Hauling, Rod-loading.

Dave LaCourse wrote:


And I will accept his word. Sheesh.

I know very little

Dave




Only fools accept things blindly. Unfortunately for you, one cannot buy
either intelligence or common sense.

Dave LaCourse wrote:
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



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.

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

I'm not going to enter the physics debate, somehow I accumulated a
chemistry degree without ever figuring out physics-yuk.

I can however offer observation, on a June night not too long ago, the
already mentioned Bruce Richards and others shot an entire fly line
using a broomstick and the double haul, so without knowing the
physics, I would say double hauling does not have a much smaller
effect if the rod is rigid.

You guys need to get a life.

On Nov 11, 8:20*pm, "
wrote:

Only fools accept things blindly. Unfortunately for you, one cannot buy
either intelligence or common sense.

Somewhere in the files I still have from my prior career, college and
a little study, I could probably post a number of the chemical
reactions involved in having an orgasm. Being a blind fool however-I'd
prefer to accept that when my wife plants a long kiss and grabs my
crotch, good things are probably going to happen sooner than later.

Same with a double-haul, I really don't feel the need to measure
everything, I knows the line is going to deliver a fly some distance
more than a normal cast if I do it right.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 02:21:49 +0100, "
wrote:

and I
wont reply to you again.

Then tell us where you articles are printed.

Easy and simple request.

Daveyboy

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


I'm not going to enter the physics debate, somehow I accumulated a
chemistry degree without ever figuring out physics-yuk.

I can however offer observation, on a June night not too long ago, the
already mentioned Bruce Richards and others shot an entire fly line
using a broomstick and the double haul, so without knowing the
physics, I would say double hauling does not have a much smaller
effect if the rod is rigid.

The stiffness of the rod has nothing to do with how much it's "loaded"
during a haul. It just affects how much it bends. A stiffer rod bends
less, obviously.

BTW, I find that stiffer rods are better for hauling. The bending of a
slow rod seems to "steal" energy from the haul.

You guys need to get a life.

Got one, thanks.

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

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 02:20:57 +0100, "
wrote:

Only fools accept things blindly. Unfortunately for you, one cannot buy
either intelligence or common sense.

And only BIG fools think they know everything about casting and
fishing. You don't fish, Connor. I do. You don't publish trip
reports. I do. You can bamboozle all you want, but when push comes
to shove, you don't know very much, especially about life and
definitely know little of practical use on fishing.

The short of it, Michael, is that if it feels good, do it. And if it
feels good, you are doing a double haul correctly. And the very
bottom line is that my two oldest grandsons know more about double
hauling and casting than you will ever know. And they were taught
*only* the very basics. The could not care less about the math or the
physics involved.

Oh, yeah, thought you weren't going to answer my posts, and yet......

Daveyboy

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

I'm not going to enter the physics debate, somehow I accumulated a
chemistry degree without ever figuring out physics-yuk.

I can however offer observation, on a June night not too long ago, the
already mentioned Bruce Richards and others shot an entire fly line
using a broomstick and the double haul, so without knowing the
physics, I would say double hauling does not have a much smaller
effect if the rod is rigid.

You guys need to get a life.




I have discussed a lot of stuff with Bruce over time.

Hauling functions without using a rod at all.

Flexible rods make it easier to cast because they allow a straight line
path.

This may also be attributed to tension, as the tenser the line the
straighter it is. ( My surmise there).

Fishing was always my life, or at least a major part of it. I always
liked to know how and why things work as they do. This always has
advantages of some kind.

TL
MC

rw wrote:


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.


That was Ernie Harrison, I corresponded with him for quite a while, but
have not heard anything for a long time now;

http://groups.google.com/groups/prof...xU4LRINKV3jTtQ


I have changed my opinions on these matters since those discussions,
most especially as a result of my tension theories, and long discussions
with other casters and researchers.

Scott Seidman wrote in
.4:

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.



Got a very nice reply, but I'm a little hesitant to post it before
seeking permission, as the haul is now an active research path for the
guy and he hasn't published it yet.

It's all bundled up and inseparable, line speed, rod loading, line
tension, etc. As with most things casting, its the acceleration of the
haul that makes the biggest difference.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply