248 views

Uploaded by Mike Haverhals

Appendix A

- Experimental investigations on the fly rod deflection - revision 2.0
- 06_Experimental Modal Analysis
- Why the center of the rotating mass of a flexible fly rod could escape the rotation point at the grip
- Mil Std 2164 - ESS
- Perkins Loop Dynamics
- Modal Analysis
- Sem.org IMAC XIX 193106 Automobile Vibrations Acoustic Noise Reduction via Modal Analysis Technique
- Finite Element Analysis of Ultrasonic Stepped Horn
- Salmon Where
- Triple your Success on the "Dry Fly & Nymph" Method (without buying a new fly rod)
- Fly Casting
- Full Text
- Mdof Examples Presentation
- vib3.doc
- Catalog 20111201 Web Spread
- DAQ Guide
- lecture13
- Solutions of Circular Membrane With Besse Ls
- Hysteretic Damping of Structures Vibrating at Resonance_ an Iterative Complex Eigensolution Method Based on Damping-stress Relation_2007
- ijse

You are on page 1of 8

To Measure Performance Characteristics of Fishing Rods

There are two theories that form the basis for this technology:

• That the natural resonant vibrational frequencies of a fishing rod precisely describe

the stiffness of the rod as it is used – in a dynamic setting.

• That, when a fishing rod is vibrated at its higher natural frequencies, the locations of

the “nodes” or points of minimal motion, precisely describe the stiffness distribution

of the rod as it is used – dynamically.

Frequency Theory

It is a well-developed fact that two structures with the same weight, weight distribution and

stiffness will have the same natural resonant vibrational frequencies. If the weight and weight

distribution are held constant but the stiffness is increased, the natural resonant frequencies of the

structure will increase also. The simpler the structure, the more direct the relationship between

the stiffness change and the frequency changes.

This theory was applied to golf shafts by Dr. Joseph Braly in 1977 (US Patent 4,122,593). In

this application, the first natural vibrational frequency of a golf shaft is used to measure its

stiffness.

275.5

cpm

Fishing rods are even simpler structures than golf shafts, since they have virtually no

requirement to resist torsional loads.

The current method of measuring the stiffness of a fishing rod is to mount the fishing rod

horizontally, held only at the grip. A weight is then placed on the tip, and the tip is allowed to

deflect. The relative distance of the deflection compared to other rods is used to determine the

rod’s stiffness rating. There are no standards for the method of gripping the butt section, the

mass of the weight used, or the amount of deflection for different standard terms used to describe

rod stiffness.

W

Current Method of Measuring Fishing Rod Stiffness

Node Theory

Most structures have more than one natural resonant vibrational frequency. For the simplest

structures (the strings of a violin or guitar) the frequencies are simple mathematical multiples

(harmonics) of the lowest resonant frequency. A fishing rod is only slightly more complex: it is

held at only one end, and the stiffness is not the same throughout the rod. The rod is

considerably stiffer at the butt than at the tip. The distribution of stiffness varies greatly from

one rod to another, depending on how it is intended to be used.

If a fishing rod is vibrated at any of its higher natural frequencies, vibrational “lobes” will form.

These lobes will have a roughly sinusoidal shape, and there will be small concentrated areas

between lobes where the fishing rod is virtually stationary. These points are called “nodes.”

Node 2 Node 1

65.5 Hz

Rod Vibrated at Its 3rd Natural Resonant Frequency, Showing Lobes and Nodes

There is a very strong relationship between the distribution of stiffness in the rod and the location

of these nodes. For example, compare three rods that have the same stiffness at the butt and tip,

but have different stiffness distributions between, as shown below.

Rod A

S tiffn ess

Rod B

Rod C

Butt Tip

If Rods A, B and C are all vibrated at their third natural resonant frequency, the lobe sizes and

node locations will be very different. The nodes on Rod A will be closest to the tip, followed by

the nodes for Rod B, and lastly Rod C.

The current method of measuring the stiffness distribution of a fishing rod is purely judgmental.

