Fishing - Hauling, Rod-loading.

FishingBanter (http://www.fishingbanter.com/index.php)

- Fly Fishing (http://www.fishingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - Hauling, Rod-loading. (http://www.fishingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=32974)

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?

Some years ago we had quite a discussion about whether hauling loads the
rod. The consensus was that the major effect of hauling is to increase
line speed, but I maintained that it does, in fact, load the rod (i.e.,
increases the bend in the rod) to some degree.

This seems quite obvious to me based on an elementary physical
principle, namely Newton's Second Law of Motion, F=ma. The haul has the
effect of accelerating the line, producing a force at the rod tip of m*a
(a vector pointing in the direction of the cast). Think of this force as
what causes the line to accelerate.

Following Newton's Third Law of Motion, this force is counteracted by an
equal and opposite force -m*a (a vector pointing in the opposite
direction), which has the effect of loading the rod to some degree. The
question is by how much.

Not much to my surprise, several people, including MC, were adamant that
a haul doesn't load the rod in even the slightest degree, and didn't
seem to be able, or willing, to follow the simple physical argument that
it must.

Someone named ernie, who used to be a regular on ROFF, proposed an
elegant experiment to settle the question. I won't describe the
experiment now, but I actually carried it out, and was careful to
describe it precisely so that anyone could replicate it if they wished.

The result was that a haul could increase the load on the rod by
approximately 10%. Admittedly, the experiment was crude, using only a
few ordinary household materials, but the results were clear.

Ironically, ernie was adamant on the wrong side of the question, and was
proven wrong by his own quite brilliant experiment. He left roff after
that, to my disappointment. He seemed like a good guy.

You don't need lots of complicated equations to prove the effect, and
you shouldn't even need an experiment. All you need is f=ma.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Hauling, Rod-loading.

On Nov 11, 6:38*pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
NO PRESSING NEED AT ALL-please don't waste any
valuable time on this."

IMHO, if he believes you, you'll never hear from him again. :-)

Joe F.

Hauling, Rod-loading.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 00:13:05 +0100, "
wrote:

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.

Translation:
"I really didn't have it published. It was just a dream of mine and
Fortenberry caught me (again). Therefore, if I ignore him, he can not
embarrass me again."

Daveyboy

Hauling, Rod-loading.

rw wrote:
...
Ironically, ernie was adamant on the wrong side of the question, and was
proven wrong by his own quite brilliant experiment. He left roff after
that, to my disappointment. He seemed like a good guy. ...

Not that you implied such, but I don't believe that's why Ernie
left roff. He was indeed a very clever guy. He sent me one of
his knot contraptions, an ingenious piece of red plastic with
notched wheels and features too numerous to mention which was
small enough to fit in the vest. He included an instruction sheet
which gave detailed instructions on how to use the contraption to
tie just about any knot you'd ever need astream.

Thanks for that blast from roff past.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Hauling, Rod-loading.

Scott Seidman wrote:
" 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?"

When a line is already extended, pulling back on it will increase
tension to some extent, and it will also load the rod, but it will also
brake the line.

My reasons for developing this theory, that tension is the main factor
in casting, was because I didn´t like the other theories. They are far
more complex, more difficult to explain, they don´t cover all the
factors involved, and they don´t help people to cast any better.

It is always assumed that rod loading is the main factor, and it is also
assumed that hauling increases line speed, and laods the rod. Line
tension is ignored.

Even static experiments with rod and line demonstrate conclusively that
tension is a major force in the affair.

The largely unsstisfactorily explained effect of hauling, ( usually by
using "line speed", or "rod loading") is also perfectly well explained
if one considers line tension.

Under normal circumstances the casting sytem consists of bott rod and
line, The rod is loaded, and the line is tensioned.

In some cases the "line load" is explained as "kinetic ebergy", but this
cannnot be true, as a line under tension etill has tension with out
moving at all. The increased momentum provided by kinetic energy only
materialises when the tension is released.

There are lots of other points as well, where tension easily explains
all tzhe factors and results. None of the other currenttheories do this.

Hauling, Rod-loading.

When a line is already extended, pulling back on it will increase
tension to some extent, and it will also load the rod, but it will also
brake the line.

That statement applies to the forward delivery, when the line has been cast.

It also applies to the haul, but that would be at a different point in
the cast, which also increases tension, and accelerates the line.

Hauling, Rod-loading.

Also, the explanations given for a cast "collapsing", or otherwise
failing, can not be explained satisfactorily by using rod loading or
"line speed". Lack of tension explains it immediately, simply, and can
quite easily be demonstrated.

As soon as anybody sees this done, and hears the explanation ( lack of,
or erratic tension), they never do it again.

Hauling, Rod-loading.

On Nov 11, 7:26*pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
That and my sig with departmental affiliations are there to convince him
I'm not a net loon (I didn't list his name so as to discourage casual
contact). *I've gotten a number of simple inquiries from academics
outside my field over the years, and so long as they're polite, I tend to
answer out of professional courtesy. *I'd be surprised if I got no answer
at all. *The answer might well be "I have no time, sorry", but given his
CV, I suspect he's given this some consideration.

Although I was being a bit snarky, I've been down this road before.
I'm a hopeless engineer and have come to realize that I too much enjoy
trying to explain the **** I love. This has led me to teach graduate
stuff at a local U; but it also occasionally gets me into occasional
online discussions for which I've tried to learn my limitations in
relating left brain stuff to folks with a decent right brain
aptitude. Good gawd, I got into the most lengthy structural
engineering discussion with some CT nut about column buckling a couple
years ago. WAFWOT that was. Nothing to do with the present
discussion necessarily.