Teaching the CS with intent

[Paul Arden]

Hi Frank,

I know when I begin the CS, because I begin it. It doesn't begin with near constant rotational acceleration, but at a point when I decide to start. That seems pretty easy for me to have a definitions structure that applies to what I'm actually doing, especially if the definitions apply to humans and not robots.

I'm sure it's the same for you too, Frank. You know when you're about to start the CS, when you actually do start it, and after you've started it. In fact you can actually say "now, Paul" at the precise point when you begin. You don't need an accelerometer to tell you that point - or more likely a point after this. So why on earth are you trying to base definitions models around an accelerometer, especially one that picks a different point?

Cheers, Paul

[Frank LoPresti]

I know when I begin the CS, because I begin it

Yes and for a good stroke it's begins and continues from that point with smooth near constant acceleration. Your no different then any other caster in that respect. That's pretty straight forward stuff and applies to any model of a sound casting stroke I would think. That would also apply to a sound definition of a casting stroke if one wanted to include that in the definition.

What would not be the start of a sound CS would be a CS that kept moving at about the same slow sustained rate that it started. There is no escaping that.

That's not based on anything other than common knowledge about how fly casting works.

I don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, do you ?

Only that slow sustained angular rod movement (creep) will not lead to loop formation. Which in point of fact is true.

The CS in the graphic simply exempts that from the start of the CS and takes the position that there is indeed an efficient way to accelerate the rod and form the loop.

No brainer....

[Paul Arden]

I don't agree that good strokes necessarily start or even continue with constant acceleration, however that is not important at the moment. Do you agree that some CSs are crap? I've seen a few. Hell I've cast many! But I still knew when they started - according to your model they never happened.

How do you analyse and rectify a poor CS if there is no such thing?

Cheers, Paul

[Frank LoPresti]

I don't agree that good strokes necessarily start or even continue with constant acceleration

That's mighty white of you, the part about a good casting stroke not involving near constant acceleration. Let me know how that works sometime. Better yet start another thread on the subject.

Some people find beauty in a crap cast, I don't know Paul. It all has to start at the beginning is all I know.

[Paul Arden]

Haven't you seen the velocity curve of my distance casting stroke? The acceleration is not constant but increases. We've had long complex threads about this. I think Bruce is mistaken in his constant accn analysis and is a case of seeing what you want to see. I suspect you see what Bruce wants to see. But maybe I'm wrong. Why do you think the acceleration should be constant, Frank?

Cheers, Paul

[Frank LoPresti]

You evading the issue of a cast that starts out with slow sustained rod movement, drift or drag according to you, and a cast that starts out and maintains near constant acceleration.

Is the lower portion of the diagram how you would teach someone to throw tight loops :oh:

Frank

[Rich Knoles]

Could you check out the sticky's Frank and tell me how fast this is going at these two points or the difference between them?

[Paul Arden]

I never teach anyone to rotate the rod in a constant acceleration. What a load of BS! And you're trying to base definitions around this? In a practical sense how do you do this? And can you show me some valid results. You've been spending too long with an analyser and not enough time with people.

Explain to me Frank how it works, because as you know I think it's a load of hogwash.

Cheers, Paul

[Frank LoPresti]

It's not a question of how fast Rich. You of all people should know that some casts over all might be slower or faster than others, (fast casting versus slow casting, remember that drill ?)

What all good cast have in common though is smooth near constant acceleration from beginning to end. Nothing new in that either, as it's been in the casting literature in one form or another for quite some time now.

What's also common knowledge is that casts that begin with and maintain a slow sustained rod speed and then rapidly transition to near constant acceleration result in tails.

That and the fact that if you put the stickies in the lower diagram to illustrate where the slow sustained rod rotation began and then transitioned to rapid near constant acceleration would have been more to the point, because that's what causes the rod to tip to be shocked as a result of the kink or power spike in the difference between the two types of acceleration when joined together, slow and sustained and rapid and near constant. This is what makes for a high smoothness ratio as seen in the CA charts.

So you may want to reconsider where you are placing your stickies.

Frank

[Frank LoPresti]

I don't agree that good strokes necessarily start or even continue with constant acceleration,

Who said they did ? Your creating your own argument for me to dispute when it's not even my argument to begin with. Whats up with that ?

[Frank LoPresti]

I never teach anyone to rotate the rod in a constant acceleration. And you're trying to base definitions around this?

Once again Paul, who said they did ? Your making stuff up as your go along now. Near constant acceleration Paul not constant acceleration. Can you please try and remember that as indicated in this graphic as it is noted as such in this graphic. You continue to evade and avoid the problem that this graphic raises.

[Paul Arden]

So the CS begins with near constant acceleration, in your model. How near?

[Paul Arden]

What happens if I start off with a "N"CA but only reach a very slow velocity. And then I continue with an exponential acceleration. At which point did the CS begin? And was it Creep?

[Frank LoPresti]

Less then constant because we are not robots Paul. Exactly how much less you'd have to get Gordy to determine that.

The issue is how the cast starts and continues from that point. A slow sustained rod speed or with near constant acceleration right out of the gate. I know of no caster that would choose the former over the latter.

[gordonjudd]

You continue to evade and avoid the problem that this graphic raises.

Frank,
The problem that all your graphics have for me is that appears to be a "broomstick" model, since there is no rod bending that would indicate when the near constant acceleration is being applied to rotate the rod, and then when (I assume) near constant deceleration is being applied to stop the rotation.

Are you showing the rod positions starting at RSP0 and then ending at RSP1 to illustrate what your concept of the intended casting stroke happens to be? If that is the case at what point in your model would the deceleration be applied, or is stopping the rod not included in your view of the casting stroke?

Gordy