From: "Gordon Hill" <hillshead@xxxxxxx>
To: flysoup@xxxxxxxxxx, sobbobfish@xxxxxxx, rtab@xxxxxxx, CAPTPERMIT@xxxxxxx, creangler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dwright@xxxxxxxxxxxx, daver@xxxxxxxxxx, dennisg@xxxxxxxxxxxx, captdoug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dsprague01@xxxxxxxxxxx, ephemera@xxxxxxx, brushycreekfc@xxxxxxxxx, keysjake@xxxxxxx, barefootj@xxxxxxx, bradyir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, flyfishar@xxxxxxxxxxx, ken.cole@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, captkirk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, glbaggett@xxxxxxxxx, mkreider1@xxxxxxx, martyt@xxxxxxxxxx, niallogan@xxxxxxxxxx, pminnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, bigfly@xxxxxxxxx, whorwood@xxxxxxxxx, flycasts@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, sheila@xxxxxxxxxx, scjacobs@xxxxxxxxxxxx, tharper@xxxxxxxxxxx, tomwhite@xxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: mildbill@xxxxxxxxxxxx, caddis@xxxxxxx, Brydnlnims@xxxxxxxxxxx, cezannealexander@xxxxxxxxxxx, crazycharlie@xxxxxxx, croberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, blacksalmon@xxxxxxxxxxx, DermSox@xxxxxxx, gladesflybum@xxxxxxxxxxxx, iverson@xxxxxxxxx, jfs523@xxxxxxxxxxx, jerry_puckett2001@xxxxxxxxx, thedamselfly@xxxxxxxxxxx, plami@xxxxxxxxxxx, ray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bobbeanblossom@xxxxxxx, hillcathy@xxxxxxx, donjack@xxxxxxxxxxx, douglas.swift@xxxxxxxxxxxx, erniemaynard@xxxxxxxxxxx, flyfsfrank@xxxxxxx, gregrahe@xxxxxxxxxxx, ianmuirhead@xxxxxxx, jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, t.maltese@xxxxxxxxx, skifishvail@xxxxxxxx, jfv@xxxxxxxxxxxx, trallag@xxxxxxx, mollysemenik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, fraudflies@xxxxxxx, shane@xxxxxxxxx, snowmonkey29@xxxxxxx
Subject: Missed Messages....ROD LOADING
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:26:57 -0400
Hi, Group....
Computer glitch resulted in lost messages, as follows:
Tom White wrote: (On rod loading)
Good synopsis.
Here's an example I use.
Pin a rod straight up, then take the line - about 20' and "load it at 90 deg. Let go of the line and it will "cast" the line.
Now, do the same with the rod loaded at 90 deg., and MOVE the bott forward - accelerate - you get much more distance this way.
Acceleration is an integral part of the stroke; if not the most important part.
Or as a kid we used to use a sling shot. We would hold it rigid and releas the pellet. If we wanted distance, we moved the hand forward and released the pellet. Kids will play.
Tom
My answer included a little history:
Tom...
Ahaaha! That experiment was done many years ago by a chap named Robert Crompton, a fly rod builder from St. Paul, Minn. He championed the convex profile taper to supplant the former straight tapers of soft, willowy bamboo fly rods for much more efficient loading. He made a "CASTING MACHINE" out of a fly rod fastened with the handle in a vise. His findings were exactly as you describe....when the fly line was drawn way back and the rod maximally loaded, upon release, the fly didn't travel nearly as far as when a caster accelerated the rod.
This is described in Jason Borger's book, THE NATURE OF FLY CASTING, p.11. That whole section on rod loading is worth studying.
Also, note pp 42 and 54-55 in Vincent Marinaro's book, IN THE RING OF THE RISE.
Peter J. Schwab used Crompton's "casting machine" to help show that while the weight of the reel played no part with respect to casting efficiency when the rod was "potted" in the vise, it made a BIG difference when the caster added input. Because of the inertia of a heavy reel, he showed that the caster's efficiency was much reduced compared to casting with a light reel or no reel at all.
Schwab taught that wind resistance and drag were important in calculating rod tip speeds as a reason that with the same casting stroke and energy input, some thinner/lighter rods of less tip crossectional diameter could often yield higher loop speeds and longer casts than the heavier rods. (TROUT, by Ernie Schwiebert, Vol. II, p 982)
Crompton also contributed a lot to the technology of bamboo rod design. Don Phillips, in his, THE TECHNOLOGY OF FLY RODS, pp 63-64, pointed out that he and his hired mathematician proved that any regular polygon will exhibit the same moment of inertia in all planes of orientation no matter how many sides or the location of the corners of the construct. This lead to his thrust for the use of 5 strip rather than 6 strip rods. His desciple, Nathanial Uslan carried this ball, as well. Problem was that while mathematically "correct", in the real world of rod making this didn't hold true with 4 sided and 3 sided rod constructs !
One could look at a tubular rod as a polygonal construct with an infinate number of sides.
Crompton wasn't always right.....as witnessed by his insistance upon usong only wire snake guides with no larger stripper guides for his rods. (TROUT, Ernie Schwiebert, Vol II, PP 963-964.)
Fascinating stuff !!!!
Gordy