PLEASE NOTE: In order to post on the Board you need to have registered. To register please email paul@sexyloops.com including your real name and username. Registration takes less than 24hrs, unless Paul is fishing deep in the jungle!

Analysing loop propagation

Moderator: Torsten

Michael Rebholz
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:24 am

Re: Analysing loop propagation

#111

Post by Michael Rebholz » Sat Oct 03, 2020 12:09 pm

@john

A wiggle à wobble is also a vibration. A cast is a big wiggle and also a controlled vibration in the rod.

You can hear distance casting because its overpowered a lot of times and or the right combination of wave mix. No one says that the right soundpattern will also produce the best cast. Probably something we'll worth looking into, therefore it is of course also tackle relevant.

The interesting bit here is that if we discuss about sound, which we hear in different noises and intensities, that our thinking is already deep in waveland.... Discussing waves.

TL

User avatar
Paul Arden
Site Admin
Posts: 14397
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:20 am
Answers: 1
Location: Belum Rainforest
Contact:

Re: Analysing loop propagation

#112

Post by Paul Arden » Sat Oct 03, 2020 12:17 pm

“Loop” is just a work Michael. I don’t attach any more importance to it than any other word. However you are choosing an alternative word that already has other meanings and trying to redefine it (or add another definition) to suit your purpose.

Therefore what is the difference between the word “loop” (Flycasting definition of Loop: A moving length of line delivered past the rod tip, formed when the rod tip curves the line under or over itself) and the word “cast” (same
Definition I assume?) when you have to change or add this meaning of “cast” to the definition?

Surely some will say the meaning of “cast” is as currently defined in dictionaries and makes no mention or curved unrolling line??

Cheers, Paul
It's an exploration; bring a flyrod.

Flycasting Definitions

Mangrove Cuckoo
Posts: 468
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:51 am

Re: Analysing loop propagation

#113

Post by Mangrove Cuckoo » Sat Oct 03, 2020 1:08 pm

Well, I know one thing...

Michael's wiggle-wobble works wonderfully to get the sunken part of a sink-tip line up and moving to create a D loop for the roll cast to set the line out for a water haul!

And I'll mention once again that I was not taught "loop" but "bight". As in "unroll the bight as if someone is running away with an invisible block". But alas then you would have to explain to the masses what a block is...

Is nomenclature really important?

Anyway... beautiful casting Michael, whatever you want to call it!
"Technique is the proof of your seriousness"

Wallace Stevens

User avatar
hshl
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2014 12:19 am
Location: close Potsdam
Contact:

Re: Analysing loop propagation

#114

Post by hshl » Sat Oct 03, 2020 1:44 pm

I'm not following the whole discussion, but the definition of a 'wave' is that it transfer energy but no mass. Even if we look on a water wave the water particles are circularing, but they don't 'move'. So if the loop would be a wave, how could the line (mass) propagate? 🤔
Cheers
http://www.passion-fliegenfischen.de/_en
All in its proper time ...

John Waters
Posts: 987
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: Analysing loop propagation

#115

Post by John Waters » Sat Oct 03, 2020 1:51 pm

Michael Rebholz wrote:
Sat Oct 03, 2020 12:09 pm
@john

A wiggle à wobble is also a vibration. A cast is a big wiggle and also a controlled vibration in the rod.

You can hear distance casting because its overpowered a lot of times and or the right combination of wave mix. No one says that the right soundpattern will also produce the best cast. Probably something we'll worth looking into, therefore it is of course also tackle relevant.

The interesting bit here is that if we discuss about sound, which we hear in different noises and intensities, that our thinking is already deep in waveland.... Discussing waves.

TL
A wiggle à wobble is also a vibration. A cast is a big wiggle and also a controlled vibration in the rod.

Thanks Micheal but you are using definitions as proof, not fact. I must be missing something because you can describe the rod movement in any terms ( wiggle, wobble, vibration etc), but how does that range of terms or definitions of rod movement prove the line shape is a wave?

Makes no difference to me if the term changes from loop to wave but it must have some basis of proof, otherwise it is just terminology. I would suggest if you gave someone who has never cast a rod or line and gave them a metre length of fly line and asked them to form a loop, they would construct an upper section (fly leg) and a lower section (rod leg) with a curved or rounded section joining both straight sections. They may close the "loop" shape, or not, but to suggest that they have formed a wave is just definitional.


You can hear distance casting because its overpowered a lot of times and or the right combination of wave mix. No one says that the right soundpattern will also produce the best cast. Probably something we'll worth looking into, therefore it is of course also tackle relevant.

I am a tad lost as you have stated that "if it was a proper cast (a transverse pulse wave) you couldnt, wouldnt and shouldt hear it." I am at a loss to understand how Rajeff, Lexa, Targosz etc do not make proper casts when they cast fly distance because you can hear sound on every delivery. How can they perform a world record cast which generates a sound but be both an "improper" cast and an overpowered cast that has the "right combination of wave mix"? As I said, if I produce less sound in a distance cast, the fly lands closer to my feet than the one with sound. That longer cast, by any definition, cannot be a more proper cast than the shorter cast because the singular object of both casts is to land the fly the longest distance from the caster as possible?

There is an easy test for the proposition that sound equates to an improper cast and the claim that "I am 100 percent convinced that if we learn to control and combine the torx craic into our casting we will throw distances that have not been thought possible before and super high line speeds.". Grab a video of Steve Rajeff casting a 38 gram head in the ICSF Event 2 Single Handed Fly Distance and advise what changes in body movement, rod wiggle and therefore line shape generation, which would change if he could better control and combine the torn craic in that cast. It would be great to have that explained because I would like to cast further than I do and I would love to gain whatever improvement I can from your suggestions.

Sound generated in distance casting is not gear dependent, so the casting analysis can be done with a Trout Distance cast as well, although to test any theory it must hold true for the extremes.

The other thing I am lost with is the contention that I can hear distance casting because it is overpowered or the right combination of wave mix. How can it be the right combination of wave mix as well as equating to an improper cast?


The interesting bit here is that if we discuss about sound, which we hear in different noises and intensities, that our thinking is already deep in waveland.... Discussing waves.

You are correct sound does travel in waves but what has that to do with the cast?

Thanks for your response, any aspect of knowledge that can translate to body movement or gear development that can clearly and measurably improve casting accuracy or distance, suitable measured and quantified, gets my interest.

John

User avatar
Graeme H
Posts: 1985
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:54 pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Analysing loop propagation

#116

Post by Graeme H » Sat Oct 03, 2020 2:12 pm

The frequency of a full casting cycle is approximately 0.25 Hz. You'd be doing VERY well to hear sound waves at that frequency.

By the same standard, putting waves into the cast at 1KHz or more would definitely require some fine muscle control. What sort of frequency are these sound waves you're worried about Michael? And are they in the line or the air? If they are in the air, how did they get there from the caster? Was it through the rod, the line, the leader, the fly or from the hand?

And how can these sound waves possibly interfere with loop propagation, given the huge frequency variation? That would be like treble notes from a female singer destroying the bass notes she is singing over.

Not to mention the underlying discussion here about loops being transverse waves in a string, while sound waves are compression waves in air (or water or rock, etc.) Of course, we can transmit sound through a taught string, but these are a type of compression wave in a string under tension and they are very high frequency.

Graeme
FFi CCI

John Waters
Posts: 987
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:16 pm

Re: Analysing loop propagation

#117

Post by John Waters » Sat Oct 03, 2020 2:17 pm

“That longer cast, by any definition, cannot be a more proper cast than the shorter cast because the singular object of both casts is to land the fly the longest distance from the caster as possible?”

Apologies, that should read

That shorter cast, by any definition, cannot be a more proper cast than the longer cast because the singular objective of both casts is to land the fly the longest distance from the caster as possible?

John

Michael Rebholz
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:24 am

Re: Analysing loop propagation

#118

Post by Michael Rebholz » Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:14 pm

Folks
The vibration, the wave is in the rod. The line is only its resulting picture and could be called a loop if that would suit its definition, BUT it doesn't.
The definitions of cast do fit their definition.

As the wave is in the rod no material is shifted. My guess for the future is that whoever casting God your praying to right now is gonna be outcast within the next 15 years.

Paul have u experimented with torx and distance casting?

Or what's everybidies take on torx? Why do they work?

The other big missing thing in this is the source of our casting loops. Without it they are scientifically irrelevant. As long as this source isn't there, casting loops must be looked at as a fairy tail or myth.

The more questions u ask about the casting loop the more dubious it gets :.
Why is it called a loop?
What is it good for?
How and where is it measured?
Does a rod vibrate?
What is vibration?

These are the questions I m lost with and I m curious to hear your answers.

Cheers and TL
Michael

Michael Rebholz
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:24 am

Re: Analysing loop propagation

#119

Post by Michael Rebholz » Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:32 pm

Oh and a Dloop is also no loop it's not even a D
It's a C
You know why? Because the line down the rod doesn't contribute to its vibration.

Does anyone in here know who coined the phrase Dloop?
I bet you don't. I don't. Couldn't fínd anything about it either.
Funny, isn't it?

Cheers and TL
Michael

User avatar
Graeme H
Posts: 1985
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:54 pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Analysing loop propagation

#120

Post by Graeme H » Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:33 pm

My only question, to nobody in particular, is "What are we smoking?"

:D

Cheers,
Graeme
FFi CCI

Post Reply

Return to “Flycasting Physics”