SLP / Tarpon hooks / Valsesenian method/ Physics of fly casting

In a message dated 2/7/2009 7:17:05 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, masterstudygroup@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:

Server & Group..............

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Forward â Below I find some comments that mainly take the form of critical comments. I guess Iâm lucky because what is presented as criticism can be resolved with very simplistic observations of what is really correct. The issues are so BLACK and WHITE that I apologize up-front for having to point out such trivial facts as will be pointed out â the dialog may sound a little bit like a grammar school science discussion but it doesnât have to be any more intellectual than that to resolve any issues brought forth here. The level of debate necessary for the most part involves pointing out the difference between POSITIVE and NEGATIVE (or the difference between PLUS and MINUS). Several of the writerâs say or infer they are parroting Bruceâs criticisms so I find only a little of substance to remark about. The last commentator chiming into the discussion has the quirky world view that nothing is ever right or wrong â Dennis did you maybe run a bank recently?

Iâm going to put in a few simple ground rules to keep the picture on casting clean â 1) one handed casting with fly line pinched against handle, 2) ignore gravitational effects, 3) ignore aerodynamic drag. Wash these effects out of the picture to keep it clearer since they do not affect any issues under consideration.

Also I want to make a remark about understanding and teaching â it is possible to teach others to cast without understanding the engineering physics//mechanics of casting. There are many arenas where teaching is successfully conducted by those who donât understand much about the what or why of what is being thaught. As a student you watch what the teacher does and try to imitate it, or he may physically guide your hand to help understand the feel, or he may say to change something and which provides feedback on whether an improvement occurs (regardless of whether the student even followed instructions). Itâs where the teacher tries explaining why certain things should be done â often times these can be nothing but poor guesses and misunderstandings passed down from one person to the next. But that doesnât mean that the student canât become a better caster because of the other benefits provided by the teacher.

From Bruce Richards:

Hi Gordy, thanks for sending Servers piece. I've had issues with things he
has written in the past, and do with this one also. I've only had time to
read the first bit, some comments on it below. I'd like to know what he
defines as a "hard stop", he must have a very different view of it than I
do. Perhaps we are using different definitions since I have said decelerations (="stopping") occur after unloading (that is not before counterflex) - but we'll go into definitions as we move along. To me, a "hard stop" is a rapid deceleration of the rod, and I think
most others would agree. What he says below is that a caster initiated stop
occurs after the rod has started to unload, which is a very odd thing to
say. No I didn't say that exactly - I said something considerably more at odds with your view. I said "stopping"/deceleration occurs after RSP and certainly not during rod unloading. He is implying that the rod alone decides when to start unloading, which is pretty silly. Its not silly because that is about 90% true. I'll discuss at the end of your comments and more in a subsequent message.

"Recall that the notion of "hard stop" is that caster initiated stopping
occurs around peak rod load and somehow then contributes to how the rod
unloads". Call this one Disagreement #1 â it seems like saying this out loud three times would alert the speaker to problems â unless of course they have brainwashed themselves over a period of many years. Peak load does herald a change but the change is not zero load but is the attainment of maximum load which means that lesser loads will follow. After the load peaks it begins to drop but does not act in the opposite direction. The load continues to ACCELERATE the system not decelerate it. To decelerate â that is cause a reduction in speed the acceleration has to turn around (act in the opposite direction) and to do this of course it has to pass through zero. That happens at RSP.

If "stopping" is defined as rod deceleration, then yes, it occurs at peak
load, there is no other way it can happen. Say that three times out loud. Then say out load three times âat peak rod load the loads start to dropâ. Notice any difference between the statements yet. Loads dropping does not equate to deceleration. It equates to acceleration with dropping loads â see the grammar school example below if you are still in any doubt. Loads need to become negative for deceleration. And yes, how the rod decelerates
has a big impact on how the rod unloads. If the deceleration is very slow,
the rod continues to rotate all through the stop which causes a rounded tip
path and very rounded loop, vs. a tight, top pointed loop. This would be something occurring in counterflex and Michael Heritage pointed out some video which depicts this â leaves little doubt what determines loop dimensions. Letâs repeat basic aspects and then I'll mention commonly accepted definitions of words. In loading the rod bends and at the same time things (rod and line) are accelerated and the velocities increase. When the rod begins unloading//As the rod unloads everything continues to accelerate, ACCELERATE not DECELERATE. Bruce, if I take your statement as written (and this is what you have been saying consistently in your correspondences) your position is that deceleration occurs during rod unloading (i.e., after peak load). Well this is an easy point to debate so if need be lets debate it because it gives us something specific to debate - I cannot imagine it needs debate!! Since I had thought this issue had been closed several years ago and recently saw the old unsubstantiated paradigms coming back I introduced another explanation based on concepts as simple as the difference between push and pull. If the rod is bent in a direction corresponding to accelerating then it will be accelerating. When, during the cast, the bend is reversed deceleration occurs. Therefore the transition from acceleration to deceleration occurs at RSP - pretty cut and dry.

In trying to reconcile what you could possibly mean I have to wonder if you are mixing up accelerations which are decreasing with DECELERATION - very, very, very different things. So I will define the meaning of the two words just to make sure we are on the same page; if accelerations are positive then decelerations are negative, if accelerations cause speeds to increase then decelerations cause reductions in speed (sometimes it is appropriate to substitute the words linear and angular momentum for "speed" but just ignore that subtlety). Any time "speed" is increasing the system is being accelerated and the rod must be loaded to some degree (bent in a certain direction) by the caster (in plain English the caster has to supply the forces and torques that cause these changes in speed) and this is the case through the entire process of rod unloading. I don't know and don't want to suggest what you are saying but literally it sounds like you are mixing-up deceleration with the accelerations which exist during rod unloading? Don't we agree that things speed during rod unloading?? I thought everyone accepted that as an empirical fact and working premise. Why bother with loading a rod if that weren't true? So any way, if this is straightened-out we can proceed with relative ease. Troy and Gowans, below seem to have a similar dilemma since they claim to agree with you. (Just thought of another statement - Peak Rod load is not peak velocities//peak momenta. Stopping starts when velocities reach peak values.)

Now our grammar school example. If it is absolutely clear that accelerating forces and torques must be applied during rod unloading and cause things to speed-up then donât bother reading this. However, you might want to keep it in the back of mind in case you deal with some other individual whose mind has been brainwashed on the subject. This is yet another highly simplified example (that is all which is necessary for such a simple issue) illustrating how to use the terminology and how it is related to fly casting. Letâs examine something weâve probably all done â driven a car fast. Suppose a person has a car he is driving in 3^rd gear, for example, and accelerates from 40 -130 mph and the engine runs from 2000 to 6500 rpm in the process. Suppose the engine produces the largest acceleration at 4000rpm/80mph and the driver holds the petal to the floor and continues to increase speed to 130 mph/6500rpm where the car cannot go any faster. It seems to go without saying that what happened was a continuous forward acceleration but the acceleration at 120mph was smaller than at 80mph â that is, at 4000rpm maximum loading after 4000rpm the loads/accelerations diminish. Nowhere in here where the speed was continually increasing was there DECELERATION â it was all acceleration. The relationship between fly casting and car is

- Peak rod loading ~ car at 4000rpm/80mph

- Rod unloading ~ car accelerating from 80 to 130 mph

- Elastic energy released during rod unloading+work done by caster during rod unloading ~ gas consumed by car while accelerating from 80 to 130 mph.

To decelerate the car one could apply the brakes and the speed decreases. Holding the fly rod while it counterflexs is like applying the brakes and it causes the rod to stop. My intent is not to belittle anyone but the issue is so crystal clear and simple that any illustrative example will seem trivially obvious.

Probably on Feb 11, I will explain further â in fact prove based on experimental data â my premise that the caster indirectly (almost directly) controls only the value of peak loading and nothing else and the rest of the important rod behavior occurs regardless of what the caster does (the rod does itâs thing!!!). I have stated this fact numerous times over the last years because it is quite clear to me by virtue of understanding the engineering mechanics of casting. However it just occurred to me yesterday that data I am responsible for as well as data provided by Perkins//Richards demonstrates this physical behavior fairly conclusively and you donât have to just take my word for it.

Bruce

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Troy Miller:

I warn readers â this material is pretty muddled up. Whereas Bruce made remarks that can be dissected in a straightforward fashion, Troyâs cannot. I suggest you skip this section unless you are really interested and confident in your basic understanding of casting mechanics//physics. I try to address what Troy might be saying but his statements include some ambiguity and some are his ideas on the physics and this physics is frankly impossible.

Agree greatly with Bruce. Like him, I spent about 30 minutes trying to decipher Server's First Law of Casting. And like Bruce, I take issue with the concept of hard stop vs. negative acceleration, rod unloading and such. Greatly agree?? Pretty vague - maybe below we get some specificity so that questions can be answered. I am an engineer, NOT a physicist. So now you are conversing with an Engineering Professor so let's try some "engineering speak" and I'll do my best to make remarks in the form (I think all remarks I have made earlier are all right from an Engineering perspective - although I've used some very simple explanations for a more general audience) There's a HUGE difference. Engineers concern themselves with the practical application of physical concepts. Yes, we're familiar with general theoretical issues of macro and microphysics - BUT WE DON'T OBSESS over them. When an incorrect statement is made it can't be hidden by claiming lack of OBSESSION. So I'll look at what you have to say give my opinions on its merit.

I believe that we can actually see loop formation well before there's a pronounced stop (is this relevant to something?? I don't know where this is going?? Maybe I had a typo in my write-up somewhere? I said loop formation, which to me means the bulk of the fly line is in free flight (therefore no longer being accelerated)- begins while the rod is slightly loaded (i.e., rod is bent and unloading and being driven forward in unloading) before RSP - if we accelerate the rod and fly line to a high speed midway through the stroke, and then stop accelerating (constant velocity) for the remainder of the stroke. Now I'm talking about the rod tip when I talk about acceleration or velocity (not angular rotation of the butt, as Bruce describes). Engineering? Where is the engineering? Below I will show you that the tip, or anything else, cannot possibly be moved so that constant velocity occurs if you are talking about a fly rod which has been bent (loaded) somewhere in the process. Not that I disagree with him, but my video studies focused on the tip rather than the butt. I don't feel qualified to try to speak with authority about the butt's angular acceleration since I've not studied it like Bruce and Noel have done so thoroughly. I didn't take physical measurements real-time, I simply plotted points of stop frames with equal time intervals between. That's all well and good and I provided some rough analysis of shots that Guy has provided and others available on the ACA site. I would be interested in seeing yours as well and discussing them with you (off line would be great) - I think photos donât lie. I specifically attempted to make casts where I (the caster) accelerated different ways - we've need some descriptions here BUT if your photos were nice we could probably see everything we need in them â from the remaining discussion I doubt you understand the nature of the acceleration involved. Iâll make a simplified statement you can use in the future â the larger the input loads to the rod then the more rod bends and the greater the strains at the rod handle and the greater the accelerations. In photos you can estimate the amount the rod is bent back and estimate the accelerations â thatâs pretty straightforward and accurate. and watched what happened to the way the rod loaded and what the tip did, and then what the loops did. I changed the inputs and observed how the outputs varied. I'm sure that my analysis was nowhere near complete (would love to get a gov't grant to MAKE a complete analysis.).

We've discussed many times on Frank's and Guy's and Allen's and your lists how the rod can reach max loading condition BEFORE the caster begins intentional negative acceleration. What are you saying?? At some point any cast incorporating a "cast" has a point of max rod loading. After max loading the rod unloads and your video work should have given you a good feel for how that proceeds. Accelerations still occurring during unloading and the tip and the fly line speed-up during unloading. He can do this by reducing his positive acceleration, or taking it to zero acceleration. Zero acceleration is a fantasy â you may be teaching something useful but itâs not zero acceleration. It is true that during unloading the positive acceleration progressively goes down - look at the plots of strain gauge - either the ones I provided or the ones that Bruce has published in the past. They show you exactly how the acceleration diminishes. Like I said above seeing zero acceleration may be almost impossible. If the rod is/was bent then accelerations are always present. If the rod was bent but has unloaded to a momentary straight position it will have a fast moving tip and will counterflex (because of the kinetic energy of the vibrating rod) and then decelerations go along with counterflex. The only split second where accelerations are zero is when the rod passes through RSP. Your other best shot at zero acceleration might be to let go of the rod but this wonât do it either. You might think you could be Superman and let go of the fly rod in a microsecond but that still wouldn't provide zero tip accelerations because the thing that moves at constant velocity is the center of mass and not the rod tip and the rod is shaking all the while because you had it bent and let it go. I am pretty sure if I saw you do what you teach I would know immediately what is really being going on. Send me a video or photos. I commonly call this "soft stroking" the rod. I do describe this to students if they're having problems with it, and have gotten very good at demonstrating it. I explain using phrases like "you've done good work in getting load into the rod up to about right HERE. From there, seems that the load gets lost or wasted and ultimately doesn't contribute to line speed. The rod needs to stay loaded all the way until you STOP the rod." The caster stops the rod after RSP - after the tip achieves peak speed â at RSP the rod is momentarily unloaded. So I don't know what you are describing although I'm sure you've been able to pull learning casters through it. Even relative beginners understand it when you talk and show at the same time. I don't doubt that you have something that works but the explanation needs something - if you have video//photos I would love examining them and if you are agreeable to it collaborate on an explanation.

There's one more thing about hard stops. A long time ago, I learned the trick of reaching up and stopping the student's rod where I want them to stop (either back or fore casts). I used to let the rod hit my hand or forearm and the stop was SOLID. Almost to the point that I'd even slightly reverse its direction slightly. As you can guess, the shock induced by such a violent stop would destroy all gracefulness in the loops and throw nasty shock waves through the bottom leg. Gradually I learned that I should soften this stop slightly, and even help them follow through a bit to encourage natural dampening. Now I try to actually accurately "grab" the rod blank above the cork and help them achieve a more controlled stop - as opposed to a "dead" stop. This doesn't relate to my write-up and I have no disagreement.

I think I disagree with Bruce's statement that

If "stopping" is defined as rod deceleration, then yes, it occurs at peak load, there is no other way it can happen.

I think you can have a fully loaded rod that then is taken through zero acceleration for an interval (constant speed), during which the rod will try to unload. From comments above I hope we can agree that things speed-up with rod unloading. Later on in the stroke, you will then decelerate the rod (reduce the velocity), but you would no longer have a max loaded rod. Obviously, because the rod must now be bent in the opposite direction!!!! For sure because deceleration (negative accelerations) occurs AFTER rod unloading//after RSP - as a matter of fact since this seems to be a point of debate I propose that it be addressed specifically. If you think that speeds are reduced during rod unloading go ahead and say so. Then it can be debated and put to sleep. A fly rod (which is a loaded spring full of potential energy) will try to return to RSP as soon as the system reaches steady-state (uniform) velocity. Maybe even before. Absolutely even before - in fact just as soon as you can no longer increase the rod loading it will unload (and this just happens to be when the butt angular velocity is a maximum and the rod momentarily acts like a rigid body) and you can't do anything about it - no going back or stalling it. In fact this is why 99.5 % of the time "kickback" is undefeatable if it occurs. This again relates to my premise that rod unloading is mainly a natural aspect of being a rod which I will try to explain within the next few days.

Some of Server's ideas sound VERY similar to Michael Montagne's. Montagne vehemently argued that the rod unloading adds NO additional velocity to the fly line, beyond the speed that the fly line followed the tip along at. The sentence may not be totally clear but taking it literally it seems very obvious - in spirit Montagne (I donât know him) is correct. What I hope many members of this board would say is that the line moves with the rod tip, the rod tip moves fastest at RSP and that is approximately the line speed, I personally call it "free flight" speed, that we have accomplished with the cast. Other things then happen to the fly rod and the top leg speed can increase or decrease depending on other factors. I described that whole process 5 years ago on Guy's board and I am pretty sure you are aware of that discussion. The role of the fly rod is to move the fly line while all the fly line is still behind the rod tip. Once any fly line gets beyond the rod tip the fly rod is fundamentally removed from the picture. The only way I can see that being true is if the rod began unloading BEFORE the intended stop (caster-induced deceleration Anyways, better go to bed before my mind starts unrolling at 200 mph! Good idea â everyone needs to refresh themselves periodically.Thanks Gordy.

Troy - very little engineering terminology here I think - just becoming clear on the relationship between speed and acceleration//deceleration is one step. The other is simply the rule of thumb that rod unloading leads to good things - maximum tip speed and line speed that increases during entire duration of rod unloading. If you can agree on this then you'll be in agreement with me. It seems like some of your statements are in disagreement with these, at least that is what you said at the beginning ?? Also, remember again that I plan to explain in the next few days why the caster is mainly out of the loop (not the line loop â LOL) after max loading occurs.

Regards,
Troy Miller

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Followup message by Ally Gowans:

Hi Gordy,

OK I have now read Server Sadikâs paper. I agree with all the points made by Troy and Bruce. Wow - that's interesting. I've enjoyed reading Gowans commentaries on fly casting history. Seems like a great command of this history. I've not been too impressed with commentary on casting but we'll see what there is below. I also wonder what the "agree" above really means.

The paper rambles but in parts it makes accurate observations of rod behaviour (eg the precise point of loop formation relative to tip velocity). Unfortunately the language and terminology used is confusing and unusual which probably makes it impossible to understand for many readers and for that reason I do not commend it. Well such is the real world and certain prerequisites make it easier to relate to the mechanics (used in the engineering sense - i.e., engineering mechanics) of casting. We do what we can with the language that is available to us and the in this case the lowest common denominator for the job - by no means am I using technical lingo. It may be you simple lack the qualifications to engage in a discussion. Just as I wouldnât give advise to Gordy on how to perform hand surgery I can pretty well tell you wonât have anything to add to my understanding of the engineering physics of casting.

In places it is confusing, for instance what he calls âkickbackâ. With modern materials its effects are negligible during casting. When rods were made of greenheart and the like a common test by intending purchasers was to hold the rod a few inches above a horizontal surface such as a table and pantomime a back cast. The closer the rod could be held to the table without the tip ring making contact with the surface the better it was adjudged to be. Kickback is not a feature of the direction reversing casts (Snap casts) that he describes made by Paul Arden. Interesting, because in the real world of convential casts kickback is only a consideration for forward casts. Maybe the rod seller was trying to pull a fast one since hardly anyone can make a rod kickback on a backcast (LOL). That may be - I'll have to go back and look at it again but I thought I very clearly saw Paul initiate a weak back cast then snap the rod down//forward which propelled tip backward (this is kickback) in a more forceful way than the first rod lift. Maybe I've got the wrong name for the video - I'll have to look at it again. If you don't think modern graphite rods kickback then maybe you haven't tried hard enough. In fact you can get large amounts of rod loading with kickback. One of the strain gauge plots shows that (labeled "40ft"). I think since introducing to the board that many board members have confirmed to themselves how it works with graphite. And if you'd like to bring along a greenheart rod I'll bet I can hit, oh say, a wall 4 feet behind myself with the tip on a forward stroke. In as much as this is probably the dominate problem among better casters it is worthwhile to be able to observe it and provide council. If you get good at it you can see kickback in casting and the results that follow. I also wonder what you do when someone has this problem - how do you help them fix it. Tell them to âstop the rod hardâ?? (LOL)

We use the word âstopâ knowingly, somewhat liberally, conceptually and related to the rod handle but it works very effectively during teaching which our purpose. I think that Server uses the word âstopâ in an absolute sense and of course that is not what happens in practice so in his terms a âhard stopâ is impossible. Unfortunately for the less informed rejection of the âstopâ word is bound to be simply confusing. If you can use the term effectively in teaching I guess I don't discourage you â I mentioned that what you say to the student doesnât have to be factual if they pick up something that works for them. I have my own principles which I think will hold water better and prefer them. What I am not crazy about is serious casters using the term as if it has some real meaning. You cannot be accelerating the rod+line and decelerating at the same moment. It is one or it is the other.

My response is far from exhaustive, I suppose that if I had the heart I could go on and on with lots more comments but I have no intention of âmarking his paperâ, wasting my time and yours! Please do not mark my paper - all that produces is a burden on me to further explain things and I think there will be a limit on how simplified the commentary can be rendered before it becomes inaccurate and meaningless. I've spent a lot of time putting this material into a form that is concise and readable and highly simplified. Now I get rambling questions//issues which indicate how deep the lack of understanding can run because the answers (my responses) seem so transparent and have to use even more trivial examples. I am strongly suspicious of brainwashing.

If he believes that his âfindingsâ are novel and illuminating then I suggest that he should be invited to provide a factual prÃcis with definitions and supporting sketches that will allow these concepts to be easily understood and appreciated. Perhaps somewhere in there a gem exists and we should know about it?

Similarly I hope my answers//follow-up is useful. At a very mimumum you now are assured that a hard stop never occurs (in fact probably cannot be performed if you only use your human hand).

Hope that this is helpful, have copied it also to Bruce.

Best wishes,

Ally Gowans

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dennis Grant helps bring us down to Earth with some comments which I appreciate and have taken out of context. I present them because I think they make good sense and avoid scientific argument.

Technical analysis belongs with the world of science and its appropriate forum is amongst the technical community. AND it is highly unlikely that that community would agree on very much. That's not true - its only rarely that statements/concepts for well defined situations (like fly casting) that are so fundamentally flawed are allowed to persist. Most of the time they are simply shot down. Debates can rage but these usually involve situations where greater clarity on relative importance of competing issues is necessary.

In our âsportâ we very often answer a question with âit dependsâ

What type of line should I use â It depends

What weight of rod should I use - It depends

How wide should my loop be â It depends

How fast should I make the rod travel â It depends

When should I apply power to a cast â It depends

So onâ. so onâ.SO WHAT?? Have you got a point to make???

But we do need basic terms to have a student understand what is required to cast a fly rod.

We have taught fly casting to over 4000 individuals, one on one. I personally have privately coached close to 30 CCIâs and seen all but 1 of them pass on their first attempt. We have seen 8 year olds who 'catch on' to casting in a few short hours and do it well, LPGA golfers who pick it up in 20 minutes, and also we have attempted to teach retired, 200 pound plus, NFL players who couldnât get a 40 foot line out if they shot it through a gun. Again â SO WHAT??

When we teach fly casting there are fundamental principles that we want the student to grasp quickly and clearly. Yes science can postulate all they want and mathematically prove that the many things we do are impossible or are inaccurately described. Iâve seen a lot of stuff but never ever seen this â it must be something out of a nightmare you experienced. NASA can put a rocket into space by making mathematical calculations but can they do it any day of the week, well â it depends !! AGAIN I HAVE TO WONDER WHAT YOUR POINT COULD BE -- I DONâT BELIEVE I CAN SEE ONE HERE. There are some things which are true often enough (basically always) and make-up the basics behind casting. I must be misunderstanding you because at this late hour it sounds as if you have no concern about these or whether improved understanding should be developed. For myself, I am interested in the subjects, particularly when even the fundamentals of the sport are much more often than not misunderstood.

Dennis

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

COMMENT: Remimds me of the highly technical aeronautical science paper which was written along with lots of complicated mathematics the conclusion of which was that the bumble bee cannot possibly fly. WHAT IS THE POINT HERE?? I DOUBT THIS PAPER WAS EVER WRITTEN? We have a insiders âFINITE ELEPHANTâ joke which is popular because of the misconception that the ant (the insect called an ant) is somehow stronger than the elephant because its legs look proportionately so skinny compared to the elephant. This joke points fun at people who would jump to this silly erroneous conclusion â the poor elephant, if he were scaled down to ant size, his legs could probably even be skinnier than the ants. Your remark was also probably an insiders joke on people who are being mocked. If we scaled you down to the bees size and gave you a little battery to flap little slips of paper you to could fly.

For the student or MCI candidate who may be confused by the differences in scientific opinions I'd like to bring up Jim Valle's answer to the student who was confused by the different instructions given by several instructors :-

"LISTEN TO THE ONE WHO MAKES THE MOST SENSE TO YOU."

Differences in scientific opinion will always be with us. There are ways of solving them :

1.) Proof or disproof by experiment and conclusion beyond what has already been done.

2.) Duplication of results by other recognized experts.

3.) Recognition of alternative opinions by recognized experts in the same field.

4.) Agreement and ratification by peer review.

I think the subject is so transparent and as I hope is clear at this point these matters are simply BLACK and WHITE and RIGHT or WRONG. They are not subject to alternate or ambiguous interpretations. But again folks have been learning to cast with instructors misunderstanding some fundamentals all these years and they can continue to do so. However I donât think the community can go wrong with improving their grounding on fundamentals. As our new President has said we have a lot of common ground among us and those of you I havenât met I hope to do in the future and I am sure the pleasure will be mine.

Best regards â Server Sadik

Gordy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

BY the way I have only read a couple of recent messages â both by Walter. I am gratified that someone who is qualified to remark has done so. I apologize to him (and others) to have to remark so often on factors that are so obvious but in fact dilemmas are occurring on the most simple and black/white issues. Walterâs discussion on these matters presented in different words or style than mine provides additional clarity and Iâm sure that will help. Please keep it up Walter (or anyone else for that matter).