Hauling, Rod-loading.
 

And where did you publish the theory or formula which was accepted
by several well known casters and researchers ? You've proven once
again that you are a pathetic liar and a ridiculous buffoon. You
make George Gehrke look positively humble and self-effacing.

Old George had actual products on the market and accomplishments in
the fly fishing industry. All you have is pompous bombast and bull****
lies. But you do provide amusing entertainment.

Carry on.


All you contribute here are problems and annoyance. The only sensible
policy is to ignore you completely, I should have done so a long time ago.

I am not interested in your lies, bull****, or paranoid rantings, and I
don´t suppose many others are either. I don´t care what you write, and I
wont reply to you again.

Hauling, Rod-loading.
 

Hauling, Rod-loading.
 

Hauling, Rod-loading.
 

Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in news:8253922c-f68a-427b-b571-
:

Pulling back on a line which is already unrolled will of course merely
brake it.

Even an unrolled line that is completely stationary will have inertia, and
in this case the unrolled line isn't necessarily stationary. If you're
braking the line, this has to bend the rod.




Everything has inertia, at all times, it is a property of mass.

Braking the line does bend the rod, as long as the rod is at an angle to
the line.

Hauling, Rod-loading.
 

Scott Seidman wrote in
.4:

wrote in news:8253922c-f68a-427b-b571-
:

Pulling back on a line which is already unrolled will of course
merely brake it.

Even an unrolled line that is completely stationary will have inertia,
and in this case the unrolled line isn't necessarily stationary. If
you're braking the line, this has to bend the rod.




I just emailed an expert with at least a half dozen academic articles on
fly casting in journals of sports mechanics and mechanical engineering,
as follows:

"I'm having a little argument about fly rod loading and the double haul
that you might be able to help with, if you have the time. I've chased
down some of your articles, but I can find reference to the haul. What's
the mechanism for the stronger cast? Is it increased line speed, an
improved load on the rod, or are these inseparable.

Thanks for your help. NO PRESSING NEED AT ALL-please don't waste any
valuable time on this."

We'll see what we get back.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Hauling, Rod-loading.
 

" wrote in news:gfd4pm$s8e
:

Braking the line does bend the rod, as long as the rod is at an angle to
the line.

Then how can you posit that rod loading is only a small effect?



--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Hauling, Rod-loading.
 

Scott Seidman wrote:
" wrote in news:gfd4pm$s8e
:

Braking the line does bend the rod, as long as the rod is at an angle to
the line.

Then how can you posit that rod loading is only a small effect?




I did not posit such.

Hauling, Rod-loading.
 

" wrote in news:gfd59q$abe
:

I did not posit such.

"This also demonstrates how hauling works, it does not accelerate the
line, ****or load the rod much***, it increases system tension, mainly line
tension, which is converted to momentum."

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Hauling, Rod-loading.
 

Scott Seidman wrote:
" wrote in news:gfd59q$abe
:

I did not posit such.

"This also demonstrates how hauling works, it does not accelerate the
line, ****or load the rod much***, it increases system tension, mainly line
tension, which is converted to momentum."


That says nothing at all about the actual magnitude of the forces
involved, and it also does not mention braking the line.

Hauling, Rod-loading.
 

" wrote in news:gfd5o2
:

That says nothing at all about the actual magnitude of the forces
involved, and it also does not mention braking the line.


You might give reading your own document a try:


"Pulling back on a line which is already unrolled will of course merely
brake it.

This also demonstrates how hauling works, it does not accelerate the
line, or load the rod much, it increases system tension, mainly line
tension, which is converted to momentum."

I'm trying to figure out how you can make an argument for "tension" being
the mechanism without bringing rod loading, which feels like the MAIN
factor to me, in as the main effect. It just seems a bit silly to try to
unlink these obviously linked differential equations.

I suppose the big question is "Does double hauling have a much smaller
effect if the rod is rigid?"



--
Scott
Reverse name to reply