Fly Fishing’s Fundamental Formula: A = 4 Delta - A = 4 Delta

[Hal Jordan]

Merlin: Sorry - I didn't mean it as a trap, just a reminder. Whether I believe in Bill's equation is irrelevant. If Bill says his equation has no value then I believe him. If you want to try and give it some value (even though it doesn't agree with your own work) then that is your right. If Bill wants to take his ball and go home then that is his right. Nobody can force him to post and nobody can force you not to crunch numbers. I've made my suggestion as to why his equations don't seem to satisfy him but without something more concrete that is all I can do.

[Merlin]

No problem, Walter

I take your point Eugene, it is possible that Bill'experience has been heavily influenced by casting spinning rods. We have not looked after that form of casting in SL, it might be more appropriate to use the CCS for spinning than for fly. I have not studied spinning rods until know, I shall have to do it somtime, I guess I shall learn something.

Merlin

[Hal Jordan]

Spinning rods aren't noted for making sexy loops. It would be easy to get confused if one has detailed knowledge of the rods available for other types of fishing. They aren't all 6 to 7 foot long uniform tapers. Drift rods, for example, can be 15 feet long and absolute noodles.

[VGB]

Merlin

It is not simply a case of whether anyone does not clearly understand the premise of the original post or whether it needs number crunching to prove/disprove Bills postulation.

I asked Bill about ERN some time ago about ERN in this thread:

http://www.sexyloops.co.uk/cgi-bin....y265924

and which you replied to in:

http://www.sexyloops.co.uk/cgi-bin....y265806

I have never had a straight answer from Bill on this but he has gone on to use it in:

Delta is defined as the numerical difference between ERN and ELN, or Delta = ERN - ELN.

If Delta is an approximation and the ERN calculation has limitations due to varying rod lengths, I feel that I have a right from an engineering viewpoint to be sceptical.

From a real world fishing viewpoint, I'm with Paul, this is not practical:

It is recognized, if one wishes to fish “close in,” one should use a line at least one ELN heavier, i.e., Delta = -1 to -2. This is necessary to counteract the effect of the lesser weight of the shorter line in loading the rod. On the other hand, for casting a greater distance, e.g., 60 feet, a line one ELN lighter is recommended, i.e., (Delta =1).

Vince

[Bill Hanneman]

Sorry for the delay, but I have some work I have to do. I promise to reveal it all to you in a day or two. It will be long. But, I am afraid some engineers will not be happy.

[Hal Jordan]

Will my pet parrot be upset? I've been promising him a new liner for his cage. :p

[Merlin]

Never underestimate the value of the unexpected.

Merlin

[Hal Jordan]

[Magnus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5_ZQsR5Ow4

[Hal Jordan]

Magnus - now you are off topic. I think this is on topic.

[Magnus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gPJo25sb80&feature=related

...and when you find yourself in that part of Youtube...

[Hal Jordan]

Ah - now we are back on topic. Think of ERN as the size of the car and ELN as the size of the horse. Finding that right match of horse and car is like finding a delta of zero. Anything else is like pissing on an electric fence. :p

[Bernd]

Paul,

How many rods and lines do you own? How much tarpon fishing do you do with your favourite 2 wt?

Hi Walter,
the interesting part on Tarpon fishing to me is:

The closer the Tarpon will be, the lighter I would want my line weight to be!

Why? Because otherwise my whole trip may be gone since I spook the one fish of the week that I might have fooled to strike instead simply by using a lighter line for a softer presentation.

Increasing line weight for short casting distance in order to get more rod bend has often very negative effects on presenting the fly to spooky fish in my experience.

I agree with Paul and would want to learn to shorten the arc and then throw a nice tight loop to present my fly at the end of the lighter line often (not always).

Casting is one, fishing can be the other one :p
Greets
Bernd

[Bill Hanneman]

Merlin
This is a personal message to you. It is long, but I think you will be interested in it.

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.
----
Just a bit puzzled here. So what is URRS if 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.

The URRS is just my system for describing certain intrinsic properties of fishing rods, e.g., ERN values range from 0 to 200. Their definitions are unambiguous and can be easily measured by any angler.

Certainly, if one has a multitude of rods, one can construct any number of ways of comparing or, if you will, rating them. Or, one can use these numbers to define the characteristics of a rod one might wish to highlight. However, you must remember, those are just uses, and how valuable they may be is up to the individual to determine for himself.

Of course, I am indeed interested in how one might use these CCS data. But, my satisfaction is derived from the fact that my Rosetta Stone and my concepts are useful.

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?

No, indeed, I believe you are the only one who can do this. You alone, have demonstrated YOU actually understand the CCS and how it relates to frequency.

Unfortunately, I could never do it, because of all of the objections of Gordy and his ilk.
For years, ever since I treated Sexyloopers to my concept of the Feel-Fixer, I have been unable to introduce frequency and have been ridiculed for even trying, because. I suppose, I am not an engineer and I refuse to use the unit hertz.

Now for the record. CCS and A=4 Delta

I have always been perplexed by those who react negatively to my CCS. After all, it is just a different way of describing a fly rod and line. If it proves useful, then anglers should use it. If it doesn’t, then they should not use it. These are just words which define definitions and the explicit directions on how an angler is to determine their relative values. Why should anyone go out of their way to disparage an idea that is of no use to themselves. Some appear to be frightened someone else might use it. Why?

But, NO. All I seem to hear is that the CCS can’t do this or that. Now the the “current fight” is that it can’t accurately, with a formula, tell an angler what line he should use. Therefore it’s useless. So be it, but so is every other approach useless, because it all boils down to one’s personal choice or PPF.

These naysayers have yet to wake up to the fact that any rod can cast any fly line some distance. If the distance is too long and the rod is not strong enough, get a stronger rod. The CCS (ERN and the Rosetta Stone) will help you in your choice.

Or, if one wants to be macho like Paul, just get a single heavy enough rod and learn to cast shorter distances (you should get short enough using a bow and arrow cast) and for longer distance cast, use a haul or double haul. It isn’t rocket science.

The choice is yours, but whatever it is, it is your personal preference and no equation is going to solve that. So for heaven’s sake quit beating a dead horse. ERN = ERN is as good a place to start as any other.

I am a pragmatist and I made my living solving other people’s problems because I always took a creative approach. The CCS was one of my own challenges when I retired.

Early in life I realized most problems could be solved using relative numbers. This eliminated concerns with precision, as long as I could recognize 1 from 2. This also freed me to use nonlinear scales and allowed me to make up new scales which incorporated concepts which “I dreamed up.” Of course, all of this had to be solved using inexpensive simple equipment. This led to IP, ERN, ELR, WL and Cents.

With these as a foundation, I began to consider what other intrinsic properties could be measured using simple tools. Of course, the immediate property coming to mind was frequency. G. Spolek had examined this over 15 years ago and nothing useful for “common” anglers had ever come of it. So I had an idea.

I reasoned, that nothing had been done because engineers were dogmatic in that frequency had to be measured in units of Hertz, which have no meaning to the common man, especially when the values for fly rods range from 1 to 1.5. Also, they had no means of easily measuring Hz.

So, I “expanded” that range of 1 to 1.5 Hz to make it 60-90 cpm. It became obvious anyone with a stop watch could make frequency measurements in units which anyone can comprehend at a glance. This resulted in the method for CCF and I was off to the races.

The following were simple experimental results, where I plotted frequency vs added weight. At the request of one fly rod manufacturer, I tested their rods 4-10 wt. rods and plotted the curves.

Now, looking at that graph, it was just a series of lines slanted downward. And, that was what the engineers saw and had no basis for doing anything about it, because they didn’t have any definition of what wt. was. (Spolek tried to relate frequency to something else, but others misunderstood him and starting calling what he called a Fast Responding rod a Fast Action rod. However, the term, Fast Action, since the beginning of fly fishing, has always had the connotation of where the rod bends.

Actually, it is FEEL that is determined by frequency. It was not until the advent of the CCS and Action Angle (AA) the action of a fly rod could be numerically quantified.)

Now, if the absissa of those curves was calibrated in units of ERN or ELN, in accordance to the Rosetta Stone, looking at that graph, it was easy to see that in the region for fly rods ERN = 3 through 7 (normal cast = no hauling) the slope of all the curves was about 5 cycles per second for each change of one ERN or ELN. That was written as ERN - ELN = 5

It was then, when I recognized this fact, I dreamed up the concept of my Feel-Fixer, which “blew away” all the sexyloopers. A = Adjustment = ERN - ELN

One should remember, all this was the result of just simply looking at the curves and a fertile imagination. Now, fast forward a couple of years.

One day while perusing SexyLoops, I came across a chart by Grunde in which frequency and weight for fly rods were plotted in conjunction with the harmonic oscillator equation. As an organic chemist, I had never taken my physics too seriously. Nevertheless I saw at a glance this was the solution to my problem of frequency. I waited to see if or when the engineers would finally restore frequency to its rightful place, i.e., feel. However, nothing happened, and frequency was soon forgotten again.

A year or so later, you began to take an interest in the technical analysis section. I was delighted for I knew you knew the value of that equation and I hoped you would follow through, but no one seemed seriously interested and it was forgotten again.

I believe the reason for this was the fact the equation contains three variables but only one equation and any physicist or mathematician knows such an equation cannot be solved. Consequently, most are content to stop right there and simply say, “It lacks precision.” So it does, but that is no help.

On the other hand, pragmatic rod builders know they want to use frequency and want to use that equation. So, the immediate questions are, “Is there a substitute? and “If so, will that substitute be useful?

Now, let us consider this equation. A=5 Delta.

If I were to ask a sexylooper to tell me what is the relationship between one’s line, the rod and its feel, he would have to answer. “I don’t know.” Today, my answer would be 4, because I believe that is what is relevant to basic casting without hauls or the likes (ERN 3-7). For ERN 7-10, one might choose 5. You, of course have an answer in your MMMS.

Measuring stiffness only is applicable to both blanks and finished rod, you do not need difficult frequency measurements, so it may be a good starting point for a rod builder. I understand that such a consideration complicates the CCS approach, but I leave it to your thoughts, just in case.

I have no problem in measuring frequency, and I don’t think your’s is as concise as mine.

When one has no answer, there is just no answer. When the answer is four, everyone know the number is not one or ten or any other of the infinite number of integers - it is four. At this stage it matters little whether the precise value is some number between 3.6 or 4.4. In this case four is a very useful number for rod builders - irrespective by its precision.

You have correctly identified there is a relationship between my “four” and the harmonic oscillation equation. However, you opined, since I don’t “recognize” something called the “rod equivalent mass” it lacks precision and can be simply dismissed. I would disagree. Remember, one cannot measure or even define “rod equivalent mass”. It is just a “fudge factor” which makes the HOE equation “work,” i.e., relates frequency to “added mass.” However, correlation does not denote causality and there is more than one way to “skin a cat.”

The Hanneman Fly rod Frequency Equation will be soon published in RodMaker. As its name implies, this is a equation of limited use for fly rods and lines using the CCS. It is especially useful when used with the Rosetta Stone, as commercial rods are not defined and fly lines are numbered in a nonlinear fashion.

This equation is simplicity in itself. F= 0.159 (sq. rt. K/M+2.5)

Where: F is measured in cycles per minute, K is interpolated from a chart, after making two independent measurements of frequency at significantly different weights, and M is in grams.

Personally, I, and most rod builders, do not have any real interest in what those terms mean. We just want to know that answer, because we feel knowing it will be useful to our work.

Remember, we are starting with nothing and we want to come out using frequency. Can you please tell us how far you think this approach can take us?

Bill

[Merlin]

Thanks a lot Bill

I do appreciate. I shall read and digest your post and prepare an answer.

Hope I can put the hand on the issue of RodMaker that will contain your article, there is none on this side of the pond.

Merlin