|
Walter & Group...
[GH] From Walter Simbirski :
Gordy,
Oh, oh - Guy just opened another can of worms...
" An example is studies done on the amount of work contributed by the rod. For years the estimate of X% by Perkins (I don’t remember the number but it was at least 50%) was accepted, now it has been shown to be much less by Lovell I believe it was."
In fact, the rod contributes no energy to the cast. All of the energy input comes from the caster. A more correct question would be, "How much energy that is stored in the rod as it bends is recovered (i.e. transmitted to the line) when the rod unloads?"
During the early stages of the casting stroke, the part where the rod bend is increasing, there is actually a loss of energy between what the caster inputs and is transmitted to the line. Later in the cast when the rod unloads some of that energy is recovered, i.e. transmitted to the line, but the amount of energy that is recovered can not be more than the amount of energy than 100% of what is stored in the rod and, in fact, some of the energy will be lost in the form of heat, overcoming air resistance, etc.
Just thought I would throw that in.
Walter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Walter,
Walter,
Of course ! The rod is an inanimate object. As such it can "do" nothing except exist. Even that is intransitive inaction.
The rod can actually "do" nothing without some input by the caster. When we say that, "The one thing a rod can do, is straighten", we forget that it cannot do that until first bent .... and that is accomplished by the caster !
The argument over "swing" and "spring" and the relative values in the past has suffered from lack of consideration that those values may be different for each cast.
Perhaps we can visit that as a separate topic for the future.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOW ON TO SUMMATIONS
Gordy
|