Drag

[Paul Arden]

I'm walking from Lands End to John 'O Groats. I get as far as Sheffield. It's not possible to walk from Lands End to John 'O Groats by only getting as far as Sheffield so walking from Land's End to Sheffield is not part of the walk?

[Frank LoPresti]

Good point actually. Could you form a loop off the tip of your fly rod at the same rate of acceleration you were walking from Lands End to Sheffield ? I suspect not. Keeping walking, you'll eventually get to your destination but rod acceleration at the same rate of acceleration that you are walking will not produce a loop off the tip of your walking stick.

[Paul Arden]

So no Loop, no Casting Stroke? And the Casting Stroke only begins when a Loop can form. Hmm, I seem to remember arguing for that against you... anyway it doesn't work. Sorry

[Frank LoPresti]

So no Loop, no Casting Stroke?

No loop will form with very weak rotational acceleration.That's a very accurate observation on your part.

Frank

[Paul Arden]

Furthermore, even with "strong" acceleration no loop will form if it's not continued for long enough. Right?

[Frank LoPresti]

That's the best you got ?

If the casting stroke is a change of rod angle during any part of the casting stroke, how can Drag,(translation), with no angle of change, then be considered as part of the casting stroke, if the casting stroke requires an angle of change during the casting stroke.

Frank

[Paul Arden]

The CS is only considered the change of angle in your model. Do you agree that a cast with strong acceleration can result in a loop but just because a casting stroke has strong acceleration at the beginning doesn't necessarily mean a loop will form?

[victor]

So you are saying that you can stop your rod at any time in the first 25deg of your stroke and a loop will form?

Mike

[Frank LoPresti]

casting stroke

The graphic actually depicts your own definition for Drag. So whatever your point or whatever point Mike is trying to make applies to your own definition of drag as drag is considered as no rotation and is is a part your CA or CS. You might try answering your own question now and Mikes for that matter.

Frank

[Frank LoPresti]

With your model any part of the stroke that has insufficient force to create a loop is not part of the stroke. I hazard a guess that that would be in the region of 25%

Mike

Mike,

All the graphic assumes is that we have an ideal CS that results in old fashion loop formation. That's the bottom line, no more no less. My response to you question would be what part of the CS that resulted in the formation of that loop, was not of continuous optimal acceleration that formed that loop ?

Creep is not simply insufficient force, it's just as about close to no force as you can get. It's the same lack of force as rotational drift, that increases the size of the CA for the next cast.

Unless I've crept into the start of my stroke, my typical stroke never starts out that slow, ever, nor does yours unless your creeping. If the CS could start out as slow as you suggest we'd all be throwing tails for each and every cast. But we don't, because we don't typically rotate the rod with extreme slowness at the start of the CS, we rotate the rod from the start of the CS with smooth near constant acceleration, not near constant slowness.

Creep is the mirror opposite of how a CS should begin.

Frank

[Frank LoPresti]

The CS is only considered the change of angle in your model.

Incorrect. Your version says the exact same thing, a force applied to the line in order to form a loop. I assume the force to be rotational in your model (change of angle) and must not start out and remain constantly slow as the angle of the rod increases. If it did that would be a pretty funky model.

[Paul Arden]

No it doesn't have to be rotational. And yes it can be weak.

[Frank LoPresti]

Weak constant slow rotation and or translation, results in loop formation ?

[victor]

Constant acceleration Frank. You know, the one that starts from zero. Unless we drag of course then acceleration will start from a highter number than zero. It's not creep.

Mike

[Frank LoPresti]

Constant acceleration Frank.

Mike,

I wish I could agree with this statement but I can't because it's incorrect. Reason being is that creep is slow and sustained angular rod motion. Creep is not constant nor even near constant angular acceleration. Slow and sustained angular rod motion is essentially the definition of Creep, and almost the mirror opposite of constant or near constant angular acceleration.

When slow and sustained rod motion transitions to meets up with rapid near constant angular acceleration, the rod tip dips, because the of the disparity between the two distinct force applications. When a weak force is joined by a strong force you get a power spike and the tip dips as a result of adding a stronger rapid near constant angular acceleration to a weaker slower sustained angular movement of the rod butt.

Frank