So frustration is shared. That makes the usefulness of this forum again questionable. Would it be preferable to talk about issues and then vote pro or cons a given opinion. For example should we put Bill’s CCS to vote? Then democracy will tell the official SL position? Are the moderators there to bring an answer to any question that will be used to challenge them? This should not be the goal of this forum.
Managing this forum is difficult: there is little willingness to post something because there is the fear that moderators will fire at you, and at the same time some of those who have the knowledge to contribute are on some wait & see attitude, for a reason I do not want to judge. As a moderator, I could make comments using a couple of emoticons and a good joke to avoid making a contribution that would make the whole thing going nowhere. Maybe it would be better for popularity. Technical analysis is not like “tell me how to tie this fly”, there is always potential controversy. If no one wants to make an effort, it will not survive.
The purpose of this particular thread was to draw attention of the (positive) effects of non linearity of rods. For some reason, the discussion turned about: is the non linearity linked to ovalization? I did not bring that in, but tried to check if this was real. My last example with cane rods does not bring any reaction, although cane rod makers argue about the advantage of their rods regarding to ovalization. I am not going to ask why once more.
When the data from the computing center will come back, I cross the fingers, I shall share them whatever they are and we will all have the opportunity to question our personal convictions on this particular point.
I leave to Paul the opportunity to talk privately with moderators of this forum to see what can be done. I really would not mind very much if it had to disappear from the board. SL would just change somehow and leave aside one of its particularities. Some of us will just be frustrated a little bit more, but who cares?
If you don’t mind Vince, I shall send the data you are interested in privately.
Merlin
PLEASE NOTE: This is the Archived Sexyloops Board from years 2004-2013.
Our active community is here: https://www.sexyloops.co.uk/theboard/
Our active community is here: https://www.sexyloops.co.uk/theboard/
Effect of taper on spring nonlinearity - How does taper impact the k3/k1 ratio?
-
Hal Jordan
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 1:17 am
- Contact:
Merlin,
It's just fly casting. Try to keep it in perspective. It should not be affecting anybody's home life or health.
Yes you did. You showed it was negligible and I expect that the amount of ovalization that occurs in normal casting with a modern graphite rod is very small. But we know that a number of rod manufacturers have done things to make it negligible. Do these things affect the bending analysis of the rod? We now know that rods should be considered anisotropic not isotropic for example. We know that your model compensates for this by approximately a factor of 3. Is that reasonable? Does this affect the boundary conditions of your model? These questions are not an attack on your model. I believe your model is probably a very good model but as Grunde's signature line says:
What makes them useful is knowing when and how they are applicable. And if all models are wrong that also means that all models can be improved. Wanting to improve them is the nature of what engineers and scientists do and they will continue to try and improve them until nobody gives a damn anymore. That is why the term "analysis paralysis" was invented. We can argue about Poisson and Brazier and Timoshenko and Will Wheatley from Star Trek for all it matters. That doesn't mean you shouldn't run your models and it doesn't mean you shouldn't take pride and satisfaction in your work. Fill your boots. We'll all be happy to hear back about the results. But what do you do after that? Drop it and move on to the next challenge? Give someone else a chance to add to it?
This forum may be difficult to manage but you should have known that when you accepted the position to manage it. You knew the personalities involved. Now that you have managed it for a while you think you would not mind if it had to disappear from the board? Now you're starting to remind me of someone else. Technical analysis is not all about models and numbers. And doing a bit of up front analysis is not hand waving and it is not bad physics.
It's just fly casting. Try to keep it in perspective. It should not be affecting anybody's home life or health.
For some reason, the discussion turned about: is the non linearity linked to ovalization? I did not bring that in, but tried to check if this was real.
Yes you did. You showed it was negligible and I expect that the amount of ovalization that occurs in normal casting with a modern graphite rod is very small. But we know that a number of rod manufacturers have done things to make it negligible. Do these things affect the bending analysis of the rod? We now know that rods should be considered anisotropic not isotropic for example. We know that your model compensates for this by approximately a factor of 3. Is that reasonable? Does this affect the boundary conditions of your model? These questions are not an attack on your model. I believe your model is probably a very good model but as Grunde's signature line says:
Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.
