Merlin
I had thought that you were using normaliation as a term for averaging the measurement, as in other threads. What do you mean by normalisation for this measrement?
Vince
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/
Fly Fishing’s Fundamental Formula: A = 4 Delta - A = 4 Delta
Morning Merlin
Do you mean this quote:
I can see the what but not the how, which is why I read it as an average value. As you are aware, neither ERN or K is independent of rod length and that is why I asked how you are achieving this independence by normalisation.
Vince
Do you mean this quote:
Using ERN, and CCF to a lesser extent, one can derive new parameters that can be used to analyze a rod. These new parameters are the normalized linear stiffness and the normalized non linearity. Normalized means that these values apply to rod of any length. You can then compare properties of short versus long rods.
I can see the what but not the how, which is why I read it as an average value. As you are aware, neither ERN or K is independent of rod length and that is why I asked how you are achieving this independence by normalisation.
Vince
Vince,
It is in my second post and in Gordýs first reply.
Normalized values take the role of rod length into account
For the linear part, it is the product of actual stiffness by length. It has the dimension of a force. The formula is slightly more complex for the non linear part.
Merlin
It is in my second post and in Gordýs first reply.
Normalized values take the role of rod length into account
For the linear part, it is the product of actual stiffness by length. It has the dimension of a force. The formula is slightly more complex for the non linear part.
Merlin
Fly rods are like women, they wont´play if they're maltreated.
Charles Ritz, A Flyfisher's Life
Charles Ritz, A Flyfisher's Life
-
Bill Hanneman
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 710
- Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:54 am
- Contact:
VGB wrote:Bill
I do not thinks so, we are talking about characterising rod performance
Sorry to say, but A=4 Delta has nothing to do with characterizing rod performance.
You people have been hashing over that topic for several weeks and have your own forum, please use it.
Merlin,
Since you are in charge of this forum and you yourself don't recognize it has gone off topic, I am ready to give up.
I thought my topic would help get a little more active partipication in this forum and would be also interesting reading and provoke thought from those just looking.
Perhaps I should just reply to Gordy, who lives only a few hours away, or I could explain it all, in a few minuets, with a phone call. But then, your readers would miss out on the pearls of wisdom.
BillBill Hanneman wrote:Sorry to say, but A=4 Delta has nothing to do with characterizing rod performance.VGB wrote:Bill
I do not thinks so, we are talking about characterising rod performance
You people have been hashing over that topic for several weeks and have your own forum, please use it.
What forum are you talking about, I do not who "you people" are?
Perhaps the topic drifted because you ignore any questions that are put tp you or nobody understood the point you were making.
Bill,
Thanks a lot for your contribution to this forum, I do appreciate it, and as you can see, life is not always funny for moderators, but one has to do the job and try keeping the participants altogether, which is not really simple.
As you realize, some of them do not clearly understand the objective of the formula, and some just have a different opinion about how to adapt one’s outfit to a particular situation, preferring to adapt their casting, which you acknowledge in your introducing post.
Ok, let’s try speaking the CCS language. ELN is the line number as indicated by the rod builder, ERN is the rod stiffness characteristic and in an ideal CCS world, we should have ERN = ELN. If not, which is often experienced in real life, then one has to change the line (ELN) to get ELN = ERN. In that case, the CCF of the rod with the new line should be close to 84 cpm. Taking the example of the TCR and the corresponding figures, since CCF = 94 cpm with ELN 5.5, it becomes 94 – 4*2 = 86 cpm as we change for ELN 7.5. We are not far from the 84 cpm objective. So the rod, line, feel/frequency/stiffness, are coordinated.
For distance adjustment, you are suggesting to use the equation so that the CCF does change as little as possible: if you cast far, use a lighter line and vice versa. This means you try to keep the frequency value within limits, while in practice, most casters adapt their style by changing the casting arc for the same fundamental reason: they try to match their input in the rod to its frequency characteristic. When the rod becomes faster (shorter line), they use a small arc and a faster tempo, and when the line gets longer, they use a larger arc with the best speed they can achieve, adding extra tricks (hauling) if necessary. The performance achieved is linked to the characteristics of the rod. At this point, we are back in the non linear stiffness story.
As I indicated before, there is a major characteristic governing rod adaptation to a variable load: this is its length (for a given material like cane, glass or graphite). DH rods are the most spectacular casting machines in that domain. Short SH rods are the more reluctant one to load adaptation.
Your delta equation is a way to estimate how the frequency of a rod is changed for 30 feet of line or a change in line length with the use of positive or negative corrections (for blanks, you may use the factor 5 instead of 4, it fits better). My more technical equation tells the same story for any change in load (line number, line length) with more precision, that’s all. However, I do not use it to explain how a caster can adapt to load variation: I need a casting model to do so. Here is the difference in approach in between us. A casting model helps to understand why and how one can adapt his style to his tackle without changing the line because of a change in distance. A sophisticate one (numerical) can also help in understanding the intricacies of spring non linearity, but again, this is the purpose of another thread. I know you don’t rely on casting models, but they can help.
Hope this clarifies the situation, and I am looking forward reading more about CCS.
Merlin
Thanks a lot for your contribution to this forum, I do appreciate it, and as you can see, life is not always funny for moderators, but one has to do the job and try keeping the participants altogether, which is not really simple.
As you realize, some of them do not clearly understand the objective of the formula, and some just have a different opinion about how to adapt one’s outfit to a particular situation, preferring to adapt their casting, which you acknowledge in your introducing post.
… the formula which relates rod power and line weight, to the distance cast, frequency, and feel. That formula is A = 4 Delta (where Delta = ERN - ELN), and where A is defined as the “Adjustment” required to coordinate line, rod, and feel.
An expert caster can quickly adapt to any fly rod by “Adjusting” his casting stroke. On the other hand, a less experienced angler might be better served by using his “normal” casting stroke and “Adjusting” his tackle to provide the most satisfaction.
Ok, let’s try speaking the CCS language. ELN is the line number as indicated by the rod builder, ERN is the rod stiffness characteristic and in an ideal CCS world, we should have ERN = ELN. If not, which is often experienced in real life, then one has to change the line (ELN) to get ELN = ERN. In that case, the CCF of the rod with the new line should be close to 84 cpm. Taking the example of the TCR and the corresponding figures, since CCF = 94 cpm with ELN 5.5, it becomes 94 – 4*2 = 86 cpm as we change for ELN 7.5. We are not far from the 84 cpm objective. So the rod, line, feel/frequency/stiffness, are coordinated.
For distance adjustment, you are suggesting to use the equation so that the CCF does change as little as possible: if you cast far, use a lighter line and vice versa. This means you try to keep the frequency value within limits, while in practice, most casters adapt their style by changing the casting arc for the same fundamental reason: they try to match their input in the rod to its frequency characteristic. When the rod becomes faster (shorter line), they use a small arc and a faster tempo, and when the line gets longer, they use a larger arc with the best speed they can achieve, adding extra tricks (hauling) if necessary. The performance achieved is linked to the characteristics of the rod. At this point, we are back in the non linear stiffness story.
As I indicated before, there is a major characteristic governing rod adaptation to a variable load: this is its length (for a given material like cane, glass or graphite). DH rods are the most spectacular casting machines in that domain. Short SH rods are the more reluctant one to load adaptation.
Your delta equation is a way to estimate how the frequency of a rod is changed for 30 feet of line or a change in line length with the use of positive or negative corrections (for blanks, you may use the factor 5 instead of 4, it fits better). My more technical equation tells the same story for any change in load (line number, line length) with more precision, that’s all. However, I do not use it to explain how a caster can adapt to load variation: I need a casting model to do so. Here is the difference in approach in between us. A casting model helps to understand why and how one can adapt his style to his tackle without changing the line because of a change in distance. A sophisticate one (numerical) can also help in understanding the intricacies of spring non linearity, but again, this is the purpose of another thread. I know you don’t rely on casting models, but they can help.
Hope this clarifies the situation, and I am looking forward reading more about CCS.
Merlin
Fly rods are like women, they wont´play if they're maltreated.
Charles Ritz, A Flyfisher's Life
Charles Ritz, A Flyfisher's Life
-
Hal Jordan
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 1:17 am
- Contact:
Bill Hanneman wrote:VGB wrote:Bill
I do not thinks so, we are talking about characterising rod performance
Sorry to say, but A=4 Delta has nothing to do with characterizing rod performance.
You people have been hashing over that topic for several weeks and have your own forum, please use it.
Merlin,
Since you are in charge of this forum and you yourself don't recognize it has gone off topic, I am ready to give up.
I thought my topic would help get a little more active partipication in this forum and would be also interesting reading and provoke thought from those just looking.
Perhaps I should just reply to Gordy, who lives only a few hours away, or I could explain it all, in a few minuets, with a phone call. But then, your readers would miss out on the pearls of wisdom.
Geez Bill,
I've asked several times how to use your formula and even made several suggestions. The only concrete answer you've given me is that it's up to me how to use the formula. When Vince suggests its about charcterizing rod performance all you can say is "WRONG! GET ANOTHER FORUM" and "WHERE IS THAT DARN MODERATOR?"
Well here is something to contribute to this particular forum. The generic formula for a straight line is:
y = mx + b
You have postulated a forumula of the form:
y = mx
According to Gordy you are struggling with a value for m. A few years ago you decided on 5. Today it is 4. Perhaps the reasons you can't get a good fit on whatever line you are trying to match is:
a - As Merlin suggests you are trying to fit a straight line to a curve. You might want to try a higher order equation. But, as you have hinted, maybe you like the simplicity of the straight line, so might I suggest...
b - maybe you need a value for b. Since y=4x and y=5x meet at (0,0) I haven't got a clue what curve you are trying to approximate so I would be hand waving to suggest a potential value for b even though I have one in mind. I'm sure if you gave Merlin an idea of the curve you are running your linear regression against he can easily help you find a best fit for m and b.
Walter,
The equation is an approximation, the "4" factor varying between 3.5 to 4.5 approximately for current SH trout rods. It is not so important to know the exact value for the CCS system.
The question is : can we use it for tackle coordination (rod vs line)? Bill says it is, but some of us think this is not where the problem lies. The problem is to adjust casting to the varying characteristic of the tackle (loaded frequency) to get the best of it.
If I could I would design a rod for which the loaded frequency would not change significantly with load, but this is impractical (20 feet?). We have to learn how to use the variability of the loaded fly rod by casting capability, rather by just a line adjustment.
At least, this is what I believe in. It does not mean that line number is not a part of it, it is, but to a lesser extend. After all, it does not take so long to cast properly. It is a different story if one wants to become an expert caster.
Merlin
The equation is an approximation, the "4" factor varying between 3.5 to 4.5 approximately for current SH trout rods. It is not so important to know the exact value for the CCS system.
The question is : can we use it for tackle coordination (rod vs line)? Bill says it is, but some of us think this is not where the problem lies. The problem is to adjust casting to the varying characteristic of the tackle (loaded frequency) to get the best of it.
If I could I would design a rod for which the loaded frequency would not change significantly with load, but this is impractical (20 feet?). We have to learn how to use the variability of the loaded fly rod by casting capability, rather by just a line adjustment.
At least, this is what I believe in. It does not mean that line number is not a part of it, it is, but to a lesser extend. After all, it does not take so long to cast properly. It is a different story if one wants to become an expert caster.
Merlin
Fly rods are like women, they wont´play if they're maltreated.
Charles Ritz, A Flyfisher's Life
Charles Ritz, A Flyfisher's Life
-
Hal Jordan
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 604
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 1:17 am
- Contact:
Merlin:
Here is what Bill has to say on the subject:
and
That tells me that the best use for CCS is lining bird cages. If you want to believe that it has a real application beyond the nothing that the inventor intended it to be then you are even more of a die hard number cruncher than I thought you were.
One more quote - this time not from Bill:
Here is what Bill has to say on the subject:
CCS only tells what you what the concept is (e.g., IP, ERN, or ELN) and tells you how to measure it. That is all! It does not tell you what it can or can’t be used for. That is up to you.
and
has nothing to do with characterizing rod performance.
That tells me that the best use for CCS is lining bird cages. If you want to believe that it has a real application beyond the nothing that the inventor intended it to be then you are even more of a die hard number cruncher than I thought you were.
One more quote - this time not from Bill:
In other words, hold on your chair, the timing of the rod response does just depends on the relative amplitude of acceleration and deceleration time, and not of its unloaded frequency, which disappear from equations. Now you can understand what the word "forced" can mean.
Walter,
I take the CCS as it is, but I'm curious and I try to understand it as far as I can. If it needs some data crunching, I accept to pay the price.
Speaking of the purpose of the thread, I conclude you do not believe in Bill's equation, and you are not alone.
I do not know from where you got the last quote but I disagree with it. The performance of a cast does depend of the caster's input and from the mechanical characteristics of the tackle. I illustrated this point in a thread initiated by Bernd, if I remember well.
Merlin
I take the CCS as it is, but I'm curious and I try to understand it as far as I can. If it needs some data crunching, I accept to pay the price.
Speaking of the purpose of the thread, I conclude you do not believe in Bill's equation, and you are not alone.
I do not know from where you got the last quote but I disagree with it. The performance of a cast does depend of the caster's input and from the mechanical characteristics of the tackle. I illustrated this point in a thread initiated by Bernd, if I remember well.
Merlin
Fly rods are like women, they wont´play if they're maltreated.
Charles Ritz, A Flyfisher's Life
Charles Ritz, A Flyfisher's Life
-
Eugene Moore
- IB3 Member Level 1
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:27 am
- Location: Missouri
- Contact:
Bill,
The element of prediction and control you state as fact is dependent on too many variables to be accepted as such.
The only constant is the rod. Line, caster ability and caster inputs are far too varied to even be considered an approximation. These are also cumulative effects and will over-rule your prediction.
You don't really believe what you're attempting to sell ?
Apply your theories to casting and spinning rods where one variable, line weight change, can be considered a constant.
Your biggest error was in attempting to tie your CCS to fly rods in the first place. Too many dynamics to be solved with a static model or even a single loaded frequency.
The element of prediction and control you state as fact is dependent on too many variables to be accepted as such.
The only constant is the rod. Line, caster ability and caster inputs are far too varied to even be considered an approximation. These are also cumulative effects and will over-rule your prediction.
You don't really believe what you're attempting to sell ?
Apply your theories to casting and spinning rods where one variable, line weight change, can be considered a constant.
Your biggest error was in attempting to tie your CCS to fly rods in the first place. Too many dynamics to be solved with a static model or even a single loaded frequency.
Eugene Moore
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest