Fly line help

"Wolfgang" wrote:


In the first place, the figured arrived at is an average derived not only by
the measurement of the material, but also of any intervening spaces. A 7x
tippet, for example is fine enough that one can't be certain all the wraps
snug up against one another consistently without careful examination under
magnification. Second, wrapping the tippet around something, and especially
something of a small diameter.....like a nail....will inevitably cause some
deformation. Nylon monofilament is fairly dense, but not so dense that
deformation can be entirely ignored when a high degree of
precision....1/1600 inch in diameter....is called for or claimed. In
wrapping the tippet around the mandrel, one has to exert enough pressure to
keep it pressed more or less tightly against the surface. This necessarily
presents at least two good opportunities for introducing error; the tippet
is stretched, thereby reducing the diameter, and it is also flattened to
some degree, thus increasing the apparent diameter as measured along the
length of the mandrel. I have no idea how these countervailing forces
interact, but I suspect it would be tough to account for such interaction
with a simple linear equation and I'd bet a shiny new nickel that the
strecth factor alone could easily account for as much as a 50% reduction in
true diameter. Third, micrometers are routinely used for the measurement of
some relatively frail materials (at least as compared to something as robust
as nylon monofilament. Micrometers with built in mechanisms to control the
applied force have been avialable for a long time. I've used one for nearly
thirty years that I got from my father who used it for twenty or more years
before that. I'd be much surprised if models aren't available in which that
force can be controlled to a fairly high degree of precision. Fourth,
1/1600 inch is more than an eighth of the 4/1000 inch diameter of 7x tippet.
I'd be much surprised if manufacturers couldn't control or weren't concerned
about an error of that magnitude.

Wolfgang


Steve may have been less than polite about it, but he was entirely correct
about the stretch/diameter relationship. 50% reduction would require 400%
stretch. If you check out a 10% stretch, you get 4.7% reduction in diameter.
I'm sure you could hold yourself down to 2% stretch, and that would just be
just 1% reduction in diameter.

Neither Steve nor I had the presence of mind to take you up on your bet before
posting the answer, so you get to keep this shiny new nickel.

Also, anyone who's built a rod knows how to wrap multiple turns of small
diameter stuff and keep them together.

And, lastly, this is a trick for some poor soul whose father didn't give him an
antique micrometer.

I would be interested in the results of your testing some of your 7x tippet
with the micrometer. I expect you'll find parts that are half a thousandth of
an inch different from other parts. I'd run the test, but I don't use 7x.


Chas
remove fly fish to e mail directly

"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...
Wolfgang wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
ink.net...

Wolfgang wrote:


This necessarily presents at least two good opportunities for
introducing error; the tippet is stretched, thereby reducing the
diameter, and it is also flattened to some degree, thus increasing the
apparent diameter as measured along the length of the mandrel. I have
no idea how these countervailing forces interact, but I suspect it would
be tough to account for such interaction with a simple linear equation
and I'd bet a shiny new nickel that the strecth factor alone could
easily account for as much as a 50% reduction in true diameter.

You don't know what the **** you're talking about, but of course that
doesn't stop you. I guarantee that a linear equation could do an
excellent job of modeling and correcting for those "errors" you mention,
such as they are (although you vastly overstate them and they're not even
worth the trouble).

50% reduction! What a load of crap.


Ah, Google triumphs again!

O.k., teach me.

Very well. Let's take your statement that "the strecth [sic] factor alone
could easily account for as much as a 50% reduction in true diameter."

O.k., let's.

This is a ridiculous assertion.

Oh? Why is that?

Let's take a piece of monofilament tippet of length l and radius r.

O.k., let's

The volume is V = l*pi*r^2, proportional to the length l and the square of
the radius r (assuming a circular cross section).

Ah! The eagerly awaited equation for the volume of a cylinder at long last!
Just think of all the heartache that could have avoided if someone had only
come up with this a few decades ago. Quick......someone call Scientific
American......this could be BIG!

Now let's stretch

O.k., let's.

(note spelling)

Noted.

the tippet until the radius is r/2 (a 50% reduction in "true diameter).
The volume is constant, so the length must be 4*l.

This is beginning to look suspiciously like an application of the equation
for calculating the volume of a cylinder........am I right?

If you think that you can stretch mono tippet to four times its length
without it breaking, I have some Nigerian bank notes you might be
interested in.

I think you're lying. I don't believe you have any Nigerian bank notes.

This shows that not only do you have no physical intuition to speak of,
but you can't even make a simple abstract sanity check of an absurd
assertion that you believe MUST be true ...

Actually, it shows nothing whatsoever beyond the admittedly amazing fact
that you somehow managed to stumble on the equation for the volume of a
cylinder and that you put your trust in whoever told you it is applicable to
the matter under consideration. Good guess.

because it came right out of your butt.

Hee, hee, hee.

Teach me more.

Wolfgang
good lord, the boy is stupid!

rw wrote in news:Fq03e.3013$x4.2079
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

The volume is constant, so the length must be 4*l.


I'm not quite sure that this is a good assumption for polymers, where
chains are likely to uncoil and align on deformation. Think about
stretching a nylon stocking lengthwise, and the dramatic impact such an
action has on the mesh lattice. Now think about the same thing happening
molecularly.

Do we have a roffian rheologist who can help us out here?

SCott

Wolfgang wrote:

Teach me more.

Send the nickel to PO Box 267, Stanley, ID 83278.

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

"chas" wrote in message
...

Steve may have been less than polite about it,

Quite possible. Someone should check on that.

but he was entirely correct
about the stretch/diameter relationship.

