Statements that make you go Hmmm? #1

[Geenomad]

To answer Lasse (because I'm feeling adventurous ... ), yes, the rod tip does stop moving backwards at some point, allowing the line to overtake the tip in that direction. Sure, it keeps moving in another direction, but it has stopped in one direction.

Waiting for barrage now ....

At least two of us in the same fox hole. Rod (tip) has to stop moving in one direction in order to start moving in the opposite direction. True even if the stop is effected by an arc around instead by a simple 180deg reversal.

And on stops more generally, I agree that learning a "hard" stop can be very helpful early on because it improves efficiency of force application in the sense that it controls for over rotation which diminishes efficiency - steals from net Force in the intended direction of the cast. This, rather than loop formation or shape, is a good reason to stop imho. As we all know the size and shape of the loop is the give away.

Cheers
Mark

[Bernd Ziesche]

Sure there are casts we can use that are perceived as "stopless"

Hi Peter,
I very much like the way Jason and Grunde described the process of stopping the rod. To me that investigation for a first time highlighted all the aspects of that process.
Since then to me the core of stopping the rod is DECELERATION causing the rod to straighten.
In fact when people talk about stopless they are often using a very high rate of deceleration. Which is why I never bought in that term at all. Sure we can decelerate the rod handle in order to have the rod straightening while still moving the rod hand straight into a repositionening movement for example. In my understand we still caused loop formation by stopping the rod.
I think we agree, that stopless easily can lead into confusion not only for CI s.
Regards
Bernd

[Paul Arden]

Stopless/Hard Stop/Pull-back. These are teaching terms and are very effective at getting results. Teaching people to “vary their rates of deceleration” involves much more complicated explanations and to be honest I’ve never tried teaching the “stopless”cast in this way. Has anyone tried teaching stopless using a more physics based approach? I would love to hear some success stories or otherwise. I’m sure it will work for some people - would love to learn more!

Cheers, Paul

[Morsie]

Bernd, (or anyone else - asking for a friend........) How would I explain to a student the difference between a "rapid deceleration" and a "stop"? And what happens at the end point of a "rapid deceleration" before the cast begins to move in the other direction?

[Paul Arden]

Excellent question Morsie, and what I was asking but no so clearly

I'm only interested in results. I find teaching hard stop, stopless and reverse torque/pullback gets results. Now if there are instructors who don't allow themselves to teach using the words "stop" or "stopless", but instead teach "varying rates of negative acceleration", then I would like to hear about this. It would be interesting to compare results. It may well be that their approach is better - it sounds to me like it's one of those things that doesn't have any benefit at all (you would probably call it an "instructor-wank") - but maybe it does get results and is an improvement. So like you, I would love to learn more from those teaching "rates of negative acceleration".

Cheers, Paul

[gordonjudd]

In fact when people talk about stopless they are often using a very high rate of deceleration. Which is why I never bought in that term at all.

Bernd,
I agree with that statement as a true stopless cast (where no deceleration is applied to the rod ) will end up with the rod crashing into the ground and results in making a god-awful loop as discussed on the self-deceleration topic on the old board.


I could not find that self-deceleration mechanism topic but Merlin has a plot in this post http://www.sexyloops.co.uk/theboard/vie ... ion#p33280 that shows that the self-deceleration mechanism is insufficient to stop the positive angular velocity of the rod in most cases so some additional deceleration torque needs to be applied to the rod to make a decent loop and prevent the rod from hitting the ground.

Gordy

[Paul Arden]

Hi Gordy,

I often demonstrate the 170 by doing just that and throwing the rod tip into the ground on the backcast. The reason it works is because carry is such that the MED head is at the very top of the loop, with the entire head directed to target, and the line between the very top of the loop and the rod tip/ground is all running line - as the loop propagates it morphs tight.

I’ll see if I can shoot a video of the rod tip hitting the ground and the loop travelling up and morphing tight.

Cheers, Paul

[Carol]

This is such a good post that I've read it all the way through, although I had to reread Merlin's initial post and completely bypassed the posts with equations.

I have some thoughts, albeit possibly erroneous, and a question.

When making the "hard stop," one is supposedly accelerating up to the point of abruptly stopping. But it takes a moment for the mental thought of stopping to translate into the muscle action of stopping, and it takes a split second for the stop to actually occur. And it doesn't really even quite stop there because the rod and line's motion wants to pull the hand in the direction of the cast. So the stop is complicated by the physics of the rod's motion (momentum, inertia, SDM) and the rod's physical properties responding to that motion, etc., etc., ad nauseam with equations.
Now once the neuronal pathways are entrenched, then the active thought process goes away. But that is not where the beginning student is and we meet him/her where they are.

You’re far more patient than I am, Jarmo. When I ask a question and get a question back in return then that makes me angry.
...
We should never fear being wrong or making mistakes. For that is how we learn. I will be a student all of my life.
Paul

The socratic method makes my head hurt: I feel like a dope fumbling through my disorganized thoughts as though I'm taking an oral exam and about to fail. However, it makes me see the flaws in my logic ... sometimes.

I love the Winston Churchill quote "Success if not final; mistakes are not fatal. It is the courage to continue that counts." I also love Pasteur's quote: "Let me tell you the secret that has led me to my goal. My strength lies solely in my tenacity." These quotes really help me know that, if I keep practicing and trying, not only will I become a better caster and instructor, I might someday intuitively understand Merlin and Lassse.

Question: Is the "power snap" at the very end of the cast implemented for extra oooomph (a physics term), and what is the ooomph really for? I see it as part of the acceleration effort with that last little bit of angular rotation adding the biggest bang for the least effort at the last moment right before the stop. I was taught that the power snap is not needed to make a loop (which it's not), but as I cast more, I find it more useful IF not overdone.