A rod like with a stiffness distribution like Rod A would be called a “Fast” rod; one like Rod B

would be called “Moderate;” and one like Rod C would be called soft or “Parabolic.” These

terms have no thresholds or values associated with them.

Theories Combined

If Frequency Theory and Node Theory are combined, we now have two tools that give us the

capability to describe the overall stiffness and stiffness distribution of a fishing rod with a high

degree of precision. We also have a method for distinguishing between two rods that are each

suited for different species, sizes of fish and methods of presentation.

Using the method currently employed in the market, sensitive 6-ft walleye-specific rod with a

stiffness distribution like Rod B above would probably be called a 6-ft medium rod. However, a

6-ft rod intended for bass fishing, with a stiffer action and a stiffness distribution like Rod A

would also be called a 6-ft medium rod. These rods would be sold in different markets, and the

rating only has meaning within the sub-market, species and presentation techniques at hand.

On the other hand, the Frequency/Node system would give a more meaningful description of the

two rods. The walleye rod might be a 6-ft 30-Hz rod with nodes at 4 and 22 inches. The bass

rod could be a 6-ft 42-Hz rod with nodes at 3½ and 18 inches.

Implementation of Frequency Matching Technology

In Fishing Rods

First of all, I think it would be useful to explain the similarities and to draw some distinctions between the

Frequency Matching technology we have licensed from Royal Precision Golf and the technology I am

proposing here.

• The Frequency Matching technology for golf clubs and shafts was originally patented by Dr. Joe

Braly in the late 1960’s. Only one patent is currently in force. There are two elements to the

technology:

1. Frequency is a better way to measure the stiffness of a golf shaft in play than static

deflection (simple bending with a weight).

2. There is a natural progression of stiffness for virtually all golfers - as clubs get shorter,

they need to get stiffer in a linear relationship.

275.5

cpm

• The technology that we have developed agrees with Dr. Braly’s first conclusion – frequency is a

better way to measure the dynamic stiffness of a golf club… or a fishing rod.

Node 2 Node 1

65.5 Hz

• The technology we have developed goes beyond Dr. Braly’s patents and ideas in several areas:

1. Dr. Braly’s technology is only concerned with the first natural frequency (“cpm”) of a golf club. We look

at a minimum of two higher natural resonant frequencies.

2. Dr. Braly’s technology is not concerned about the stiffness distribution in the shaft. We are – very much.

3. Dr. Braly’s patents rely on a single deflection of the club, and measures only the first natural frequency

as the shaft’s vibration damps down. We excite the rod continuously and look for resonances.

• Our technology was developed independently of any activity by Royal Precision Golf. It is derived from

our patented Mode Sync golf club technology.

Technology Implementation

There are three levels at which we can implement this technology. Each can be implemented separately, all

can be implemented together, or the three could be implemented sequentially in stages. The three separate

levels of implementation are…

• As a new way of assuring that our rods are consistent

• As a new way of describing rod action and power for the consumer

At this point, we have only filed a disclosure statement on this technology. We are in position to

move forward with one or more patents, but it is not urgent to protect our position.

Each of these levels has benefits and costs associated with implementation. The paragraphs

below describe what we have already done, and what would be required to implement the

technology at each level.

This process is already implemented in PI. We use this technology especially when we have a

“target” rod that we are trying to equal or surpass. Using the 2 separate pieces of analysis

equipment we constructed in 1997, we can find the natural frequencies and node locations of the

target rod. Then we design and build our prototype, and test it side-by-side with the target,

modifying the patterns, the mandrel, even the guide type and spacing, until we have the desired

frequencies and node points. We have found that we can pass the “golden-elbow” test far more

consistently using this technique than simply building to a deflection profile.

The open questions are if/how we market this, or do we keep it a trade secret? I recommend that

we keep this specific application of the technology a trade secret as long as it is the only level we

have implemented. Even with patents, this application of the technology would be virtually

impossible to defend, because it would be practiced in the back labs of our competitors. There

are no obviously measurable product characteristics that we could use to prove that a competitor

is in violation.

Perhaps the highest level of benefit would come from using frequency matching and node

locations as a quality assurance check. To maximize the benefits and minimize the cost impact,

the test should be done on blanks prior to painting. The current production method used by

Maibor on golf shafts would make sense. The blanks are frequency tested after the mandrel is

extracted, the tape is stripped and the blank has been cut to length. This frequency should be

slightly higher than the final frequency. The difference between this “raw” frequency and the

target frequency can be used to determine the amount of material to be removed in sanding. The

node locations of the raw blank will determine where the material needs to be removed.

There are four things that need to be done to implement this technology for quality assurance:

1. We need to build a version of our “rod shaker” that is more production friendly. For

example, we need

• a faster clamping method that is set up for blanks instead of complete rods,

• a simpler way of getting the unit tuned to a desired frequency,

• simpler power controls, and

• a “ruggedized” way of shaking the rod (maybe heavy duty speakers, maybe an

electric motor).

None of these are difficult challenges. A machine suitable for manufacturing use could

be developed and tested for $7,500 to $10,000 in about 90 days. Depending on the

complexity of the waveform generator required and the method of shaking the rod, these

machines should cost between $1,500 and $3,500 each.

2. We need to develop a system of tolerances for frequency and node location. This would

require some work at the factory…

• looking at current production batches of blanks,

• determining what tolerances the factory are typical now for frequency and

node locations at different quality levels, and

• correlating these to distinguishable differences in rod “feel.”

Starting this process would require 2-3 weeks, and could be integrated with the training

program for the technicians that would be using the machine in production. Afterward,

the factory technicians would have to participate in collecting additional statistical data to

substantiate early conclusions and sharpen our estimates.

3. We need to set in-process sample rates for the factory to determine what percentage of

the blanks and/or complete rods would be checked at each level of quality. For Techna

AV fly rods, we might want to inspect 100%; lower levels could be set for other fly rods

and lower yet for saltwater and freshwater actions. These levels need to be set in

conjunction with the Quality Assurance staff here and in Asia, and including the input of

the factory engineers.

4. We need to work with the factories to develop a cost impact for implementing this

technology. This cost will include the cost of doing the test, plus some predicted change

in blank scrap rate as a result of the test. This would be determined from the statistical

data the factory collects after the system is set up in the factory.

From the limited data we have, we project that implementation of this technology in production

would have the effect of raising the “feel” consistency of our fly rods above the Sage rods we

have tested. We would also have a much better story than they do.

If we want to implement this level of the technology in a Fenwick fly rod series for the May ’00

sales meeting, we need to move forward on the project immediately after the May ’99 sales

meeting. At that time, PI would have to begin immediate development of a production-friendly

rod frequency-analysis machine. The development should be complete not later than August

’99. At that time, we would ship the machine to OTG-DG and spend 2-3 weeks there evaluating

blanks, developing tolerances, training OTG-DG technicians in use of the machine, and starting

the negotiation of the cost impacts of implementation. This should put OTG-DG in position to

receive a new rod design based on this technology in September or October, with enough

development and production test time to support a May ’00 introduction.

Implementation in the marketplace would require an effort similar to but not quite as complex or

complete as the implementation of a whole new rod rating system. Many of the elements

overlap, but we would not have to impose a whole new numbering system on the public at the

beginning. From a public perception standpoint, the rating system could follow this

implementation, and would be a natural outgrowth of it. At the end of the first year (or two), the

consumer should be asking, “How does Fenwick make their rods so consistent?” The answer

would come in the next year: “Because they are using Frequency Matching to test their rods, and

now they’re going to share that knowledge with you.” It is a multi-year campaign that must be

on-message consistently from throughout the campaign for it to stick in the consumers’ minds.

A New Consumer System for Rating Rod Performance & Behavior

The current systems that our competitors and we use to describe the performance and behavior of

a rod do not do the job. As a result, we leave the consumer confused about what rod to buy, and

why one rod is better or more expensive than the next. There are three problems with the current

systems used to describe rod action and power to consumers. The Fenwick Action/Power

concept was an improvement, but it is not understood widely and suffers from some of the same

problems listed below.

• The ratings are descriptive but are not quantitative – there is no specific value for

what “Medium” means or how much different it is from “Medium-Heavy.” The fly

rod line-weight rating system is slightly better, but it still suffers from a second

problem that most other systems also have: the issue of “Fast” vs. “Moderate.” How

fast do you have to be to be “Fast?” Where does “Fast” end and “Extra Fast” begin?

• They’re arrived at by subjective human judgements – I call it the “golden elbow”

system. The problem with it is that Barry Day’s elbow and Vic Cutter’s elbow have

different opinions of what a Medium is… at least they usually do on Tuesdays. On

Wednesdays, they usually are closer together, unless Barry has lunch at the L.C.

Stadium Lounge. Then you have to factor in…

• the difference in gravity between Spirit Lake and Huntington Beach,

• the barometric pressure,

• wind chill factor,

• hours of sleep the night before.

On several occasions we have given each of these great fishermen the same rod on

two different days, and we have gotten two different opinions of the action of that

rod. Not to pick on them – they are more consistent than anyone I know. The bottom

line is that no human is consistent enough.

• The systems are all based on static measurements of deflection and bend profile, but

rods are used in a dynamic way. A 6’6”MH Hank Parker crankbait rod and a Techna

AVC66MH baitcasting rod have close to the same deflection, but they sure don’t feel

the same. Dynamically, they aren’t even close.

There are four technical aspects that need to be in place to make Frequency Matching useful to

the angler:

1. He needs to understand that frequency is a better way to express the stiffness of a rod.

Golfers understand this about their clubs, so there is some history that it can be done, as

well as how.

2. He needs to understand that the node locations are a much more precise and descriptive

way to express exactly how “fast” or “moderate” a rod really is.

3. He needs to know that there are “ideal” frequency ranges and node-location ranges for

each different style of fishing and rod length. For example…

• The ideal frequency for a 6’6” crankbait rod is between 30 and 35 Hz,

regardless of what it is made of.

• The ideal node locations are around 4” from the tip and 22” from the tip. A

6’6” topwater rod should be much higher frequency – above 50 Hz – and the

nodes should be closer to the tip – 3½” to 3¾” and 19½”.

• Fly rods are a little more rational, probably because they have to be able to

keep a standard-weight line in the air, and that requires a specific frequency

response to loading. A good 5# rod (regardless of length!) has a frequency

around 19 Hz ±1; a 6# is in the 22 Hz ±1 range. Node locations vary with the

“speed” of the rod, but the first node is around 7½” to 8½” and the second

node is between 40” and 44”.

A very sophisticated fisherman could get to the point that he knew what frequencies and

node locations within these ranges work best for him.

4. We would need to start including the design frequency and node location data in the

variable copy on our rods.

Some further technical work - an absolute maximum of 3 months - would be needed to identify

“ideal” frequency and node-location ranges for some casting & presentation styles we haven’t

already analyzed. With an expenditure in the range of $5,000 - $10,000, we should be able to get

some academic backup from Dr. Ken McConnell at Iowa State. He was the key resource in the

development of Mode Sync technology for Fenwick Golf.

By far the most costly and difficult aspect is the communication of the system to the angler. It

would require a complex thrust including PR/press relations, some advertising, consumer shows

and grassroots work with store managers and clerks. The sports and outdoor writer group would

be particularly important in the promotion of this system, because a consumer is more likely to

read a long explanation by a theoretically unbiased writer than from us. PI would have to distill

this complex theory down to understandable concepts, and would have to be available for

extensive interviews by writers. It would take time and money – how long and how much are

questions I do not have the knowledge to answer, but a plan could be developed with Marketing

and Sales as team members.

This technology is patentable, and a patent should be pursued if we choose to take this approach.

- Experimental investigations on the fly rod deflection - revision 2.0Uploaded byTobias Hinzmann
- 06_Experimental Modal AnalysisUploaded byjuanpita77
- Why the center of the rotating mass of a flexible fly rod could escape the rotation point at the gripUploaded byTobias Hinzmann
- Mil Std 2164 - ESSUploaded byMiguel
- Perkins Loop DynamicsUploaded byTobias Hinzmann
- Modal AnalysisUploaded bySPY2Yash
- Sem.org IMAC XIX 193106 Automobile Vibrations Acoustic Noise Reduction via Modal Analysis TechniqueUploaded byvahid61
- Finite Element Analysis of Ultrasonic Stepped HornUploaded bybikashnitr
- Salmon WhereUploaded byjaephu
- Triple your Success on the "Dry Fly & Nymph" Method (without buying a new fly rod)Uploaded byPaul Gaskell
- Fly CastingUploaded byChuck Achberger
- Full TextUploaded byMuhammad Affandi
- Mdof Examples PresentationUploaded byamadeus135
- vib3.docUploaded byEzhil Vendhan Palanisamy
- Catalog 20111201 Web SpreadUploaded byDaniel W. Galhardo
- DAQ GuideUploaded byMakaraSoy
- lecture13Uploaded byMohd Farid
- Solutions of Circular Membrane With Besse LsUploaded byspylogo3
- Hysteretic Damping of Structures Vibrating at Resonance_ an Iterative Complex Eigensolution Method Based on Damping-stress Relation_2007Uploaded byguillermo
- ijseUploaded byamit
- Ch. 11Uploaded byArisa Patthawaro
- TumaAKol_ProIM_revize1 _2_.pdfUploaded byIdabagus Putu Putra Mahartana
- Vibrations Tutorial2Uploaded byfujinyuan
- Serviceability Limit State of Timber FloorsUploaded byKenneth Okoye
- ISTA-2BUploaded byDuygu Merve
- Dynamic of structuresUploaded byMauricio Bahamon
- WP_d2 (SB)Uploaded byXi Wang
- Differential AmplifierUploaded bykolynz
- CST04Uploaded byZul Atfi
- RotorInstab Some Cases of Specific Behaviour of Rotors – Instability of OperationUploaded byLe Thanh Hai

- AQA-CHM1-W-MS-JAN05.pdfUploaded byHüseyinÖzkeser
- RodrigueUploaded byViktor Đurović
- INFP PersonalityUploaded byLuthfi Hakim
- Types of Cooling TowersUploaded byJoc Luis
- Biotechnological Routes Based on Lactic Acid Production From BiomassUploaded byGanesh Chaudhari
- brosura Cype internationalaUploaded byOvidiu Florea
- Flange Calculations as Per en 1591.Uploaded byShijumon Kp
- Sulfonation With Sulfur TrioxideUploaded byRashid Saleem
- Computer-Aided Design of Diffusers on Marine Outfall SystemUploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- A017-RCR-05102017.pdfUploaded byNevada Appeal
- Addressable Beam Smoke DetectorUploaded byAnonymous gYge4ZLc1B
- Fixed-bed Column Adsorption of Carbon Dioxide by Sodium Hydroxide Modified Activated AluminaUploaded bydarllan08025
- Pestan Kg Pipes and FitingsUploaded bymalkovristo
- Big Block Chevy Info _ Grumpys Performance GarageUploaded byAsad Khan
- Physics PosterUploaded bySamuel Parish
- WISAUploaded byArshdeep Singh
- Simulated Teaching Lesson Plan_Science Form 1Uploaded byHuan Chin
- Q.T madhavUploaded byHritvik Choudhary
- Environmental Analysis of Nestle MilkpakUploaded byHassan Khalid
- Zadco-Appendix j Project Subcontractors VendorsUploaded byerennydevassy
- evistaUploaded byBrankoPopović
- DaVinci Resolve 12 Configuration GuideUploaded byGotek Premiere Grafik
- Lecture 6Uploaded byHasif D. Müller
- Freuds's AntiquitiesUploaded byTom Offit
- Chapter8 SwitchingUploaded bySalah AL-Hakimi
- Tractors and Related EquipmentUploaded byaula
- Scaffolding Safety (Erecting and Dismantling)Uploaded byTehman Alam
- From Tents to Pavilions_Royal Mobility and Persian Palace DesignUploaded byPratyay Nath
- 6. Ears 7. HearinglUploaded byjottowag
- Does Process Theology Rest on a MistakeUploaded byakimel