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

Common Cents for Sexyloopers - More than you want to know.

User avatar
Graeme_Hird
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:30 am
Contact:

Post by Graeme_Hird » Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:15 am

That's great Magnus. Thanks.

However, I'm not the person trying to get a good system accepted around the world. Why make it harder for 96% of the world's population than it needs to be? Just use an accepted standard weighing system and apply a formula with the constant of 2.5 built into it. Especially when it is being published OUTSIDE the US!

Cheers,
Graeme

User avatar
Magnus
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 12097
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 2:00 am
Location: Banff, Scotland
Contact:

Post by Magnus » Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:37 am

FFS Graeme

Bill is an american, he lives and works in the USA, he published inside the USA, his articles were written for a US magazine readership, they were then published on a website hosted in the USA - you seeing a theme here?

The fairly obvious assumption was that anyone outside the US who wanted to use the system could convert the weights.

Can we move on now please!

Magnus
Casting Definitions

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
"Radio has no future."
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin

Bill Hanneman
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 710
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:54 am
Contact:

Post by Bill Hanneman » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:12 am

--------------------------
Gordy,
“The next time you make up a new concept such as “tip power” that claims to be built on Lord Kelvin’s assessment… If you cannot measure it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.” The CCS was developed to provide such numbers”

What is your point? CCS results are expressed in numbers.
Maybe you could use another term rather than ‘power’ that has an accepted technical meaning all over the world.

I don’t care about any technical meaning all over the world. I am addressing anglers and they know what I mean.
It appears your power terms have more to do with philosophy such as “the power of the President” rather than being something you can measure or quantify. If that is the case then it would seem that “tip power” and “power reserve” would fall in the knowledge of a meager kind of category.

Simply stated, your premise is wrong.
I don’t really care if tip power is measured in Watts, I would just like to know how to come up with the values in your article.

Can’t you read? I told you I made them up. What more can I say?
Can you say that they are related to Merlin’s k3/k1 ratio and thus are dealing in some way with the non-linear spring characteristics of a fly rod?

You should ask Merlin. My numbers were created at least 5 years before Merlin’s. I never heard of the spring characteristics of a fly rod until he mentioned them.

My numbers were the result of simple observations, measuring frequency, CCF, ERN, etc. and my creative ingenuity to create nonlinear, relative scales according to the dictates of Lord K.

-------
Merllin,
I think I better understand your approach of the classification although I tend (with age maybe) thinking like Bruce Richards:
The line rating system is 95% OK.
There is no industry rod rating system and likely never will be.
The better your casting skills the less you will care about the previous two points.

Good for you. I agree with you 100%. However, those statements have nothing to do with the CCS.

As you well know, the CCS is not a rating system. It is simply a method for characterizing a rod. There are no good, bad, or indifferent ratings. It just tells what it is.

User avatar
Graeme_Hird
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:30 am
Contact:

Post by Graeme_Hird » Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:51 am

Sorry Magnus. My mistake: I was reading the article here on Sexyloops, not an American web site. Most Sexyloopers are not based in the US and since Bill posted it on a non-American website for Sexyloopers, I thought that meant it was published outside America.

I'll leave it off and not bother chasing it up any longer.

Good luck with it Bill.

Cheers,
Graeme

Bill Hanneman
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 710
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:54 am
Contact:

Post by Bill Hanneman » Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:04 pm

I'll leave it off and not bother chasing it up any longer.
Good luck with it Bill.

Thanks. Can't you just try Google and look up Common Cents System?

User avatar
Graeme_Hird
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:30 am
Contact:

Post by Graeme_Hird » Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:49 pm

Bill Hanneman wrote:Thanks. Can't you just try Google and look up Common Cents System?

Hi Bill,

I did that when I first heard of the system earlier this year (and again just now). I really like the concept of the system: you are on a winner. However, I'm trained as a scientist and work in a role where I need to simplify complex processes and make them accessible to untrained people. Seeing the introduction of yet another non-standard measuring system just rubs me the wrong way because in adds an unnecessary obstacle to adoption of your system.

Sure, it works well where you live and it works today. But what happens when your government stops producing 1 cent pieces (like mine did more than 20 years ago)? Why make it harder than it needs to be for 96% of the world’s population? Grams are grams in every part of the world and will be as long as our civilisation exists.

Marketing 101 says “remove all obstacles that customers can use as an excuse to not buy your product”. For example, don’t put up a sign that says “Cash Only” when most people want to pay with a card. In your wonderful system, the main obstacle for me is “I have no idea where to get a large handful US pennies.”

I know, I know: Google is my friend and I can find out how much a penny weighs today. My point is that it’s an excuse I can easily use to dismiss the system without even trying it.

All I’m asking is for you supliment your system with a metric version on your web site. Then, when you are talking to an audience outside your home country, you can simply upload that version of your system and remove one more barrier to the global adoption of the system. (As an added bonus, it will be a page on your web site that won't need updating when the US government policy on pennies changes. :) Think of it as a lasting legacy that will survive long after you are no longer able to keep your system up to date. )

It is a great system and I thank you for introducing it.

Cheers,
Graeme

(By the way, it’s not just your system that gets me fired up, so don’t feel like I’m singling you out. I hate the use of grains and feet in the fly line “standards” too. It should be grams and metres, as far as I’m concerned. But that’s another battle for another time and another place. :) )

User avatar
LaMouche
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:04 am
Contact:

Post by LaMouche » Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:44 am

Graeme, you really need to get over it, man.
I've been using the CCS for years, I'm in France and I never had a common cent in my life. The 1cs=2.5g is in the paper. Measure your blank/rod with whatever, weight it, divide b 2.5, end of the story.
Someone who'll have a problem with that will never bother with CCS in the first place.
... not catching anything on flies.
http://g0nefishin9.wordpress.com/

Bill Hanneman
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 710
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:54 am
Contact:

Post by Bill Hanneman » Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:26 am

Graeme,
I appreciate your letter, but let me explain some facts that Magnus missed. I am 85 years old and the CCS was just something I developed just for fun and to understand what Sage was touting. All the rest grew out of the fact that Tom Kirkman recognized its value for rod builders and published it in his magazine. I get nothing out of this but satisfaction and a chance to spar with the SexyLoop engineers who I feel are bound by grams and meters and cannot abide by creative investigators who use common sense and nonlinear scales to solve problems which have defied engineers for years.

If you go to http://www.northforkcomposites.com/downloa....1.0.pdf
I believe you will find what you might be looking for


FYI I’m going fishing for the next 10 days. I’ll check in when I get back.

Bill

User avatar
Merlin
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 798
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:30 pm
Contact:

Post by Merlin » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:25 pm

As you well know, the CCS is not a rating system. It is simply a method for characterizing a rod. There are no good, bad, or indifferent ratings. It just tells what it is.

Hi Bill

Just a bit puzzled here. So what is URRS if not a rating system?

Anyway, I am on the way to use CCS/URRS data and allow a rodbuilder to chose the line that would fit his taste with that rod. Skeptical?

Have a good fishing trip.

Merlin
Fly rods are like women, they wont´play if they're maltreated.
Charles Ritz, A Flyfisher's Life

VGB
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 495
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 7:50 pm
Contact:

Post by VGB » Fri Sep 28, 2012 7:30 am

Bill


I applaud your vitality but you were beaten to the understanding of beam bending by several centuries:

http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/2008....-part-1

The problem that engineers have with CCS is that you are using a non-linear scale to measure a variable non-linear property. To draw an analogy, it would be like declaring the language of fly fishing to be Esperanto where everyone understands a few words but only the inventor really knows what all of the words mean.

However, with your latest missive and using the translation powers of the Rosetta Stone, I could see how ERN/TP/RP could be used to produce a force/deflection chart that I would find useful.

Hope the fishing went well.

regards

Vince

hilokawika
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:57 pm
Contact:

Post by hilokawika » Sat Oct 27, 2012 2:41 pm

My question to you is so simple that I'm somewhat chary of actually posting it. In any case, here it is:
How are the actual ERN values arrived at? There are a couple of tables in Bill Hanneman's articles that relate IP to ERN but I just can't find any actual plots or calculations which show how ERN values came to be.

The reason I'm asking is that I just made a CCS deflection measurement (412 grams, ~165 "cents") on a Wright & McGill, 9', medium action (63 degrees) rod that I recently purchased. Going to the CCS tables gives this rod an ERN value of ~15 - nearly double the nominal value of 9wt on the rod itself.

For some reason I had thought that in my initial readings of the CCS articles that the ERN values would be similar or close to the nominal values stated by the manufacturer. I suppose I now wonder if the regression approach used is only valid for a small range of rod weights and extrapolation beyond those weights isn't valid.

I welcome anyone's help in untangling what is at least a mystery to me.

aloha,

Dave Hurd, Hilo, Hawaii

User avatar
grunde
Master of The Kettle
Posts: 1462
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 5:48 pm
Location: Drammen, Norway
Contact:

Post by grunde » Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:14 pm

For heavy rods the csi ern values are usually far off the numbers stated on the rods (and the line wts most of us prefere). For lighter trout rods the numbers are more often the same ;-)

I wouldn't have to high hopes for a formula or reasoning behind the IP/ERN relation...

And welcome to the SL board Dave!

Cheers,
Grunde
"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful."
George E. P. Box

Always question the assumptions!

Flycasting Definitions
...

gordonjudd
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 2214
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:14 am
Location: California
Contact:

Post by gordonjudd » Sun Oct 28, 2012 6:17 am

There are a couple of tables in Bill Hanneman's articles that relate IP to ERN but I just can't find any actual plots or calculations which show how ERN values came to be.

Dave,
It is nice to have you contributing to the technical forum. Don't worry about asking some basic questions as you will find many casters are wondering about the same thing.

I think this is the description and plot you are looking for:
Image
Image

Most of those rods were in the 4 to 6 wt range, and as a result the best fit for the number of pennies to a corresponding ERN value matches rods in that range as well. I find it ironic that Bill claims the manufacturer's line recommendations are useless, but when you dig down into the roots of CCS it was their designations that he used for his system as well. Essentially he just averaged them out with an eye-balled fit to come up with his slope values.

As discussed here you will find that the rod ratings derived for different "objective" measurement systems depends on the slope of the curve that maps the tip deflection mass to the corresponding AFTMA mass for 30 feet of line.

Those slope values are somewhat arbitrary, and as a result different systems will give different rod weights based on the deflection mass value required to get a given normalized deflection as discussed here.

In the end it is more of a matter of your personal preference of how well a rod will cast a range of distances using different lines. As Theo Matschewsky said about his 15 degree system:
A rod alone cannot cast and it is impossible to get objective and comparable results for rods if you try to incorporate casting styles into the measurement system. It is impossible to take casting abilities into any measuring system because this is subjective and very individual. But having a base - and it need not be the 15° measurement method – would be helpful to beginners in selecting the right tackle.


At least any of these systems will give you a reasonable place to start. The final choice still comes down to your personal preference.

Gordy
"Flyfishing: 200 years of tradition unencumbered by progress." Ralph Cutter

hilokawika
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:57 pm
Contact:

Post by hilokawika » Mon Oct 29, 2012 3:01 pm

Thank you both Grunde and Gordy for your replies.

I like the idea of measuring the properties of fly rods and then using these measurements to compare different rods to one another. But I'm uncomfortable with just making up formulas that have no physical basis as has been done in the CCS.

Where am I going with this? Some years ago, with the help of a few friends, I wrote a book about using physics and engineering to help understand the instrument stresses and strains which occur when building guitar family instruments: Left-Brain Lutherie .

In this book, nearly all the formulas were either derived from first principles or obtained from the book "Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain". Both English and metric measurements were used. Interestingly enough, although many books have been written about the physics of musical instruments, this was the first book deliberately written to help instrument builders.

Although readers may not realize it at first glance, there are many parallels between the instrument making/using community and the fly fishing community. I would guess that the great majority of instrument makers are technophobic and rely on "feel" to both make and play their instruments. I wonder if some of them even look with distrust on long division? Sound familiar?

In any case, this blog is quite wonderful with its varied yet civil opinions and technological insights. Thanks to all to created it and those who continue it. When I've done more of my "homework" I hope to enter more intelligently into the conversations. Thank you once more Gordy for supplying references.

aloha,

Dave Hurd, Hilo, Hawaii

gordonjudd
IB3 Member Level 1
Posts: 2214
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:14 am
Location: California
Contact:

Post by gordonjudd » Thu Nov 01, 2012 2:08 am

But I'm uncomfortable with just making up formulas that have no physical basis as has been done in the CCS.

Dave,
The CCS system was developed by a PhD chemist not an engineer, so it is rife with made up acronyms and uses weird terms for concepts that have been around in engineering books for a hundred years.

You might want to check out Merlin's Metric Measurement thread. That uses concepts that are widely understood by anyone with a technical background, and could use some input from people on how "action" and "fast/slow" could be defined and measured.

Those effects get into the nature of the non-linear spring characteristics of the rod or more specifically the k3/k1 ratio that Merlin discusses in his MMM thread. That ratio is in turn related to the taper, and the taper will have a strong correlation with the MOI, frequency, and dynamic flex profile of the rod. Thus it is all tied together, we just don't know the details of how, or what measurements would help to pin down the dynamic characteristics of the rod while casting.

Where am I going with this? Some years ago, with the help of a few friends, I wrote a book about using physics and engineering to help understand the instrument stresses and strains which occur when building guitar family instruments: Left-Brain Lutherie .

I could not get that link to come up, but trust me, if you know anything about strain your contributions to the technical forum will be very useful to other readers in the technical forum.

Gordy
"Flyfishing: 200 years of tradition unencumbered by progress." Ralph Cutter

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest