNF) means higher sensitivity is either true or not. It isn’t in the case of the two blanks in the video.

Is it true for other blanks? My answer was “it depends” (on a number of variables) but can it be used as a statement that higher TNF or even higher Modulus means more “sensitive” - I don’t think so.

Aleks

As a former scientist, I was taught to be very skeptical. In order to support or dismiss a given hypothesis, experiments need to be performed in a controlled fashion where as many variables as possible are eliminated except the one being tested. This is one of the reasons that all scientific research papers and grants are peer reviewed by multiple reviewers. This is done in part to make sure the controls are appropriate for the experiments conducted, and the data generated unequivocally support the hypothesis given. To me, TNF is the frequency at which a blank vibrates when its tip is set into motion, nothing more nothing less. It can certainly be used for comparing one blank to other. Does it have anything to do with frequency transmission or sensitivity? I personally don’t know, and this is one of the reasons I stay away from sensitivity discussions. However, the role of modulus/TNF, if any, in signal transmission needs to be assessed in a controlled fashion wherein the blanks used are very similar in all variables except modulus/TNF. If both blanks transmit frequencies at the same magnitude than one can say modulus/TNF is not involved in frequency transmission, if there is a difference than it can’t be ruled out. I absolutely believe the data Aleks generated. However, the use of two very different blanks that vary not only in modulus/TNF but also multiple other parameters indicates that modulus/TNF is not solely responsible for frequency transmission, and that other factors are certainly involved. However, the data generated is equivocal in that modulus/TNF can not be ruled out or in as a contributing factor to signal transmission. As I have mentioned previously, I believe sensitivity is a multifaceted phenomenon, but still don’t know all the variables involved.
Norm

I suspect that the reason Alex choose two blanks with such different characteristics in terms of modulus and rod speed (frequency) was to leave no doubt that a rod with a higher frequency is not necessarily more "sensitive" than a rod with a lower frequency. While he did not provide any frequency measurement numbers, the visual oscillation he provided with each blank seem to indicate a vast difference in frequency between the two.

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

Aleks, I think Norman has said it better than I. Do the test with blanks of the same length and similar power. Different modulus.

Tom, nice try, but it would be so easy with the resources available to do this experiment right. Same length, similar power, different modulus. It's obvious that the intent of all this is to disprove that TNF and sensitivity are related. That may be true, and if it is, I won't fight it. I will have learned. But so far, it still has not been proven.

If all the variables are so heavily weighted in favor of the higher TNF rod as being more sensitive, and it still comes up short, how would moving those variables closer together change the outcome? I would think the difference in outcome would simply be larger.

But I agree that it's easy enough to make the test you're suggesting.

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

I don't think anyone is suggesting all high TNF rods are more sensitive than low TNF rods. Aleks showed that an ultralight blank is better at transmitting vibration than a medium heavy blank. I think every single one of us could have predicted that.I guess he has also shown that TNF is not 100% correlated to vibration transmission. However, there is absolutely no basis for him to say that there is no correlation between TNF and sensitivity. It's just another variable. I could argue that blank weight is related to sensitivity. I think most of us would agree. So if I compare a two ounce kevlar blank with a 4 oz high mod blank and the 4 oz blank transmits vibration better, does that mean weight isn't related to sensitivity? Not at all. The variable of blank construction happens to outweigh the variable of weight. So it is with all these variables. Blank weight, power, length, vibration transmission, action, material, modulus, recovery speed and probably other variables are related to the subjective sensation of fishing sensitivity. Aleks' test isn't any more right or wrong than Mick's. Mick says he has a belief. Aleks says he is right. We can appeal to authority, but there is nothing resembling proof here. And there never will be. It comes down to Tom's "try it and see what you like." Nothing more, nothing less. Let's stop being so damn sure we are right. You can't prove whose feelings are correct.

Peter,

I don’t believe that I said TNF has no correlation with sensitivity. In fact, I was very careful not to say that. I even provided at least 6 variables that affect the latter, recovery/TNF of which can be one.

What I stated, is that I don’t believe it’s correct to say that because a blank has a higher TNF, it will be more sensitive than a blank with a lower TNF, and showed that via an example. (and the same statement for high Modulus versus Low Modulus, (again, as standalone elements, used as a proxy for sensitivity)

That is the statement in dispute - “Higher TNF means higher sensitivity” / Lower TNF means lower sensitivity”

The statement was not “TNF (recovery) of a blank factors into its sensitivity, among other variables like Modulus, diameter, wall thickness, etc.”

I’ve stated as much, and am happy to get behind that statement - but again, that wasn’t what was being disputed.

I specifically chose the two blanks to show that using TNF exclusively as a “law of sensitivity” is not true, it either holds for all blanks or it doesn’t.

If you start putting in caveats “only these blanks, only similar powers, similar diameters, only carbon and not aramid blends…” etc you can’t use the higher / lower TNF numbers as a proxy for overall sensitivity. (In my opinion)

Using TNF in correlation with other factors is something completely different, that was never disputed (at least not by me).

Aleks

P.S.

Norm,

You are as eloquent as always.

Aleks, I am in pretty general agreement with all you say. It's a complex issue with many variables. I would like, however, to see modulus vs modulus and TNF vs TNF sensitivity test with blanks of the same length and similar powers. That should not be a problem for a company with your resources and probably thousands of blanks. In fact, I would be very surprised if that data do not already exist at NFC.

Thanks again for your contributions on this subject.