Casting Analyzer / Thoughts on casting mechanics

WELL ... THIS IS THE FIRST DAY OF 2008 ! HOPE YOU ARE ALL READY FOR A DOSE OF DEEP THINKING.

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

Firstly let me make my opinion clear, the casting analyser is a great device and it has helped enormously to increase our understanding of casting. Bruce and Noel have done a superb job in tackling something that is complex and controversial. As I understand it the analyser works by recording data concerning angular displacement from a transducer and rod loading from a strain gauge and by combining these in suitable algorithms it produces a facsimile of the cast which is then compared with a “perfect cast” made by someone else and the results are key indicators that suggest where improvements should be targeted. The analyser requires that a series of overhead false casts be made with a fixed amount of line and with a suitably modified and calibrated rod.

Despite its apparent complexity it is when compared to the human brain a relatively crude and simple tool. Many good tools are simple and their limitations must be understood.

The most obvious problem for a comparative device like this is that it must compare similar things to make sense. This assumes that my body makes similar casting arcs to persons of different dimensions to cast the fixed amount of line. Although my analyser results may suggest some improvement I have to reflect on the actual casts that were analysed. The penultimate time I was “analysed” the operator complemented me on wonderful smooth casts and perfect loops. The analyser suggested that my stop was not quick enough. I tried again and to ensure that my stop was very fast I upped the tempo and made very fast stops. The analyser software crashed and it could not process the data. (This was two years ago)

Everything has its limits and my devilment in that case caused failure. Perhaps the analyser should have coped but I also know that if any device is used incorrectly it will probably break and accept my contribution to the failure. However the real problem is what was wrong with my original casts? They certainly looked OK to me and others watching and I doubt if an instructor would have found much to criticise. I altered my casting to please the analyser at the paid price of some discomfort both to me and the analyser. Had I been less confident in my casting I may have been mislead.

The FFF CCIP is dedicated to excellent instruction and that requires far more intuition, skill and knowledge than all of our tools can provide us with. The capability of the analyser is impressive and useful but it is not and as far as I know it has never been claimed to be anything more than what it is, a comparative diagnostic tool to be interpreted in a common sense manner by experts.

A good instructor can diagnose casting faults from 100ft, should be able to communicate the reasons for these clearly and effectively to the client, provide feedback on progress and cure the problem. There is as yet no technological substitute for the skills and knowledge of a good, experienced instructor who can instantly analyse every casting technique and achieving that is what the FFF MCI level is all about.

I wonder if anyone will ever turn out for a certification test with an analyser under arm?

Best wishes,

Ally Gowans

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

Ally .... Good perspective. Fits with the concept of using more than one method to solve problems.

Let's hope that no examiner brings an Analyzer to a candidate's exam ! (..... Can't imagine that actually happening.)

The comparison in your first paragraph speaks to the use of deductive reasoning (starting with the assumption that the data taken from the, "perfect cast" are to be duplicated as we, "deduce" what must happen to achieve this.)

Bruce has derived similar data from many different, "elite" casters, however their casting restrictions were the same (as you pointed out). It would be interesting to define the, "perfect cast" as one which achieves a specified distance with a maximum specified energy expenditure and no other restrictions or caveats...... and then see what the curves looked like.

As I understand it, with inductive reasoning, we'd start from scratch and try to come up with the necessary components of a, "perfect cast" and go from there. I don't know if anyone has tried that.

Seems to me that it was inductive reasoning which, for the most part, allowed us to send a spacecraft to the moon.

Gordy

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

From Steve Hollensed (On my comment that I felt that two or more different methods of measurement would be needed to come to a confirmation of a conclusion.) :-

Gordy

I agree, conclusion is the better concept here, as opposed to confirmation.

An important extension of my point - I think, is that it seems easier for casters to achieve SLP with fewer variables involved so fewer compensatory moves have to be made (the human factor). Perhaps that is why smoothness is so important in the casting stroke.

Also, it seems as though it would take time for an applied force to produce max rod bend. It couldn't happen instantaneously. Whether are not we are seeing different rod bends as a result of different forces or as a response to a constant force requiring time - I don't know, but it seems that technology might be able to answer this. Bruce probably already knows.

Thanks for the brain food.

Steve

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

From Walter Simberski on the famous, "gedenken" experiments:-

Gordy

One of the greatest thought experiments of all times was used by Einstein in the development of

laws of relativity. I alluded it to it my articles.

Einstein postulated a person riding in an elevator that was accelerating through space in the direction

of its ceiling at 9 meters/sec/sec. Einstein tried to think of ways that a passenger could use to tell the

difference between being in the elevator travelling through space and being in the elevator resting

on the surface of the earth.

If we hold a rod out horizontally with a weight on the end it will bend the same amount in both

cases. i.e. constant acceleration = constant bend...

I find the idea of comparing gravity and acceleration a way of making the acceleration concept

easier to understand.

Cheers.

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

Walter: I'm assuming you mean to drop the weight and in so doing allow its acceleration (a constant 32'/sec/sec) to make the rod bend.

As I think about that, however, if we had a static situation where the same weight is hung from the rod top and not dropped, we'd still have rod bend ..... no acceleration involved. Only the constant gravitational force. Intuitively (not having tried it) I suspect that if that same weight were dropped, that the initial rod bend would be much greater, because we would then have the effect of constant acceleration.

Correct me if my assumption or comments are incorrect.

Gordy

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

From Bob Rumpf on the back cast :-

Hi Gordy & Group,

I am happy to hear about the ease with which some students learn the back cast. Could we please send some of this type to me? The vast majority of my beginning students exhibit an inability to keep from wristing the rod tip back to almost horizontal. I eventually get them over this hurdle, but it certainly is a common hurdle. I use whatever method works in each individual case to get them past this fault. I strongly stress the back cast when I teach because with a decent back cast, the front cast becomes effortless. If they are really having a hard time, I have them do just the back cast in an effort the have them concentrate on solving the problem. One of the points I stress all the way through a lesson is to lower the rod tip before beginning a pick-up to take advantage of this added stroke length. I have the opportunity to watch many anglers throughout any given day, and very few of them lower their rod tip prior to pick-up. This naturally almost removes the stroke room for the loading move by shortening the stroke length, which causes many of them to extend their back cast to a point where they are casting down, which introduces slack and defeats a good cast. Just another point of view.

Bob Rumpf

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

Bob,

Starting the back cast with the rod tip lowered almost to the water and pointed in the direction of the fly was emphasized strongly in Tom White's teachings. Failure to do so, reduces the available stroke length and rod arc for the back cast.

Gordy

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