[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
  • Thread Index
  • Date Index
  • Subject Index
  • RE: RE: Stop paper version 2



    Title: Message
    Got it...
     
    Thanks !
     
    G.
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Walter Simbirski [mailto:simbirsw@xxxxxxx]
    Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 4:03 PM
    To: Gordon Hill
    Cc: Ssadik1@xxxxxxx; jasonborger@xxxxxxxxx
    Subject: Re: RE: Stop paper version 2

    Gordy - going fishing for a couple of days so have to be brief.
     
    With respect to gravity - the mass of the rod remains constant even though its weight changes on
    the moon. This is the mass that is essential for F=ma.
     
    With respect to air resistance - this will definitely contribute to rod bend but it should be a small
    amount because the surface area of the rod is small. A quick experiment would be to try driving
    with a rod sticking out a window.
     
    Cheers!
     
    Walter
     

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Gordon Hill <hillshead@xxxxxxxxxxx>
    Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009 10:03 am
    Subject: RE: Stop paper version 2
    To: Ssadik1@xxxxxxx, simbirsw@xxxxxxx, jasonborger@xxxxxxxxx

    > 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
    > carefullytalk 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 -----
    > From: Gordon Hill <mailto:hillshead@xxxxxxxxxxx> 
    > To: 'Walter  <mailto:simbirsw@xxxxxxx> Simbirski' ;
    > 'Gordy Hill'
    > <mailto:masterstudygroup@xxxxxxxxxxx>  ; Ssadik1@xxxxxxx
    > ; 'Jason Borger'
    > <mailto:jasonborger@xxxxxxxxx> 
    > 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
    >
    >  
    >
    >
    >   _____ 
    >
    > Download the AOL
    > <http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown000000
    > 04> Classifieds Toolbar for local deals at your fingertips.
    >
    >