Bravo! It's all in your head! Lol



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2023 06:28PM by Lynn Behler.

There are two aspects to sensitivity testing. First is to compare without regard to absolute numbers between two blanks to determine which is the more sensitive. Which is what this procedure will do. Second is to obtain a single, absolute, number which characterizes the sensitivity. Like the AA in CCS. Every rod which has the number 77 is the same, or very very close , to having the same action. TNF is like this. Every rod that measures 500 cycles per minute has the same true natural frequency. Period. AND, IF TNF correlates to sensitivity then every rod with a TNF of 500 would have the same sensitivity. Aleks argues that his vibrometer obtains a single number which characterizes sensitivity. If it does, and I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree, so I'm assuming he is right (in spite of this test being most likely in conflict with the leverage theory) because it is run with sophisticated equipment, all highly calibrated, in a lab atmosphere under proper controls by highly trained technical people who know how to run a proper test.

If he has the tools to prove or disprove whether or not TNF is an objective measure of sensitivity, and since he has claimed it is not, and since he has promised to deliver the data to prove him right, why is he not providing that data?

We keep chasing our tails around each giving his personal philosophy and beliefs and much of the fog could be cleared up very simply. By Aleks delivering the data as promised.

Stiffness is in the numerator of the equation for the natural frequency of a beam. Weight is in the denominator. Natural frequency is a dynamic, not a static characteristic of a beam, even if it's tapered like a rod blank. My argument for the sensitivity being proportional to the natural frequency is for the prediction of that blank's (not with balance weights added) ability to transmit bites to the rod holder's hand. Adding butt weights certainly does change things, but I make no arguments on what happens then. I'd just like to be able to measure a blank's ability to transit bites.

Regarding: "Objective data is great n all.......but it will never replace feel." It doesn't have to "replace feel" to be of value. Wouldn't it be nice if objective data could predict feel? And that's what this is all about.

> >David Baylor "Objective data is great n
> all.......but it will never replace feel."

Michael Danek Wrote:
> It doesn't have to "replace feel" to be of value.
> Wouldn't it be nice if objective data could
> predict feel? And that's what this is all about.

I think this "feel" is more important than the value...but the value is of use.
Why wouldn't you want the most sensitive material you can use?
This "feel" is, for one, a skill. It can be developed and improved on.
This "feel" is also a physical characteristic of the body...like being able to run fast.
Some will be better at it then others.
Its my belief that the handle material: cork, EVA, carbon, reel seat and shim material play a bigger part in the sensitivity of a rod.
Yes graphite is more sensitive than fiberglass...but between graphite blanks? Are splitting hairs here?
....more coffee...

Thanks to Chris Catignani for convincing me that I can do the first type objective testing to prove whether or not TNF and sensitivity correlate. As soon as the weather breaks and I have easier access to my rods I will do the testing and come to a conclusion.

I would enjoy seeing the data examples that fit the TNF hypothesis as well as those that don't fit the hypothesis. I don't see one set of data completely cancelling out the other set. Both sets of information, together, are more valuable than one set alone in my view.

Likewise, as has been stated, I don't see bench testing in an arm wrestling match with real world fishing conditions. Those worlds are related for me: CCS and two-line static tests travel to the fishing hole with me more and more.

I haven't given up on eventually hearing back from Aleks. I hope is is not so cheeky that he answers in Korean! Haha! (Which makes me wonder about how CCS is accepted in Korea and Japan.).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2023 12:22PM by Les Cline.

Les. TNF testing is the testing of a rod in motion. It's a test of rod recovery speed. Not a test of the type that Aleks spoke of in the A Sensitive Topic thread. Its' results depend on the rod being in motion. Without rod motion, there are no results, that means it's a dynamic test.

A static test, such as the way I interpret the tests Aleks was talking about, and the static load guide placement set up, are static tests, because they aren't dependent on motion. They are taken on a motionless rod. The same goes for CCS testing for IP and AA. They are static tests, but they're testing the dynamics of a fishing rod.

Thank you, David!