And, as I noted in my response to him, the entire world thanks him for it.
Sniff......sniff.....I smell Nobel!

50% reduction would require 400%
stretch.

No expert in the arcana of arithmetic myself, my calculations show a stretch
of 300% (assuming, of course, that one begins with 100% of what one begins
with).

If you check out a 10% stretch, you get 4.7% reduction in diameter.
I'm sure you could hold yourself down to 2% stretch, and that would just
be
just 1% reduction in diameter.

Well........gosh.

Neither Steve nor I had the presence of mind to take you up on your bet
before
posting the answer, so you get to keep this shiny new nickel.

If proving someone wrong is simply a matter of making a counter assertion,
then you were dead in the water after the first salvo. Don't gamble.

Also, anyone who's built a rod knows how to wrap multiple turns of small
diameter stuff and keep them together.

I've built a rod. I've also examined the wraps on it and on other items
similarly treated. Guess what I saw.

And, lastly, this is a trick for some poor soul whose father didn't give
him an
antique micrometer.

And, as I stated at the outset, it's a good technique. But one needs to be
careful about claims concerning precision.

I would be interested in the results of your testing some of your 7x
tippet
with the micrometer. I expect you'll find parts that are half a
thousandth of
an inch different from other parts.

The results wouldn't be very interesting. All of my precision measuring
tools are old.....none of them reads in increments smaller than .001 inch.
As I'm sure you remember, it is generally accepted as axiomatic that the
precision of any measuring instrument can be no better than half of it's
smallest increment. Since this puts us at right about limits of the
previously stated manufacturing tolerances (which, incidentally, am I
confident you researched carefully) we end up learning very little.

While we're at it, why don't we take another look at tolerances and
precision keeping the above in mind? In outlining your method, you
suggested using a hundred turns of tippet. Applying this standard to the 7x
tippet in my example we come up with a nominal length along the mandrel of
..400 inch. Measuring to 1/16th inch (your stipulation) we have an inherent
precision limitation of about .032 inch, or 8%......somewhat less than the
tolerances you impute to the manufacturers. Of course, the matter is
further complicated other, as yet unmentioned, potential problems. For
example, how accurate is your measuring device? If you're using a
carpenter's or a mason's folding rule, for instance, it may not be quite the
best tool for the job.

Moreover, why use such a coarse measure in the first place? I've got some
machinist's rules that are ruled in 1/64 inch increments and, while my eyes
aren't what they once were, I'm certain that I can still read them well
enough. Applying your formula for the treatment of the resulting
measurement I could come up with some truly astonishing precision!

I'd run the test, but I don't use 7x.

I don't believe the protocol requires any further use of the tippet after
the measurements and calculations are completed.

Wolfgang

Scott Seidman wrote:
rw wrote in news:Fq03e.3013$x4.2079
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:


The volume is constant, so the length must be 4*l.



I'm not quite sure that this is a good assumption for polymers, where
chains are likely to uncoil and align on deformation. Think about
stretching a nylon stocking lengthwise, and the dramatic impact such an
action has on the mesh lattice. Now think about the same thing happening
molecularly.

Suppose that when you stretch the tippet its volume decreases by half.
(It won't, of course -- not even close -- but this is a thought
experiment.) Then you'd still have to double the length to get a radius
decreased by half.

Now think of how much the tippet can actually be stretched before it
breaks. It will be a small fraction of the original length, so the
volume would have to decrease by a factor of nearly four to get a radius
decreased by half, showing once again that even under the most
unreasonably generous assumptions Wolfgang is full of ****.

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

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 15:42:28 GMT, rw
wrote:

Scott Seidman wrote:
rw wrote in news:Fq03e.3013$x4.2079
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:


The volume is constant, so the length must be 4*l.



I'm not quite sure that this is a good assumption for polymers, where
chains are likely to uncoil and align on deformation. Think about
stretching a nylon stocking lengthwise, and the dramatic impact such an
action has on the mesh lattice. Now think about the same thing happening
molecularly.

Suppose that when you stretch the tippet its volume decreases by half.
(It won't, of course -- not even close -- but this is a thought
experiment.) Then you'd still have to double the length to get a radius
decreased by half.

Now think of how much the tippet can actually be stretched before it
breaks. It will be a small fraction of the original length, so the
volume would have to decrease by a factor of nearly four to get a radius
decreased by half, showing once again that even under the most
unreasonably generous assumptions Wolfgang is full of ****.

Anyone with any sense wouldn't need to be walking around the radius of a
yard and trip over a root while carrying a pie to the square dance to
cosign for a REALLY accurate measuring device to realize that you both
are full of ****...

Math, my ass...if Susie has 2 cans of spaghetti and I have 2 boxes of
wine, we can still have a weekend's worth of fun...

"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...
Wolfgang wrote:

Teach me more.

Send the nickel to PO Box 267, Stanley, ID 83278.

Sure thing. Teach me more.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...

Wolfgang wrote:

Teach me more.

Send the nickel to PO Box 267, Stanley, ID 83278.


Sure thing. Teach me more.

It will have to wait until I get the nickel. In the meantime you can
continue to twist in the wind.

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

"rw" wrote in message
.net...
Wolfgang wrote:
"rw" wrote in message
nk.net...

Wolfgang wrote:

Teach me more.

Send the nickel to PO Box 267, Stanley, ID 83278.


Sure thing. Teach me more.

It will have to wait until I get the nickel. In the meantime you can
continue to twist in the wind.

Unlike you to capitulate so soon.......but, o.k.

Wolfgang
who would pay another shiny new nickel to see that simple linear equation.