Here's something to think about. The "maximum range" of a rod is equal to its "launch velocity" squared divided by 32.15. The "launch velocity" of a rod = 6.98 times the length of the rod + 0.133 times the deflection of the rod in ft. multiplied by the CCF of the rod. (friction assumed to be negligible) This will all be explained in an upcoming issue of RodMaker
Forum: rodboard

Mark, In answer to your question as to why I did not reference the work of Garrison (whoever he is) and Spolek, the simple answer is that at the time I wrote my first papers, I had never even heard of either of those individuals nor of their work, nor the work of others. My papers were simply a description of some useful procedures I had independently conceived and developed in trying to d
Forum: rodboard

Stanford, I believe you will be less confused if you simply report your TP=2.82 and PR as 13.1. These values have nothing to do with the ERN value except they are determined from the same numerical scale in the Table and describe your rod. TP will always be less than ERN and PR will always be greater. That's just the way it is for a tapered tube. The numbers you got are just those of your ro
Forum: rodboard

You can also go the other way. In Part 1 of the CCS articles, I wrote: "Along that line, consider my old fiberglass Shakespeare Wonder Rod. Designed as an ultralight spinning rod—at at time when fly fishers wanted slow action rods duplicating bamboo—it has a DBI = 6.6 / 75 and proves the design of fast action rods is nothing new.. I have happily fished with it for over 50 years.
Forum: rodboard

Stan wrote: “Not aligning the spine or spline is of so little consequence to the performance of the finished rod that it will not be able to be measured by any means.” Call it what you wish, but it can be measured by several means. Very few rods are radially symmetrical. Consequently, if you rotate the rod along its length and measure either its ERN or frequency at different degrees of ro
Forum: rodboard