What makes them useful is knowing when and how they are applicable. And if all models are wrong that also means that all models can be improved. Wanting to improve them is the nature of what engineers and scientists do and they will continue to try and improve them until nobody gives a damn anymore. That is why the term "analysis paralysis" was invented. We can argue about Poisson and Brazier and Timoshenko and Will Wheatley from Star Trek for all it matters. That doesn't mean you shouldn't run your models and it doesn't mean you shouldn't take pride and satisfaction in your work. Fill your boots. We'll all be happy to hear back about the results. But what do you do after that? Drop it and move on to the next challenge? Give someone else a chance to add to it?
This forum may be difficult to manage but you should have known that when you accepted the position to manage it. You knew the personalities involved. Now that you have managed it for a while you think you would not mind if it had to disappear from the board? Now you're starting to remind me of someone else. Technical analysis is not all about models and numbers. And doing a bit of up front analysis is not hand waving and it is not bad physics.
-
Eugene Moore
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:27 am
- Location: Missouri
- Contact:
Not terribly sure to be a part of this.
Wind down a bit. Egos have been damaged and testosterone levels are high.
I, for one, have no axe to grind and nothing to lose. My only desire is to openly share accumulated knowledge.
For a real life reference I lashed a rod to the floor and measured it with and without deflection load. Loads were approx 70 in lbs and was well within my single handed capabilities, albeit left-handed. I miked the rod in both conditions and found the change in diameter in the vertical axis was .001 reduction under load. At the location I was measuring the blank was .324 inches. This comes out to a .3% reduction in the load plane. This was approx 12 inches from the rod butt. The open area at this position was approx 70%.
The blank ovals worst at the butt where the open area is the greatest. Ovalization of the blank isn't all bad. It's the blanks method of redistributing stress, which is why the ovality is found in the lower stress areas. It does however add deflection in the butt where the deflection will most influence the tip position.
Imagine the rod as a clock. The outside of the bend coincides with 12:00 and the inside is at 6:00. Torque placed normal to the cross section creates rotational tension at 12 and rotational compression at 6.
The force at 12 is tension and downward where force at 6 is compression and upward. Since the cross section can't change area this produces a reduction in the height with an increase in width.
Even this much error, at the rod butt, plays a major role in the ultimate tip position based on Euler beam deflection. I find it difficult to accept a models validity if this is overlooked. The error is cumulative. There may be another method to address the issue, however it will not be ignored. As the rod lightens and resins improve the issue will climb math models will need to be addressed.
What has worked for a period of time will need to be updated to catch the technology.
Wind down a bit. Egos have been damaged and testosterone levels are high.
I, for one, have no axe to grind and nothing to lose. My only desire is to openly share accumulated knowledge.
For a real life reference I lashed a rod to the floor and measured it with and without deflection load. Loads were approx 70 in lbs and was well within my single handed capabilities, albeit left-handed. I miked the rod in both conditions and found the change in diameter in the vertical axis was .001 reduction under load. At the location I was measuring the blank was .324 inches. This comes out to a .3% reduction in the load plane. This was approx 12 inches from the rod butt. The open area at this position was approx 70%.
The blank ovals worst at the butt where the open area is the greatest. Ovalization of the blank isn't all bad. It's the blanks method of redistributing stress, which is why the ovality is found in the lower stress areas. It does however add deflection in the butt where the deflection will most influence the tip position.
Imagine the rod as a clock. The outside of the bend coincides with 12:00 and the inside is at 6:00. Torque placed normal to the cross section creates rotational tension at 12 and rotational compression at 6.
The force at 12 is tension and downward where force at 6 is compression and upward. Since the cross section can't change area this produces a reduction in the height with an increase in width.
Even this much error, at the rod butt, plays a major role in the ultimate tip position based on Euler beam deflection. I find it difficult to accept a models validity if this is overlooked. The error is cumulative. There may be another method to address the issue, however it will not be ignored. As the rod lightens and resins improve the issue will climb math models will need to be addressed.
What has worked for a period of time will need to be updated to catch the technology.
Eugene Moore
-
Paul Arden
- Fly God 2010
- Posts: 23925
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:35 am
- Location: Travelling
- Contact:
Maybe this is a separate discussion, but since we're all here and the discussion has changed more than once anyway, I'll start it here. The powers of a moderator can include editing and deleting other posts. There has been none of that.
One of the most important duties, perhaps, of a moderator is to initiate discussions. The direction thereafter generally takes a life of its own (often to the alarm of the initiator!). Our moderators are very good at this.
Since there are about 7 or 8 highly technically-minded posters on the Board - and in this forum - then perhaps you would like to suggest the best way for you to proceed in this forum. Obviously the term "moderator"gives special credence to poster's opinions in your minds.
So from this I'm sure that you all want to be on the same level. I can either make you all moderators or none moderators or any combination! That's not to diminish the contribution that any current moderator has made, because I personally find all the contributions fascinating.
However since this is really your forum and I and most others read-to-learn with little contribution, then I think it's best that the active contributors here tell me how you think it should best proceed.
I have no issues with personalities, I only want to see what is best to further our understanding of flycasting and give you guys a good time in doing so. (Up to now, I actually thought you engineers enjoyed throwing shit at each other :p )
Cheers, Paul
One of the most important duties, perhaps, of a moderator is to initiate discussions. The direction thereafter generally takes a life of its own (often to the alarm of the initiator!). Our moderators are very good at this.
Since there are about 7 or 8 highly technically-minded posters on the Board - and in this forum - then perhaps you would like to suggest the best way for you to proceed in this forum. Obviously the term "moderator"gives special credence to poster's opinions in your minds.
So from this I'm sure that you all want to be on the same level. I can either make you all moderators or none moderators or any combination! That's not to diminish the contribution that any current moderator has made, because I personally find all the contributions fascinating.
However since this is really your forum and I and most others read-to-learn with little contribution, then I think it's best that the active contributors here tell me how you think it should best proceed.
I have no issues with personalities, I only want to see what is best to further our understanding of flycasting and give you guys a good time in doing so. (Up to now, I actually thought you engineers enjoyed throwing shit at each other :p )
Cheers, Paul
-
gordonjudd
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:14 am
- Location: California
- Contact:
I miked the rod in both conditions and found the change in diameter in the vertical axis was .001 reduction under load. At the location I was measuring the blank was .324 inches. This comes out to a .3% reduction in the load plane.
Eugene,
Thanks for coming up with an experiment to see if the ovalization effect could be measured. Calculations are good but good measurements with tight tolerances are even better.
My first reaction was that if you are measuring a .3% ovalization factor for a 70 in-lb (7.9 N-m) moment on the butt there is something seriously wrong with the Brazier theory.
I assumed that moment was produced by by hanging a 320 gram mass from the tip. (.7 lb) so I tried to repeat your measurement as carefully as I could to see if I could see a similar change in the outside diameter of the rod as it was flexed.
To remove as many variables in this measurement as possible (measurement point, measurement axis, closing force on the caliper) I clamped a dial caliber so it was measuring the diameter on vertical axis and about 1 cm in front of the clamping point. Rubber foam was used on the clamp so I would not crush the blank due to the clamping pressure and to allow the cross-section to freely change.
I then set the closing force on the caliper with the load on the rod thinking that if the diameter increased the caliper reading would change on its own with about the same closing force on the caliper.
When I did that by my self I saw no difference in the caliper reading in the flexed or straight position which would indicated that on that rod the ovalization for a 320 g tip load could not be measured.
I then thought maybe it could have changed a bit, but was hard to see with discrete measurements. So then I had my daughter lift up on the bag of pennies while I was looking at the dial caliper reading with a 10x loupe. The result was once again there was no visible change in the diameter reading while she raised and lowered the tip to add or remove the bending moment.
If it was on the order of 1 mil I think I would have see some movement in the dial as the rod deflection was changed over such a large range, but in fact no change was observed even through a 10x magnifier.
I did measure a change in the outside diameter going from a minimum of .3815" to .3844" +/-.0001" or about 2.9 mills depending on the rotation axis as the rod was rotated.
If that shape was a slight oval the eccentricity would be around .122 (for an ovalization factor of .0038), and have an area moment that was about .9934 times the area moment as a perfect circle having the same outside circumference (an outside radius of .1915") as computed by Matlab where:
relative area moment of ellipse [a=0.19222329 b=0.19077 eccentricity=0.12264] = 0.99341
Thus even with a diameter difference of 2.9 mills the loss of relative stiffness would be very small. No wonder it is nearly impossible to see the "wobble" effect on the outside diameter variations due to manufacturing tolerances on the spring characteristics of the rod when you measured the force vs deflection characteristics when clamping the butt at different rotation angles.
As noted earlier I would expect the manufacturing tolerance on the uniformity of the diameter that results from the rolling process would overwhelm any changes due to ovalization, and maybe that variation entered into your measurements as well.
Maybe some other people could try measuring the diameter with and without flex to verify what I observed. But from my test, the ovalization could not be measured so I think the Brazier theory is still in play for fly rods.
Gordy
"Flyfishing: 200 years of tradition unencumbered by progress." Ralph Cutter
-
Magnus
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 12097
- Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 2:00 am
- Location: Banff, Scotland
- Contact:
Paul Arden wrote:Maybe this is a separate discussion, but since we're all here and the discussion has changed more than once anyway, I'll start it here. The powers of a moderator can include editing and deleting other posts. There has been none of that.
One of the most important duties, perhaps, of a moderator is to initiate discussions. The direction thereafter generally takes a life of its own (often to the alarm of the initiator!). Our moderators are very good at this.
Since there are about 7 or 8 highly technically-minded posters on the Board - and in this forum - then perhaps you would like to suggest the best way for you to proceed in this forum. Obviously the term "moderator"gives special credence to poster's opinions in your minds.
So from this I'm sure that you all want to be on the same level. I can either make you all moderators or none moderators or any combination! That's not to diminish the contribution that any current moderator has made, because I personally find all the contributions fascinating.
However since this is really your forum and I and most others read-to-learn with little contribution, then I think it's best that the active contributors here tell me how you think it should best proceed.
I have no issues with personalities, I only want to see what is best to further our understanding of flycasting and give you guys a good time in doing so. (Up to now, I actually thought you engineers enjoyed throwing shit at each other :p )
Cheers, Paul
Probably is a discussion worth having.
Thing is 'moderator' means something like 'chair of a meeting' it doesn't mean person who replies to every question asked in a forum, it doesn't even mean expert in the field.
In this forum, moderator seems to have a whole new or other meaning :p
Casting Definitions
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
"Radio has no future."
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
"Radio has no future."
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin
-
gordonjudd
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:14 am
- Location: California
- Contact:
Probably is a discussion worth having.
and
In this forum, moderator seems to have a whole new or other meaning
Magnus,
So let's discuss it.
Could you expand on what you mean by that, as I am trying to decide whether or not my contributions are just pissing people off.
If that is the case then I will be able learn just as much from Merlin by asking him questions and sharing data via personal e-mails while avoiding the personality conflicts that seem to plague this forum.
I find it interesting that someone with a PhD level technical background that is new to this forum would comment that:
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.
While someone who has participated for several years thinks:
The unfortunate thing is that I know there are a number of people who find the forum more of a source of entertainment than useful information.
Gordy
"Flyfishing: 200 years of tradition unencumbered by progress." Ralph Cutter
-
Magnus
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 12097
- Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 2:00 am
- Location: Banff, Scotland
- Contact:
Hi Gordy
I have a non-scientific PhD level background. I have some idea for the difference between a forum and a blog. Perhaps we should start there. Do you understand that, as a description of the forum you moderate, the comment "this blog is quite wonderful" may not be quite as positive as you seem to think?
A blog is a usually a monologue - I guess it can be a duet or duologue. A forum is, as the name suggests, a place for participating in a discussion, for many voices having a conversation. You can see a difference there?
I've seen rather a lot of discussions in this section which have take less than civil turns - I can find a few examples in this thread if you like
Magnus
I have a non-scientific PhD level background. I have some idea for the difference between a forum and a blog. Perhaps we should start there. Do you understand that, as a description of the forum you moderate, the comment "this blog is quite wonderful" may not be quite as positive as you seem to think?
A blog is a usually a monologue - I guess it can be a duet or duologue. A forum is, as the name suggests, a place for participating in a discussion, for many voices having a conversation. You can see a difference there?
I've seen rather a lot of discussions in this section which have take less than civil turns - I can find a few examples in this thread if you like
Magnus
Casting Definitions
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
"Radio has no future."
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
"Radio has no future."
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin
-
gordonjudd
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:14 am
- Location: California
- Contact:
In this forum, moderator seems to have a whole new or other meaning
Magnus,
I don't care what it is called, forum or a blog, the technical section is what it is, and its usefulness probably has more to do with the observer than it does with any objective (if that is even possible) criteria.
I've seen rather a lot of discussions in this section which have take less than civil turns.
The uncivil interchanges and personality conflicts that are so common to discussions on the web are just part of the game and probably should be expected by any student of human behavior. I can live with that, especially since a handy "ignore" button is available to screen the comments I think make for informed reading.
I can live with insults and avoid personality conflicts, what I cannot live with is thinking I am contributing something as a "moderator" when the majority of readers think I am a curmudgeon who should just shut up and stop with all the incessant data and graphs that they do not understand anyway.
That is what I am asking for. I respect your opinions and would like to know what you meant with the above comment about "a whole other meaning." If you and others find my contributions useless, then can certainly stop making them, and will gladly shift to discussing new topics with Merlin via private communications without pissing off most of the readers on this forum.
I am beginning to think that is worthwhile trying from my standpoint, and will just "fade away" for a while to see if everyone is happier without my irritating posts.
I am way to old to spend my time doing something that most readers find irritating when my own selfish reason for participating on this forum is to learn more about the physics of casting. Merlin can certainly provide that opportunity via a Google group or some other form of private communication.
Gordy
"Flyfishing: 200 years of tradition unencumbered by progress." Ralph Cutter
-
Magnus
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 12097
- Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 2:00 am
- Location: Banff, Scotland
- Contact:
I respect your opinions
hmmm....no Gordy you don't.
In this forum, moderator seems to have a whole new or other meaning
Read the rest of that post Gordy, I make it fairly clear what I think the function of a moderator can mean and I suggest what I think moderator means in this forum.
Casting Definitions
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
"Radio has no future."
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
"Radio has no future."
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin
-
gordonjudd
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 2214
- Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:14 am
- Location: California
- Contact:
Read the rest of that post Gordy, I make it fairly clear what I think the function of a moderator can mean and I suggest what I think moderator means in this forum.
and
it doesn't mean person who replies to every question asked in a forum, it doesn't even mean expert in the field.
Magnus,
I read that as meaning what a moderator should not be, what I am asking what you think a moderator should be.
Are you saying when I read something that is not true (and it is not expressed as a question, but as a fact) that I should not try to correct it with some data that shows what I think really goes on?
As I told Merlin, I try to avoid making corrections all of the time, but then someone will say something that is misleading (such as the strain depends on the deflection angle) and just pulls me back in.
That presupposes that Merlin or I have some technical understanding (hardly experts in the field, although we share a broader understanding of the physics of casting than most) that has some relevance to expressing a counter argument to someone's "personal conviction that is not to be questioned."
Do you think technical breadth should not be a factor in being a moderator in a technical forum? That really makes no sense to me, although I would be interested to see who you would pick otherwise.
So how do you think a moderator should function in this section? I am not exactly sure what 'chair of a meeting' means when it comes down to what we should do and and how we should slant our posts. I think there is more to being a moderator than just bringing a meeting to order.
Gordy
"Flyfishing: 200 years of tradition unencumbered by progress." Ralph Cutter
-
Magnus
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 12097
- Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 2:00 am
- Location: Banff, Scotland
- Contact:
Are you saying when I read something that is not true (and it is not expressed as a question, but as a fact) that I should not try to correct it with some data that shows what I think really goes on?
Are you saying that I'm saying this Gordy?
EXACTLY WHERE do you find that stated or implied in my post? I'd like that exact Gordy - you know, with a graph and a formula, or maybe just a post number and the EXACT QUOTE.
Maybe we can find that before you go off on a discussion of events which have NOT HAPPENED! For example:
Do you think technical breadth should not be a factor in being a moderator in a technical forum?
I think this question is a fair example of your debating tactics, and goes some way to explain why this forum is falling flat on its face Gordy.
Casting Definitions
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
"Radio has no future."
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
"Radio has no future."
"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
Lord Kelvin
-
Hal Jordan
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 1:17 am
- Contact:
I know I'll get slammed for not writing my own dictionary or inventing a new language or stating something so basic but:
I think that's how most people expect a moderator to act - as a judge or arbitrator. A moderator needs to take an unbiased view. Rarely do I see that in this forum. A moderator who takes sides, doesn't respect the opinions of participants, and is constantly looking for opportunities to prove someone wrong is not a moderator. They are a participant. I agree with Magnus wholeheartedly - a moderator doesn't need to be the expert in the field. I will add to that that it's probably best if they aren't.
Engineers and scientists are always arguing about models and technologies. It's part of what they do. If you don't believe me just take a look at Magnus's signature. But if I was to go back to Lord Kelvin's day and hold a debate about heavier than air flying machines would I pick Lord Kelvin as a moderator of the debate? I would certainly love to have him as one of the debators, but the moderator?
Unfortunately when someone accepts the position of moderator they should realize that there is more expected to the job than trying to force your ideas on everyone else. That's not their role.
Making statements like
moderator n.
1. One that moderates, as:
a. One that arbitrates or mediates.
b. One who presides over a meeting, forum, or debate.
arbitrate v.tr.
1. To judge or decide in or as in the manner of an arbitrator:
2. To submit to settlement or judgment by arbitration:
I think that's how most people expect a moderator to act - as a judge or arbitrator. A moderator needs to take an unbiased view. Rarely do I see that in this forum. A moderator who takes sides, doesn't respect the opinions of participants, and is constantly looking for opportunities to prove someone wrong is not a moderator. They are a participant. I agree with Magnus wholeheartedly - a moderator doesn't need to be the expert in the field. I will add to that that it's probably best if they aren't.
Engineers and scientists are always arguing about models and technologies. It's part of what they do. If you don't believe me just take a look at Magnus's signature. But if I was to go back to Lord Kelvin's day and hold a debate about heavier than air flying machines would I pick Lord Kelvin as a moderator of the debate? I would certainly love to have him as one of the debators, but the moderator?
Unfortunately when someone accepts the position of moderator they should realize that there is more expected to the job than trying to force your ideas on everyone else. That's not their role.
Making statements like
is exactly what I don't expect from a moderator because that's exactly the type of approach that is going to provoke a negative reaction. I expect something more along the line of, "can you explain that statement? My information tells me that strain depends on bend radius and tube radius so deflection angle is irrelevant" In the case you are referring to you might actually learn something by changing your approach...I try to avoid making corrections all of the time, but then someone will say something that is misleading
-
Bill Hanneman
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 710
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:54 am
- Contact:
I think this … goes some way to explain why this forum is falling flat on its face …
I, on the other hand, believe the problem lies in the fact there are too few Sexylooplers who are really interested in what “engineers” have to say, because they speak in a “foreign” language and seldom provide any practical solutions to any of the day to day angler’s problems. Unfortunately, this may consequently force a moderator to say something to stimulate a discussion. If he can only say something like “I agree,” that is no help.
Speaking personally, my contributions are never intended to foster any scientific breakthroughs, but rather to view the subject of fly rods and fly lines in a manner which might appeal to a wider audience.
To that end, I believe I shall treat you all to a little paper I wrote a few years ago. :p It is called Fly Fishing’s Fundamental Formula: A = 4 Delta
I know Gordy has been waiting to see it. Also, Grunde should get a copy of the next December issue of RodMaker Magazine to see how I finally handle frequency for rod builders. Then, we can have a great discussion, including Merlin.
-
Hal Jordan
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 1:17 am
- Contact:
I agree with Magnus wholeheartedly - a moderator doesn't need to be the expert in the field. I will add to that that it's probably best if they aren't.
Actually, we had a moderator that was excellent in my opinion and he is extremely technically competent. That was Grunde. He wasn't afraid to get involved in a technical discussion or say when things were out of hand but I never felt he was taking sides based on personalities and I never felt like he was stifling discussions. We actually had a couple of strong disagreements but I was able to show him the error of his ways :unsure: :p
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest