[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
  • Thread Index
  • Date Index
  • Subject Index

    • RE: Stop paper version 2

    Title: Message
    All....
     
    Interesting study !   Now I ask:
     
    Granted that rod load in response to the inertia of the fly line is not the only thing creating rod bend and that rod inertia is significant. 
     
     Now how do we determine how much load is due to atmospheric resistance ? ...... ie. if we were casting on the moon with no atmosphere, would the rod bend when no line is used be the same as it is in air ?  (of course we'd have less gravity as well.)
     
    Gordy
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Ssadik1@xxxxxxx [mailto:Ssadik1@xxxxxxx]
    Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 9:59 PM
    To: hillshead@xxxxxxxxxxx; simbirsw@xxxxxxx; jasonborger@xxxxxxxxx
    Cc: Ssadik1@xxxxxxx
    Subject: Re: Stop paper version 2

    In a message dated 5/26/2009 2:45:16 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hillshead@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
    Some relevant files are attached
        - First shows Alex and I casting 40 ft of line beyond tip with no haul.  Alex's forward casts shows kickback and tailing loops and you can see that preload is missing//different - Alex's casts have the higher strain magnitudes.  The forward cast has negative values of strain  in all our cases.
     
        - The next file is me casting with 60 ft of line and you see I am now at the same strain levels as Alex's 40 ft casts.
     
        -  The last file shows a picture of Alex casting//moving a bare rod (no fly line).You can see the amount of strain//rod bend at butt is about the same as when he cast 40 ft of line 
     
        It seems that rod self loading (rod inertia) might be quite significant.  In talking about how rod loading
    is developed I don't think we should be in the mind set that line loading is always the dominant mechanism.
        
     
     
    Walter...
     
    I agree with you all the way.
     
    The paper will be met with antagonism and skepticism if we don't carefully talk about the value of continuing to use the term STOP as a teaching tool as well as the things a true STOP can do such as forming a platform, etc., etc.
     
    Gordy
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Walter Simbirski [mailto:simbirsw@xxxxxxx]
    Sent: Monday, May 25, 2009 12:13 PM
    To: Gordon Hill; 'Gordy Hill'; Ssadik1@xxxxxxx; 'Jason Borger'
    Subject: Re: Stop paper version 2

    Do we want to add anything to this paper? It seems somewhat simplistic at this point but my opinion
    is that we should not dilute the basic concept with other stuff. I think this is going to be a bit of a change
    for some people.
     
    Gordy also raised an excellent point today in his study group regarding the usefulness of "the stop" as a
    teaching tool. I think with a bit of discussion people will realize that we are not advocating getting rid of
    the stop as a teaching aid or as a stylistic element with many useful benefits.
     
    I think a second paper discussing some of the implications would be a good way to go.
     
    Thanks
     
    Walter
    ----- Original Message -----
    Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2009 9:55 AM
    Subject: RE: Stop paper version 2

    Walter, Server & Jason....
     
    I've spent some time going over the wording of this paper and find nothing which fails to fit my own concepts. 
     
    The format looks OK to me.  I could find not spelling errors or problems with language.
     
    Best,
     
    Gordy
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Walter Simbirski [mailto:simbirsw@xxxxxxx]
    Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 3:27 AM
    To: Gordy Hill; Ssadik1@xxxxxxx; Jason Borger
    Subject: Stop paper version 2

    I've done some clean up on and simplification of the stop paper and attached it for your perusal.
     
    Thanks
     
    Walter