Holy cow. I've had the Renzettin all these years, and never knew there was an adjustment screw at the bottom of the foot pedal (I just ran downstairs to check). In truth, the 1/10 hp motor and standard foot pedal work great as is to turn cork and hypalon. I've made a whole lot of grips on mine for the last 5 years without ever thinking I needed anything else. It will also turn S-L-O-W onc
Forum: rodboard

has a lot of great kayak fishing information from a guy who specializes in trophy bass in MD and VA reservoirs and rivers. You'll find that as with everything, each person has their own likes and dislikes. I've fished with some awesome kayak fishermen. One prefers 5'6" rods, the next guy likes them 8' long (fishing for the same species with basically the same techniques). There is
Forum: rodboard

If you have access to a sewing machine, just use a bobbin winder to transfer the thread to another spool. Takes maybe 30 seconds to do the whole spool. Just write the thread info on the new spool and you are good to go. If you don't have access to a bobbin winder, just clamp the edge of another spool in the Renzetti. Turn it while holding the Madiera spool on one of the metal tensioner thin
Forum: rodboard

I don't doubt that JK Fisher made blanks for Orvis, I just question whether they made all of them. Ask people in the Orvis rod factory in Vermont and they will tell you that they started making graphite rods in the "Superfine" series in 1979. Perhaps that's a lie, I have no way to know without demanding receipts for mandrels... I tell you this, I have a Superfine rod I bought from
Forum: rodboard

Orvis has been making their own graphite blanks in their Vermont factory since at least 1979 when they brought out the "Superfine" series. They don't make all their own rods, but they do make some of them. They sell most of their rods as blanks (though never their latest/greatest), and also some unique components. As with most companies, they don't go out of their way to identify the
Forum: rodboard

Thanks for posting that DR, that was very thoughtful. You may have just saved a bunch of builders a lot of anguish.
Forum: rodboard

Pearsalls gossamer, followed by Flex Coat light. The thread will be as close to invisible as you can get- but you have to be really careful to get bubble out from along the guide feet or they will be very, very visible.
Forum: rodboard

Ken- anyone who writes anything has to toe the line between using formulas to prove concepts- which is not terribly helpful, and just citing a bunch of anecdotes- which is even worse than just using formulas. Some of these simple concepts are not as easy to write about as one might think. Tom K wrote "However, in terms of what we call "feel," the longer rod will be more sensi
Forum: rodboard

Emory and I are hard at work already on an article that will cover a lot of the things discussed in this thread. We are challenging each other back and forth, and working through the things we don't totally agree upon to make sense out of this complicated topic. I know it has been very educational for me to spend a lot of time thinking this through, and I hope Tom finds it to his liking and dec
Forum: rodboard

Emory Harry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mike, > I think teaming up on an article is a great idea. > Tom encouraged me to put together another article > that included the results of a bunch of testing. > But it appears that a second article on > sensitivity before the one with the testing may be > in order. Taken to e-mail- let's
Forum: rodboard

C. Royce- judging by the number of thread views, you aren't the only one. It's a shame more people haven't joined the discussion. Emory- Sure, a stiffer rod could be loaded with more energy, but I don't think there is any storage taking place in a fishing rod (except instantaneously). The energy coming to the rod is transferred right away. There is a good article waiting to be written abo
Forum: rodboard

Emory Harry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mike, > You may very well be correct. I have worked > through it yet to the point that I have convinced > myself so I am not going to try to convince you. > But I am still having a bit of a problem with your > thermodynamic argument. If I apply a force to a > blank and deflect the blank I h
Forum: rodboard

Emory Harry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- And I now think > that at a very low frequency or rate of change, if > the fish's bit is a slow tug or a pull, you are > right with your argument about the thermodynamic > losses when the rod deflects. In other words the > sensitivity will indeed increase, at a very low > frequency or low rate,
Forum: rodboard

Agreed. I did not mean to be overly critical. I apologize.
Forum: rodboard

jim spooner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > 7 /5 Rainshadow RX8+C742 5’ 8” OAL CCS 200 A/A 70 deg. 3.3 oz tot wt. > 5 /1 Rainshadow RX8+C742 5’ 8” OAL CCS 235 A/A 65 deg 3.01 oz wt. > (1 ½” of “fast tip” removed) > Cutting 1.5" off the rod tip dropped the weight by nearly 10%? That does not
Forum: rodboard

Jim- such tests mean nothing without blank weights. Since softer blanks tend to be lighter than stiffer blanks, on average a softer rod will be more sensitive just because of this. The question is- for two rods *of equal weight*, will the softer or stiffer of the two transmit more motion. It's not an abstract question. Consider two 9', 5 wt, 1.9 oz St. Croix fly rod blanks. The medium acti
Forum: rodboard

From pg. 2 of this thread "The first law of thermodynamics is clear on this point. When that rod tip flexes, it's absorbing and destroying the energy it was given by the line (unless that rod has a battery). The more it flexes, the more energy is destroyed and the less left over for your hand to feel. Conversely, the stiffer the rod, the more energy is passed down the blank (mass being eq
Forum: rodboard

C. Royce Harrelson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Would we not lose some of that energy upon each interaction? Sure, but the question is how much energy is lost. And it differs between different types of materials.
Forum: rodboard

C. Royce Harrelson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Am I out in left field, or would not the energy or > inertia be diminishing relative to the number of > molecules coming into play during this process? The number of molecular interactions isn't as important as the mass of all the molecules relative to the stiffness of the matrix they form.
Forum: rodboard

Ask yourself- why are mass and elasticity on the same side of the mechanical impedance equation as multipliers??? It can only be because an increase of either one would have the same impact on mechanical impedance. Since we all agree that increases in mass decreases sensitivity, it must follow that increased elasticity (softness) decreases sensitivity as well. Unless, as you say, that form
Forum: rodboard

Emory Harry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- It seems to me that what you are suggesting is that > the formula for mechanical impedance is not > correct. That the formula should be the square > root of the mass density times one over the > elasticity. Nice strawman! I'm not saying that at all. I'm arguing that mechanical impedance is benefi
Forum: rodboard

Mark Gibson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It's a little different for internal vibration > motion, and the better case is low stiffness and > lower mass. Again, you need to clearly define > what you are measuring. The equation for the > amplitude of a stress pulse through a tapered rod > is a complex exponential, but the effect of m
Forum: rodboard

Mark Gibson Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I would make the distinction here between the ideas of strike detection vs. the sensitivity of a > rod or blank: make the distinction between vibrations transmitted down the blank, vs. translational motion at the hand. > In the case of translational motion, the ideal case is a blank that is infinitely st
Forum: rodboard

Emory Harry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mike, > Yes, D=F/K. What I meant to say and what I thought I said is that for the SAME DEFLECTION it > will take more force if the rod is stiffer which is what the formula says. Yes, precisely! This is why the stiffer rod will be more sensitive. Because the same force results in less deflection and t
Forum: rodboard

Emory Harry Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mike, > No, I did not mean to concede that a stiffer rod > will move more. A stiffer rod will move less for > a given input than a less stiff rod. Emory Harry (also) Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Now if we move the tip the same amount with a stiff and a less st
Forum: rodboard

You concede that a stiffer rod will move more, but still maintain that the "amplitude of movement" can be more with the soft rod. The first law of thermodynamics is clear on this point. When that rod tip flexes, it's absorbing and destroying the energy it was given by the line (unless that rod has a battery). The more it flexes, the more energy is destroyed and the less left over fo
Forum: rodboard

Emory-Tom could confirm that I've been a subscriber for a long time. But I've been a scientist, fisherman, and rod builder even longer. You seem to be a scientist as well, I suspect you realize that you never addressed my main point. A soft rod will move your rod hand less than a stiff rod (length and mass being equal), and movement of the rod at the point of your hand matters most in detectin
Forum: rodboard

Wrapping wet noodles would be a real problem too, you would need a LOT of rod supports... Seriously, my point is that without stiffness there is -no- vibration transmission. As stiffness increases, so will transmission- to a point. At some level of stiffness you prevent vibration, sure. I suspect this level is way above any normal rod. But is "vibration" really what you feel wh
Forum: rodboard

So a spaghetti noodle would make for an awesomely sensitive rod due to the very very low stiffness??? A softer rod moves further at it's tip, that is true. But given the same input it does this at the cost of less movement at the butt of the rod. It's simple physics. I will not believe that given two rods of equal mass, the softer rod will be the more sensitive (e.g. result in more felt v
Forum: rodboard

If it has a raised spiral over the entire blank, with a white "Orvis" decal already on the blank, it's a Superfine. The spiral look is because they are unsanded, and is how you can tell the original blanks from the newer "improved" versions. Orvis sold those up until 3 years ago when they made sweeping changes to their line of rods. Those old ones were fantastic blanks, and
Forum: rodboard