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!

Spanish experiment

Moderator: Torsten

Unregistered
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:22 pm

Spanish experiment

#11

Post by Unregistered » Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:32 pm

A simple answer to a simple question. Thanks Lasse. :)
Does this mean that the spring has transferred more or less energy to the brick than the inelastic string?

User avatar
gordonjudd
Posts: 1372
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:36 pm
Location: Southern California

Spanish experiment

#12

Post by gordonjudd » Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:37 pm

The brick without spring has covered more table when the weight hits the ground....
Lasse,

It is great that you can see this difference because the spring will still be deflected when the lead weight hits the ground. However, when the spring deflection returns to zero (at the maximum launch velocity point) the brick will also have traveled the same 2 meter distance as the falling lead.
the edge of the table, the spring is in equilibrium.
Aitor,
I assume by "equilibrium" you mean something is pushing up on the lead so that the spring has zero deflection before t=0 (the time the lead weight is released from its 2 meter height). If it was at an equilibrium point where the spring was stretched to support the m*g weight of lead weight and then the brick was released to start the fall, then the results would be much different.

Gordy

Unregistered
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:22 pm

Spanish experiment

#13

Post by Unregistered » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:10 pm

Gordy,

Is it really so difficult to visualize? I have explained the scenario so many times that I am really fed up of it.

I mean that the spring is not stretched, just as a fly rod is when we haven't started the cast. The spring isn't storing any energy if you prefer. Same potential energy for both systems at the start if you prefer.
If I support both weights with some kind of board under both of them I can even release both at the same time.

I will try again (although I supose that I will never get a clear answer):
You say that the spring combo transfers more energy to its brick than the inelastic combo. Does this mean that the brick of the spring combo covers more distance or not?
If I eventually make the experiment nobody is going to see in the HS video work, or energy, or force... what they are going to see is that the bricks move along the table. In my book the brick which gets more energy will move more distance. Is that what you are stating?

Unregistered
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:22 pm

Spanish experiment

#14

Post by Unregistered » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:13 pm

Lasse Karlsson wrote:
Aitor wrote:
Anyway, after weeks of asking I don't have any clear reply to an easy question. Again and for the last time:
- Two identical bricks on a table
- Two identical weights
- One spring
- One inelastical string

One weight is connected to the brick by the inelastic string; the other one is connected to the weight by a spring. Both weights hang at the same height from the edge of the table, the spring is in equilibrium.
We release both weights and they reach the ground.
Which brick covers more distance over the table?
I don't know about work, nor about energy, I only know what my eyes see. If the spring combo transfers more energy to the brick this one will go a longer distance. Right?

Hi Aitor

The brick without spring has covered more table when the weight hits the ground....

Cheers
Lasse
When both bricks stop, which one has covered more distance?

User avatar
Lasse Karlsson
Posts: 4188
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:40 pm
Location: There, and back again
Contact:

Spanish experiment

#15

Post by Lasse Karlsson » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:17 pm

Hi Gordon

Sorry, but I did the experiment on a much lower table (0,9m), and with a shorter string, basicly the brick on the string launched of the table before the brick on the spring, I couldn't determine which went furtest as both where still on a string....

And just redone the experiment... Longer table and longer strings, same height though.
Brick on string gets the lead, but brick on spring catches up after the weight has hit the ground. And a very unscientific observation, it seems like the brick on the spring gets a tad bit further after getting airborne. Hard to really tell as they bounce of the carpet :-)

Cheers
Lasse

Ps. I'm quite intriqued that noone has taken the 5 minutes it takes to set up Aitor's experiment, but are happy to argue for several weeks about what might or might not happen :???:
Your friendly neighbourhood flyslinger

http://www.karlssonflyfishing.com

***Bring Mark back!!!!!! ***

User avatar
Merlin
Posts: 1478
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:12 pm
Location: France

Spanish experiment

#16

Post by Merlin » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:34 pm

Aitor, I'm lagging behind now, but I prepared that post and let you know about it:

We can set up two experimental conditions and get two opposite results. It is just a question of tuning (spring stiffness, masses, falling height).

I am trying again to explain what is behind the dynamics of fly rods. We all know there are a variety of them, built for different purposes (at least the range of weight they can cast). The basic principle to give speed to the line is to move a force at tip in the direction of the cast. Using a spring offers the opportunity to do so by comparison to a broomstick. But to be efficient, we have to define the main characteristic of the spring, its stiffness, in relation with the weight of line we cast. As I told above, I can choose a set of conditions that will make the broomstick at least as performing than a flexible lever (maximum line speed).

In the case of an absolutely rigid rod (broomstick), the force at tip is the direct consequence of the acceleration in rotation of the rod, and when the maximum rotation speed is achieved, the line is released. If we use a spring we change the force at tip. The usual vision is that the tip is lagging at start (little force on the line), then it accelerates drastically (the force at tip can be the double than the one in the broomstick case) and the force can travel over a long distance beyond the place where the rotation speed is maximum (during the deceleration of the butt). This is not for free because the corresponding energy is provided by the caster which has to move the rod and compress the spring.

The misconception is to think that the spring will compress until the final stop of the rod and that from this moment, the elastic energy contained in the spring is given back to the line. This may be the reason why so many people looked after the amount of energy stored in the spring as relevant of the casting efficiency. But this is not the way it works; it works because the caster can move a significant force over a long distance (by comparison to the rigid rod). This force varies in time and can be smaller or higher than in the case of the broomstick, but at the end of the day, if the system is properly tuned, the energy in the line is larger than the one obtained with the broomstick. The elastic energy in the rod is mainly converted in loop shaping and kinetic energy of the rod which causes the counter flex, and maybe a small part is directly converted in line energy.
Now let’s come back to the reason explaining why the cast can be more or less efficient depending on the various parameters which affect it. First point: the more energy one puts in a cast, the larger the rod deflection is. Second point: this is not true for speed; there is an optimum somewhere around 50% (+/- 10%) relative deflection depending on the non linearity of the rod.

There is an upper limit and a lower limit to rod stiffness. Since we need to move a force, this force needs to occur as the rod butt is rotating, either in acceleration or deceleration. If RSP is achieved before the end of rotation (stiff rod), then the line is launched before the end of rotation and energy has not been introduced into the system. If the rotation is stopped before the rod has completely unloaded, some force will not be moved and again we lose an opportunity to feed energy in the line.

So the designer’s job is at least to offer a rod that will react positively (the caster will be able to generate energy in a given space frame and time frame). He then has to tune its stiffness for the line one wants to cast. The energy is generated as the spring is loading and unloading during the butt rotation. The idealized situation is to get RSP as the rod is stopped, then energy is produced under optimum conditions (moving force). As the conditions of the cast are changing (line length), the caster has to adapt his motion to stay close to that optimum. Since the mechanical system is somehow tolerant with modern rods, there is some room for error without losing a significant amount of speed, but this is why no one tries to sell you a noodle or a broomstick for fishing.

I think you can realize why defining the condition of the experiment is crucial. As I said we could select conditions to fail demonstrating the way to use a spring properly. I worked on the “trebuchet” parameters to see what we could do. The main point today is to know the stiffness of the candidate rods. It would be nice to be able to demonstrate opposite results by tuning the system accordingly. I think this would avoid finding a good reason not to believe into the experiment. Now we have to define the criteria that will tell us the outcome of the experience. To me you need a high speed camera to measure the launching speed of the mass you intend to put at the tip level in the trebuchet experiment. Maybe the launching angle will be different; I think we can also record it with a camera.

I understand that Lasse has strated his own experience, so thanks to you Lasse if you can provide us with the parameters of your experiment (spring stiffness, masses, height of fall).

Merlin
Fly rods are like women, they won't play if they're maltreated
Charles Ritz, A Flyfisher's Life

Unregistered
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:22 pm

Spanish experiment

#17

Post by Unregistered » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:43 pm

Merlin,

As I explained I have a high speed video camera (up to 1200 fps).
With the parameters tuned correctly must I expect the brick on the string to cover more distance or not?

User avatar
Lasse Karlsson
Posts: 4188
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 9:40 pm
Location: There, and back again
Contact:

Spanish experiment

#18

Post by Lasse Karlsson » Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:01 pm

Merlin wrote: I understand that Lasse has strated his own experience, so thanks to you Lasse if you can provide us with the parameters of your experiment (spring stiffness, masses, height of fall).

Merlin
Hi

Spring stiffness? It's a normal household elastic :)

Brick on table= 28,1 grams
Weight pulling brick= 74,5 grams
Height of fall= 56 cm

Cheers
Lasse
Your friendly neighbourhood flyslinger

http://www.karlssonflyfishing.com

***Bring Mark back!!!!!! ***

User avatar
Merlin
Posts: 1478
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 8:12 pm
Location: France

Spanish experiment

#19

Post by Merlin » Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:07 pm

Thanks Lasse

Can you try to estimate the "spring stiffness" by measuring a deflection of the elastic for a reasonable mass

Thanks,

Merlin
Fly rods are like women, they won't play if they're maltreated
Charles Ritz, A Flyfisher's Life

Unregistered
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:22 pm

Spanish experiment

#20

Post by Unregistered » Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:49 am

As an aside.
I have been browsing on the internet about golf clubs shafts. I think that the golf swing is similar to the casting stroke, and since club shafts are designed and made with different degrees of stiffness they seem similar to fly rods (both are third class flexible levers).
Well, I haven’t found any paper stating that a difference in the shaft flexibility translates into differences in club head speed.

Post Reply

Return to “Flycasting Physics”