PLEASE NOTE: This is the Archived Sexyloops Board from years 2004-2013.
Our active community is here: https://www.sexyloops.co.uk/theboard/

Excellent Double Spey Video - Good explanation of the technique

Locked
User avatar
springer
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:34 pm
Location: Northumberland
Contact:

Post by springer »

Aitor wrote:Some video analysis tools allow us to know where the fulcrum really is. For this cast the fulcrum wasn't in the upper hand. It never is there.

I need a lot more info that that Aitor, which cast in particular are you referring to?

I look forward to finding out more :)

Is there stuff written somewhere I could look at?
User avatar
Aitor
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 2074
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:19 pm
Location: Bilbao, Basque Country
Contact:

Post by Aitor »

On post 40 here there is an example.
Aitor is not like us, he is Spanish, and therefore completely mad.
Cheers
, Paul

No discutas nunca con un idiota, la gente podría no notar la diferencia.
Immanuel Kant

Videos for casting geeks
User avatar
springer
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:34 pm
Location: Northumberland
Contact:

Post by springer »

Aitor wrote:On post 40 here there is an example.

Come on Aitor you will have to do much better than that.

How do I know the guy taking the test was really capable of being top hand neutral? Maybe you could bring the machine to my place, Im sure you will get a different reading! :)
User avatar
Aitor
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 2074
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:19 pm
Location: Bilbao, Basque Country
Contact:

Post by Aitor »

I wasn't trying to put myself as an example of anything (of anything good, that is :D ). It is just an example of an analysis tool that tells us where the center of rotation of the system is.

You could send a video to Gordy showing a cast with the fulcrum style and see what the results are.

I bet that no good cast can have the fulcrum in the upper hand.
Aitor is not like us, he is Spanish, and therefore completely mad.
Cheers
, Paul

No discutas nunca con un idiota, la gente podría no notar la diferencia.
Immanuel Kant

Videos for casting geeks
User avatar
springer
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:34 pm
Location: Northumberland
Contact:

Post by springer »

Aitor wrote:I wasn't trying to put myself as an example of anything (of anything good, that is :D ). It is just an example of an analysis tool that tells us where the center of rotation of the system is.

You could send a video to Gordy showing a cast with the fulcrum style and see what the results are.

I bet that no good cast can have the fulcrum in the upper hand.

You have a strong opinion on something that appears to clearly be unproven Aitor.

Why would a top hand fulcrum cast be as inept as you suggest?
User avatar
Aitor
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 2074
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:19 pm
Location: Bilbao, Basque Country
Contact:

Post by Aitor »

You have a strong opinion on something that appears to clearly be unproven, Alan. :)

What I am suggesting is that those who claim that their casts have the fulcrum in the upper hand actually have the fulcrum much lower than that.

If I am wrong it is easy to prove: shoot a video and send it to Gordy.
Aitor is not like us, he is Spanish, and therefore completely mad.
Cheers
, Paul

No discutas nunca con un idiota, la gente podría no notar la diferencia.
Immanuel Kant

Videos for casting geeks
Malcolm
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 2:23 pm
Location: West Stirlingshire, Scotland
Contact:

Post by Malcolm »

On this video Henrik Mortensen describes his version as being 70% lower hand 30% upper hand. That seems to me to be fairly realistic.

Between 5 and 6 minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5V1vxR2cr0&feature=player_embedded
User avatar
springer
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:34 pm
Location: Northumberland
Contact:

Post by springer »

Aitor wrote:You have a strong opinion on something that appears to clearly be unproven, Alan. :)

What I am suggesting is that those who claim that their casts have the fulcrum in the upper hand actually have the fulcrum much lower than that.

If I am wrong it is easy to prove: shoot a video and send it to Gordy.
:D Point taken.

Filming a few different clips could prove interesting and informative.

You still dont explain why you think it isnt possible though?
User avatar
Aitor
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 2074
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:19 pm
Location: Bilbao, Basque Country
Contact:

Post by Aitor »

springer wrote:You still dont explain why you think it isnt possible though?
If you ask any caster about where the fulcrum is in single handed casting... well, video analysis surprises us all.

I think that double handed casting hides the same level of surprises.
Aitor is not like us, he is Spanish, and therefore completely mad.
Cheers
, Paul

No discutas nunca con un idiota, la gente podría no notar la diferencia.
Immanuel Kant

Videos for casting geeks
User avatar
Juergen Friesenhahn
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:38 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Juergen Friesenhahn »

Good morning,

See, I can't say anthing about the distribution of power between hands on pics, that shows hand/rodposition only. Even in a video it is hard to "truely see" for me or to analyze. Even standing next to the caster...
I can't.

What I also want to add here is, that there seems to be a confusion about the fulcrum itself. Aren't you mixing up the real fulcrum, that lies in the tophand of Robert and something I would call a "virtual fulcrum", that lies between the two hands?
Isn't it only a point of view or, how Einstein would call it, the frame of reference?

A simple example: where is the fulcrum on a steamlocomotives driving conrod?
On the wheel?
Or "somewhere on the conrod" as we usually "see" it? (clearly not)

Best wishes

Juergen
Juergen Friesenhahn
www.wurfkurse.de
Malcolm
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 2:23 pm
Location: West Stirlingshire, Scotland
Contact:

Post by Malcolm »

Juergen Friesenhahn wrote:What I also want to add here is, that there seems to be a confusion about the fulcrum itself. Aren't you mixing up the real fulcrum, that lies in the tophand of Robert and something I would call a "virtual fulcrum", that lies between the two hands?
Isn't it only a point of view or, how Einstein would call it, the frame of reference?
Hi Juergen,

The definition of a fulcrum for our purposes would be "a point around which a lever rotates"

That can be a "real fulcrum" - in our case the lever rotates around a point supported by a hand or an "imaginary fulcrum" - an unsupported rotation point.

Now clearly the two cannot exist on the same lever at the same time. That so far has been at the core of the discussion.

(Actually the two can co-exist but it's a physics trick question which I may post up for interest at another time).
User avatar
Aitor
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 2074
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:19 pm
Location: Bilbao, Basque Country
Contact:

Post by Aitor »

Velocity vectors for each hand on a fulcrum style cast:
Attachments
fulcrum1_1.gif
fulcrum1_1.gif (109.51 KiB) Viewed 2512 times
Aitor is not like us, he is Spanish, and therefore completely mad.
Cheers
, Paul

No discutas nunca con un idiota, la gente podría no notar la diferencia.
Immanuel Kant

Videos for casting geeks
User avatar
Paul Arden
Fly God 2010
Posts: 23925
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:35 am
Location: Travelling
Contact:

Post by Paul Arden »

During most casts the fulcrum point moves, it starts below the caster and moves towards the hand/s. It's possible to use a DHD as purely first, second and third class levers. But I don't think anyone does this!

There is an equation for a moving fulcrum point, but I don't need to know it! It came up when we were discussing the definition of Stroke Length :p

I have a pretty good idea if someone is top or bottom hand dominant by watching them, as I'm sure we all do!

Cheers, Paul
It's an exploration; bring flyrods.

Flycasting Definitions
User avatar
Aitor
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 2074
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:19 pm
Location: Bilbao, Basque Country
Contact:

Post by Aitor »

Paul Arden wrote:I have a pretty good idea if someone is top or bottom hand dominant by watching them, as I'm sure we all do!

Great!

So what is your idea about the cast in the .gif I've just posted?

Any example of the use of a DH rod as a second class lever?
Aitor is not like us, he is Spanish, and therefore completely mad.
Cheers
, Paul

No discutas nunca con un idiota, la gente podría no notar la diferencia.
Immanuel Kant

Videos for casting geeks
User avatar
springer
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2007 10:34 pm
Location: Northumberland
Contact:

Post by springer »

Malcolm wrote:
Juergen Friesenhahn wrote:What I also want to add here is, that there seems to be a confusion about the fulcrum itself. Aren't you mixing up the real fulcrum, that lies in the tophand of Robert and something I would call a "virtual fulcrum", that lies between the two hands?
Isn't it only a point of view or, how Einstein would call it, the frame of reference?

Hi Juergen,

The definition of a fulcrum for our purposes would be "a point around which a lever rotates"

That can be a "real fulcrum" - in our case the lever rotates around a point supported by a hand or an "imaginary fulcrum" - an unsupported rotation point.

Now clearly the two cannot exist on the same lever at the same time. That so far has been at the core of the discussion.

(Actually the two can co-exist but it's a physics trick question which I may post up for interest at another time).

To quote Robert again,

"If there is a see saw on the back of a truck at a parade and the truck is moving, there is no change in the fulcrum on the see saw, or its position on the see saw."

This analogy really did it for me and suggests that indeed a fulcrum and a moving fulcrum can be one and the same.

Really interesting discussion guys. :cool:
Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests