L.O.S.T. post on Rodbuilding.org forum

[Orca]

Originally Posted by DenisB

If its not to your taste there is no need to belittle the attempts of others to develop ideas

The strength of BD in its rodbuilding & lurebuilding forums is there is NO EDITORIAL INPUT other than personal or non-contributory posts ( even off-colour language is tolerated) ............that strength is gained from individuals putting their stuff on the board for others to take or leave as they personally see fit. discussion rarely involves adversarial this is right or wrong............. its just " this is what I do" .If you benefit from it .........thats great..........if its not to your taste you don't have to read it and certainly isn't going to contribute anything if its just sour grapes and its not a sound technical critique of what has been presented.

This thread is coming very close to editorial input. Any further personal attacks will result in the thread being closed and the offending parties being put in time out. grow up and chill out children.

[DenisB]

Originally Posted by finadict

Yep!, But the one thats always overlooked is the Coanda effect when you piss too close to your own leg.

A fishing rod has to serve several different functions, and different dynamics are at play with each. A rod isnt just a fish retrieval tool, it has to serve as a bait delivery and presentation tool as well. Rods have to be strong and durable, yet lightweight. They have to have the right action to fight a fish, as well as the right action to cast effectively. Rods need larger guides and more of em to distribute load, yet they need smaller and fewer of them to preserve recoil for an efficient cast. They need to be pretty, yet still be submitted to some of the harshest environments on the planet. Rear grips need to be longer for casting leverage, but need to be shorter for fish fighting comfort and leverage. I could go on and on...

At some point over engineering and perfecting a certain aspect of a rods function, will take away from the effectiveness of another somewhere. Its impossible to build the perfect fishing rod in every aspect. I think the biggest engineering challenge is finding the happy mediums.

Absolutely & totally agree
rod building is a compromise.
That simple fishing rod is a quite complex combination of dynamics and a perfect rod for a particular application has a different compromise than a rod for a different application.
guide numbers and weight have more significance in a trout/bass rod than in a heavy duty S/water rod etc etc.
The important aspects we are trying to optimise vary from one fishing technique to another technique

It helps tho if the basic understanding of the actions of the different parameters and component choices etc is understood by the rodbuilder to be able to appreciate the significance of the optimisation of a particular parameter in a particular fishing technique.
Lots of myths out there based on half information and thirdhand opinion growing into fact.
Fishing rods are not a threat to public safety or a business that is large enough to generate public spending on R&D research. most of the materials we use are hand-me-downs from developments in other public benefit R&D that are adapted to rodbuilding.
There has been little fundamental research into the science of the dynamic parameters of fishing rods.
There has been some commercial in-house work and a lot of trial and error design.
There has been a small amount of pure science research or analysis by the engineering community.
Most has been done with bare blanks and not real fishing rods .
There has been a bit of work done by private individuals with a predilection for pain, frustration & suffering............particularly where it results in ego bumping in mythbusting.
and a lot of intuitive guesswork without proof of concept .
The rodbuilding world is full of intuitive guesswork and longheld beliefs that simply lack scientific proof.
A fertile ground for different opinions & disagreement on a raft of issues.
Over time more information slowly emerges and the rodbuilding craft and rod blank design evolves.
A classic example of how little we really know about rod forces is what happened when the blank material evolved to C/fibre.
Lots of breakages & disappointment from expensive materials and the causes were not clearly identified, they were resolved by trial an error until reliable successful builds were achieved.
I suggest another shift in rod blank materials and we will probably be in the same boat because the fundamental issues of the rod dynamics have not been adequately researched ( for reasons identified above) and we survive on trial and error, which mostly tell us what NOT to do rather than what we should be doing or the result from changing a particular component or optimisation of a particular attribute rather than optimisation of the system dynamic of the rod across its various roles.
Rod building forums are not exactly conducive to scientific discussion of various aspects of fishing rod dynamics ..........let alone subjective assessment of optimisation of parameters............but where else are they discussed and concepts shared.
Sharing is the operative concept...........sharing is not forcefeeding .........its not observance of some longheld ritual that has to be invoked or has to be observed either...........its just information flow to either use or not use as is your personal preference .

Some of that information is about cosmetics, some is technique, some is physical science and engineering..........take what you like & leave the other bits on the table.

Next thread please.

[SALTYDAWG]

Originally Posted by Orca

This thread is coming very close to editorial input. Any further personal attacks will result in the thread being closed and the offending parties being put in time out. grow up and chill out children.

Does that mean I cant call you an old fart?

[Jan from Humbol]

Originally Posted by SALTYDAWG

Does that mean I cant call you an old fart?

First, I think Dave is doing a great job by getting into the nuts and bolts of rod dynamics it's a subject that the industry will benefit from.

Most engineers do this all the time so one should expect it from them, a really good engineer is 100% involved about this sort of thing, some call it obsessive behavior , but you have to realize that that's the main difference between just an engineer and being a really good engineer.

And for the record Dave helps this R.O.F. understand the dynamics of rod building a little better and in turn helps me produce a better product.

So bottom line here is Thanks Dave and keep up the great work.


ROF? = Retired Old Fart

[Big G]

I once saw a local in mexico haul in a bigass grouper with what looked like a bunch of shoelaces tied together wrapped around a rusty tin can.

I guess my point is that it isn't the rod, its the angler that catches fish!!!

But those LOST rods do look cool!

[venturarodlure]

I do agree with the angler and the can thing. I've seen it in action, it works..There is a place for both ends of the spectrum. I am somewhere in the middle, but can appreciate the engineering that goes into one of Dave's rods as well as the simplicity of the can...My LOST rod is pretty sweet looking and catches fish so I don't know what all the fuss is about. I trust it on a fish. Case closed.

[Neptune]

The L.O.S.T post is “Much to do about Nothing” (Title of William Shakespeare's play).

The L.O.S.T. post is truly LOST, because the only individuals who claim to understand it, are the non-engineering or naively inexperienced rod builders. Understand it or not - what possible good is a technique that only applies to a fixed set of conditions, including rod blank modulus, angle of attack, magnitude of the load – etc. – etc. -- ad infinitum. To spend all that time with fantasy calculations and graphs for one specific rod with one set of multiple conditions is ridiculously absurd. One of the most ridiculous statements was the potential use of a super computer to do the analysis. In the first place, one doesn’t need a super computer for such an analysis. A super computer could in fact be used, but to what meaningful purpose, so to suggest it, shows gross naivete.

In opposition to some expressed opinions, the L.O.S.T post does not contribute in any possible way to advancing the “ART” of rod building. To the contrary, it has introduced, (to those new to spiral wrapping) much confusion and misinformation to the long established and proven technology of spiral wrapped rods.

I do not get along with Tom Kirkman, but I know that he does not ban individuals if he does not agree with the poster’s concept or approach. He only bans posters who insult or defame other poster’s comments or poster’s who try to advertise without being a sponsor.

Tom is also one of the early followers/developers of spiral wrapped rod technology and he is most always right in his write-ups. His initial response to the L.O.S.T. post on his website, was right on the money. (Ref: 7 posts down, Titled: Anonymous User (Moderator) Date: October 29, 2007 09:49AM at this link: Dave Hauser's LOST

In regard to insulting poster’s, BloodyDecks Red Monster’s (John) insult to rodbldr (Jim) was totally off base and uncalled for. Check out Red Monster Job Description - it speaks for itself.

rodbldr (Jim) is a leader in building spiral wrapped rods and is one of the most experienced spiral wrapped rod builders in the country. He also substantially contributed to the initial development of the Neptune Spiral Roller Guides, then field tested the first proto-type Neptune Acid/Spiral Roller rod aboard a Charter out of San Diego. His opinion and beliefs about spiral wrapping are based on facts and testing, so what he states is far most important and true than what his antagonists say!

I noticed that, to my best knowledge, that only two of the poster’s on this thread are real Graduate Engineers, namely, Emory Harry and myself. I bring this up because of the scoffing about “Typical Engineers”. Neophytes use this term because engineering is in fact, a very complicated discipline and is thus way beyond the average individual, so they do not really understand it. Without Real Engineers, you would not be using the computer or the internet, or your cell phone or your television, nor would the USA have landed on the moon!

I highly value Emory Harry’s opinions about the many subject he writes about, and in particular his disagreement about the validity of the “L.O.S.T post”. Both Emory and I, have multiple patents, which confirm our technical expertise in analysis and invention. We have used our knowledge to guide and help the rod builders on several websites.

It is hoped that this post will separate the Wheat from the Chaff


Neptune

*

[Red Monster]

[QUOTE=Neptune;1539378]The L.O.S.T post is “Much to do about Nothing” (Title of William Shakespeare's play).


In regard to insulting poster’s, BloodyDecks Red Monster’s (John) insult to rodbldr (Jim) was totally off base and uncalled for. Check out Red Monster Job Description - it speaks for itself.


Please don't whip me Massa! I'm so sorry for whut I dun!! BTW It was an observation not an insult. You being the all knowing engineer that you are should have known that.

I think now that Dave should submit himself for public ridicule and insults to his character. Wait,,, that already happened!

[Comedie]

Originally Posted by Neptune

The L.O.S.T post is “Much to do about Nothing” (Title of William Shakespeare's play).

The L.O.S.T. post is truly LOST, because the only individuals who claim to understand it, are the non-engineering or naively inexperienced rod builders. Understand it or not - what possible good is a technique that only applies to a fixed set of conditions, including rod blank modulus, angle of attack, magnitude of the load – etc. – etc. -- ad infinitum. To spend all that time with fantasy calculations and graphs for one specific rod with one set of multiple conditions is ridiculously absurd. One of the most ridiculous statements was the potential use of a super computer to do the analysis. In the first place, one doesn’t need a super computer for such an analysis. A super computer could in fact be used, but to what meaningful purpose, so to suggest it, shows gross naivete.

In opposition to some expressed opinions, the L.O.S.T post does not contribute in any possible way to advancing the “ART” of rod building. To the contrary, it has introduced, (to those new to spiral wrapping) much confusion and misinformation to the long established and proven technology of spiral wrapped rods.

I do not get along with Tom Kirkman, but I know that he does not ban individuals if he does not agree with the poster’s concept or approach. He only bans posters who insult or defame other poster’s comments or poster’s who try to advertise without being a sponsor.

Tom is also one of the early followers/developers of spiral wrapped rod technology and he is most always right in his write-ups. His initial response to the L.O.S.T. post on his website, was right on the money. (Ref: 7 posts down, Titled: Anonymous User (Moderator) Date: October 29, 2007 09:49AM at this link: Dave Hauser's LOST

In regard to insulting poster’s, BloodyDecks Red Monster’s (John) insult to rodbldr (Jim) was totally off base and uncalled for. Check out Red Monster Job Description - it speaks for itself.

rodbldr (Jim) is a leader in building spiral wrapped rods and is one of the most experienced spiral wrapped rod builders in the country. He also substantially contributed to the initial development of the Neptune Spiral Roller Guides, then field tested the first proto-type Neptune Acid/Spiral Roller rod aboard a Charter out of San Diego. His opinion and beliefs about spiral wrapping are based on facts and testing, so what he states is far most important and true than what his antagonists say!

I noticed that, to my best knowledge, that only two of the poster’s on this thread are real Graduate Engineers, namely, Emory Harry and myself. I bring this up because of the scoffing about “Typical Engineers”. Neophytes use this term because engineering is in fact, a very complicated discipline and is thus way beyond the average individual, so they do not really understand it. Without Real Engineers, you would not be using the computer or the internet, or your cell phone or your television, nor would the USA have landed on the moon!

I highly value Emory Harry’s opinions about the many subject he writes about, and in particular his disagreement about the validity of the “L.O.S.T post”. Both Emory and I, have multiple patents, which confirm our technical expertise in analysis and invention. We have used our knowledge to guide and help the rod builders on several websites.

It is hoped that this post will separate the Wheat from the Chaff


Neptune

*

So John, as an engineer you are saying you don't believe in load/stress distribution (static testing), the power of compounded leverage between guides, or the value of a less resistant path for flow? Come on now.

And go back and read the posts where Emory made comments and critiques. The things he said should be done are exactly what LOST does, altho he obviously did not recognize them as being part of LOST.

And BTW,,, the JPL offer was of course to deal with a whole lot more than LOST. The intent was the model ALL the dynamics of a fishing rod.

And I gather you have no memory of the RBO bit. There's a good bit of history mgmt there, and threads which disappeared. Certainly a few folks who've shown up on this thread remember the story, and have been subjected to the same Goering-esque treatment.

Frankly, I gotta admit that I find all this a bit amusing. A key tenet in custom rodbuilding is to static test. You see it on conventional rods and spinning rods, but for some reason a lot of people don't on spirals. Yeah, it is a whole lot trickier. But that's what LOST was bred from.

I bet you agree with Ralph O'Quinn and his method of laying out the transition section,,,, yeah? Boeing engineer as I remember. That flexy rod used to do the layout is basically seeking the straighest path, the path of least resistance, from the reel to the 1st 180. Well,,, don't stop there. Get a longer flexy rod and run that beyond the 1st 180 to the tip. That is the path of least resistance thru those points. Do it and note the resulting shape,,,, what you will see is the same sort of running guide wave you get in LOST.

[KeyWest1]

[Owen]

Originally Posted by Comedie

Ask and you shall receive.
<SNIP>
Still, I'm pretty happy with the comparison. The two curves are roughly similar. That is FAR away from what a short transition (or zero transition guide) spiral is going to yield without LOST concepts applied.

Dave,
Once again I cannot draw any conclusions from these graphs.
At BEST you demonstrate that the load tension you are measuring at any given guide is within 0.5 lbs between one method and the other.
As someone that mainly fishes using heavy(ish) gear I fail to see that such a small variation can be considered as going to make any appreciable difference to how the rod is able to subdue my next spanish mackerel.

If you are saying that the other spiral concepts will be significanly lesser in performance because of load distribution, then you should show that kind of build on your graph too.

And if that were shown to be true (on your graph), we could then conclude that at it's BEST, any spiral system is about on par with a conventional system in terms of load distribution.
If it is better, then it is in small amounts which would leave me to assume that it would be more applicable on very light gear (where the percentage of improvement is of a higher ratio to the total strength of the rod).Even that assumption is not proven, as the percentage may remain the constant.


And that would be fine, because conventionals subdue any fish I'm likely to encounter so I don't look to spirals for that reason.

Originally Posted by Comedie

What I'm not capturing is the strength of the spiral effect. I think it safe to say that LOST yields the strongest spiral effect of any spiral tho, since the tall running guides are acting as long levers.
<SNIP>

If what you are saying here is that "taller guides have more leverage" therefore your system is better, then you have deviated from the graphs you use for evidence. i.e They do not measure rotational force.
Rotational forces are why most of us look to spirals in the first place.

It's pretty much a given that using a taller guide will offer greater leverage resulting in the rod tracking to the direction of load more readily and not wanting to "fall over" or twist in your hand.

I'm not an engineer... I'm a welder..........
so i get to make the shit engineers come up with work in the real world
I try to be fair and opened minded and I accept that some people know more about some things than I care to learn.
I'm not an idiot either. I have no formal training in ANY field be it welding (where I earned my living all my life) or in software development (where I go to relax)
I learned these things by absorbing as much information as I could, trialling it myself and storing what was usefull into my limited brain cells and what was white noise gets trashed.


I believe with the current blank and guide technology we have to severely screw up our build (especially on salt water rods) to build a rod that is not up to the task of subduing the target species.
I've seen more second rate reels fail then rods.

To put it into software terms, I can write code to do any specific task in maybe a dozen different ways. Given todays computers, they'll all do it in milliseconds. Only ONE will be the most efficient.
But you know what? The end user will never know the difference (or care) because they all do what was expected by them.

So I think all the engineers and experts should pull their heads in and admit that they are ALL talking about moving deck chairs around, not allowing the titanic to plough straight through the frigging iceberg.


Chill out!

[Comedie]

Originally Posted by Owen

Dave,
Once again I cannot draw any conclusions from these graphs.
At BEST you demonstrate that the load tension you are measuring at any given guide is within 0.5 lbs between one method and the other.
As someone that mainly fishes using heavy(ish) gear I fail to see that such a small variation can be considered as going to make any appreciable difference to how the rod is able to subdue my next spanish mackerel.

If you are saying that the other spiral concepts will be significanly lesser in performance because of load distribution, then you should show that kind of build on your graph too.

And if that were shown to be true (on your graph), we could then conclude that at it's BEST, any spiral system is about on par with a conventional system in terms of load distribution.
If it is better, then it is in small amounts which would leave me to assume that it would be more applicable on very light gear (where the percentage of improvement is of a higher ratio to the total strength of the rod).Even that assumption is not proven, as the percentage may remain the constant.


And that would be fine, because conventionals subdue any fish I'm likely to encounter so I don't look to spirals for that reason.




If what you are saying here is that "taller guides have more leverage" therefore your system is better, then you have deviated from the graphs you use for evidence. i.e They do not measure rotational force.
Rotational forces are why most of us look to spirals in the first place.

It's pretty much a given that using a taller guide will offer greater leverage resulting in the rod tracking to the direction of load more readily and not wanting to "fall over" or twist in your hand.

....

Hey Owen, we are largely in agreement.
Of course the reason I got into this spiral tuning at all was because I was seeing poor load distribution with spirals when following the eggsperts. What you see occur is guides in the transition area failing to carry load within the specs of the rod rating. The shorter the transition, the taller the reel, and the thicker the blank,,, the worst the result. The only way you don't see it is if you aren't looking.

Oh I'd love for the self proclaimed experts to send me their loading data on their rods. I really really would. Witness the witchhunting going on in this thread tho. Think any of those folks are interested in progress, or instead in the status quo? You just know if I go off and build those variants I'd be accused of doctoring the data too. And likely anyone who would send me data would be branded as incompetent and unable to build the rod right.

Remember, a bunch of folks want the status quo, which means no data. Much as Dick French pointed out,,,, rod building akin to painting by numbers and building what worked yesterday is largely their goal. Hence destructive and personal attacks rather than constructive critique that could yield progress.

But,,, perhaps I'm wrong, so I'll ask. Anyone wanting to enlist to provide some data on different rod species, especially on spirals, contact me. And no, it isn't difficult.