Ben, You wrote, “...Using lead to controls the frequency is a great idea. What do you think of using soldering lead ? “ Weight is weight. The rod doesn't know what it is. Solder has a very high density, therefore less volume, and is removable. For the environmentalist’s sake, make it lead free. However, you might notice a bit more tip bounce. Several years ago, I developed a simila
Forum: rodboard

Emory, You wrote, "When constructing a rod the object, in my judgment, should be to get as high a resonant frequency as possible given the rods application." I agree with that statement completly, however, the operative words are not "as high resonant frequency as possible" but rather "given a rod's applicatiion". It is the application which DICTATES the desir
Forum: rodboard

"I think with enought data, one can custom the rod to a precision unit of HertZ." Of course one can. However, first you have to either know or decide what value of frequency you want to produce. Feel can be related to frequency and every angler has a different preference. That is the whole rational behind PPF and its application to custom rod building.
Forum: rodboard

Emory, For the benefit of new readers, let me reprint your earlier remarks. “You made the following statement in an earlier post and I think this is at the heart of our disagreement. "Essentially, what I am saying is that rod characterization has now independently progressed far beyond the concepts and capabilities of traditional mechanical engineers. I believe the future lies in â€
Forum: rodboard

Emory, I didn't notice any testiness. Chemists and engineers seldom agree, and that is what makes it interesting. I would like to respond to what you think is at the heart of our disagreement. However, I will create a new thread (Frequency Revisited Part 2) to do this and bring our discussion back to Page 1. ----------------------------------------------- Ben, You wrote, "In my o
Forum: rodboard

Emory, Of course we can agree to disagree. I always thought that was a given. But, as I said earlier, it’s neither fun nor entertaining or educational (to the lurkers) if we just agree. Anyway, I thought my “Amen” had closed the subject. However, it now appears you won’t let me get to say the last word. That’s OK, too. For the record, my degree is in Chemistry, and I spent 40 year
Forum: rodboard

Emory, With regrets, I have reluctantly accepted your decision to bow out of this discussion, however, I will try to answer your final question. But, first a few comments, which do not require a reply from you. ----------------- Since resonant frequency and the velocity that a vibration will travel up a rod are two different things and not related, I shall continue to believe resonant freque
Forum: rodboard

Ben, No, the Resonant Frequency of a rod blank has little if any relationship to the frequency of the rod built from it. Of course, it is always higher. In theory, if one had two rods equal in everything except frequency, the rod with the higher frequency should enable one to cast farther. Unfortunately, all things are never equal so it probably would be that the rod which exhibited the
Forum: rodboard

Emory, I'm pleased to see we are in disagreement, otherwise, this exchange would be boring. Now, let me respond to the comments you made in the previous thread, “Frequency and Blanks”. Perhaps it is all semantics. ? When I use the term "resonant frequency", I am speaking of the frequency of a freshly manufactured rod blank and only a freshly manufactured blank. Anything e
Forum: rodboard

Hey Guys, I see FREQUENCY has reared it head again. So, let me stir the pot a bit. For several years, I have been asking (on other sites) the following question, "What can an angler do with the knowledge of the resonant frequency of a fly rod blank, other than to compare it with the value from another blank?" I have yet to recieve an answer. Certainly, it can be useful for a
Forum: rodboard

Hey Guys, Now you'r starting to gore MY ox. I have been asking (on other sites) for several years the following question, "What can an angler do with the knowledge of the resonant frequency of a fly rod blank other than to compare it with the value from another blank?" I have yet to recieve an answer. Certainly, it can be useful for a blank manufacturer to use as a tool for q
Forum: rodboard

I would argue that it really isn't "action" that is important, it is frequency. Action, i.e,, where the rod bends, is a constant which is defined at the time of construction. While it is indeed a function of taper, it has relatively little to do with the "feel" of a rod. A fly rod feels different from a spinning rod because it has a different frequency. A typical graphite f
Forum: rodboard

Emory In another thread you stated, "I also do not make the frequency measurements by adding weight to the blank as in the CCS. I think that this is also a case where it may work OK with fly rods but results in very misleading measurements with other types of rods. " I would be very interested in learning exactly how you make these measurements and how you use the results. It is m
Forum: rodboard

Alex Dziengielewski Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- 360 cents (27 ERN) = 31.77 oz ------------- . Doesn't this put the numbers on different scales and put the ability to compare off? ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------ Yes or no. TP, ERN, and PR are three different scales with
Forum: rodboard

Let me assure there is no deep dark conspiracy aimed at keeping the CCS conversions a secret from anyone. All the information needed has already been supplied in the article on URRS. Anyone with the time and inclination to do so can construct the necessary table. The complaints I read here seem to be from some who wish to be spoon-fed all the information they might want and they want it NOW.
Forum: rodboard

It has been done. Ask Jason Borger at Northfork Composites 294 cents = 24.3 310 cents = 25.3
Forum: rodboard

Emory Harry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think that it might be clearer if we used a different term like stiffness profile rather than action which tends to be a very confusing term for many. ------------ I agree. However, a stiffness profile cannot be constructed from a single point (e.g. action angle). That is why the BIG Picture was developed. If th
Forum: rodboard

Bobby Feazel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Am I to understand that your suggestion is for each of us to use our own criteria for determining the point of intital flexing? If yes,... ------ Yes, do what you want. You are the one bringing up determining the point of initial flexing. Do whatever makes you happy. The CCS doesn't concern itself with that aspe
Forum: rodboard

Robert Russell Wrote: Finally, I'm confused by the aversion to using the industry wide standards for action, especially considering Dr. Hanneman provides definitions. There is absolutely nothing subjective about the term "fast action" when it is defined as an AA of "above 66" as Dr. Hanneman does. As in the length of an inch, it may be arbitrary, but it is objective. ------
Forum: rodboard

To determine how a blank loads, one must make more than one measurement. Consider the CCS and the URRS. These systems use three points in an attempt to better describe how a rod loads. The measurements are made for ERN, TP, and PR. Many rods can have the same value for ERN, but the TP and PR values will probably differ considerablly. For example, rods described a 2:5:9 and 4:5:8 both have a
Forum: rodboard

On a previous thread, the following statement was made. “ I think that if Dr. Hanneman would simply extend the Cents/ERN table as shown in the original article and the Rosetta Stone, it would restore the credibility to the “incomplete system” and go a long ways to make it more user friendly and truly universal for ALL blanks.” ----------------------------------------------------------
Forum: rodboard

Scott Sheets Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Let's face it....cents are objective....the ERN is by definition NOT....it is manipulated to allow the numbers to fit AFTMA line ratings... I honestly think that if Volume 1 had taught people to simple measure AA and Cents and to use that number for a description many more builders would have immediately adopted t
Forum: rodboard

Jim, One cent equals 38.61 grains. Check the article on URRS for the defined limits for higher ERN values. They are expressed in grains. You must convert cents to grains (multiply by 38.61). The ERN scale is not linear, so there will never be a simple conversion formula. Interpolate from the limits to get intermediate values. I am in the process of producing a qraphical conversion chart which
Forum: rodboard

I am preparing a lecture for the High Point rod show in February and need some information about fishing rods other than fly rods. Therefore I am asking for assistance from members of this forum. Specifically, I want to relate the frequency of a fishing rod to the application for which an angler uses it. To accomplish this, I would like to ask as many of you as possible to perform a simple test
Forum: rodboard

Alex, A month or so ago, I sent you what I thought would solve your problem. I never received any response. Did you get it?
Forum: rodboard

It's all a matter of "feel", and that is a functiion of frequency. You are right, to each his own, and you can get what you like—provided it is less than what you have.
Forum: rodboard

Alex, Thanks for questioning the values for pounds. You are to be commended and are probably the first one to seriously look at the that region of the chart. On rechecking, it is apparent that in converting ounces to pounds, I used an incorrect factor. We all know that one pound equals 16 ounces and consequently the values for pounds should be one sixteenth that of the value for ounces. I wou
Forum: rodboard

Alex, You asked, "How do you measure PR? – Take the measurement of weight needed to deflect half the rod length (assumption based off the definition on the sidebar of page 16 - there are no specific directions)? If so, again I run into the issue of data not being available due to the graduation on table 2, page 19 so how can I really use this measurement. ---------------- If you will
Forum: rodboard

Scott, It's not a straight conversion due to the fact that when the line specification were originated, they did not make the intervals equal. Blame them, not the CCS.
Forum: rodboard

Sorry, but someone has got something wrong. RP (Reserve Power) is a term originated by Sage, and they can have it, for whatever it means. The correct CCS term is PR (Power Reservoir) and is a measure of the relative power of the butt of a rod measured while the rod is deflected a distance equal to one half of its length. TP (Tip Power) is a relative measure of the strength of the rod tip
Forum: rodboard