Analysing loop propagation

[Paul Arden]

Just thinking about that Graeme, but isn’t it the same for a loop orientated downwards too?

Cheers, Paul

[Bianchetti Ivan]

No I do not know, maybe yours is a hasty answer, in any position it is, the u tends to close, even when throwing on the ground.

[Merlin]

Michael

Imagine one finds a document which tells that the word "loop" had the same meaning than by 1937, but 40 years ealier. What does it change? Nothing, change the word if you like, the physics behind remain the same.

Powell's paper is technical and it is likely the very first one of that kind. He had a great sense of physics, despite he never used a computer to derive numbers or a fly rod taper. Most publications refering to the beginning of the cane fly rod history (Halford, Skues) are devoted to fishing, flies, with nearly no reference to casting technique. C'est la vie.

How can you judge of the quality of your source? Does the author demonstrates he has a good understanding of physics? I doubt it very much. I rely on Powell in that domain because I checked he was right, thanks to Newton, it took me some years incidentally, my duty you know.

You can contact me through the Board (private messages) if you wish, anyone can do it on this forum.

Merlin

[Graeme H]

No I do not know, maybe yours is a hasty answer, in any position it is, the u tends to close, even when throwing on the ground.

Okay, maybe I am not understanding the question then.

[James9118]

Hi Michael,

In sub-atomic physics there is a property called 'spin'. It's a name given to a value used to represent the angular momentum of a particle. Now the thing is that these particles don't actually spin. In fact, they are not actually billiard-ball type entities with a physical axis about which they rotate, the truth is far more complicated and weirder. However, every nuclear physicist out there will understand what you mean when you discuss spin even though it is a nonsense in our everyday 3D world. As such, 'spin' is just a word that is used to describe a particular property.

Now, I don't know how many times you need to be told this but 'loop' is just a word used to describe a property of fly-casting. Just as 'spin' in nuclear physics doesn't mean something is spinning, 'loop' does not mean something is looping. It's just a word that all fly casters understand.

James.

[Malik]

Nice post James !
Interesting enough some aspects of this discussion remind me the old philosophical dispute of universals. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals
Fly fishing is a great sport
Best
MALIK

[Merlin]

Thanks for this good example James.
To close (I hope) the historical debate, here is another writing from Powell, dated 1919.

Powell 1919.JPG (37.37 KiB) Viewed 2999 times

He did not use the word "loop" at this time. Now one can speculate when the word was popularized in between 1919 and 1937.

Merlin

[Michael Rebholz]

This mentioning if the curve I ve seen somewhere else, I think it was Alexander grant.

I totally disagree with u saying its just a word.
1. It's a word that is pure dogma and doesn't suit its own definition. Loops cannot unroll.
2. In Any case its a nearly 150 year old coarse generalisation from people who could not know as much about physics as we do.
3 repeating it for nearly 150 years doesn't make it any better. Allow me to give u an example:
The earth is a disc. No the earth is not a disc. Aagh disc is only a word, you could also call it a loop. OK the earth is a loop then... See what I mean?

The concept of the loop in flycasting has been disproved. You can call it a loop as long as u want, it's still not where u think it is.

Now back to point 2:
Its called a loop and has never been questioned. Its over 100 years old and has never been questioned. Would u work of a 100 year old brainchild in your other daily aspects of life?
Back in the day people were not educated and just called it a loop then (which I still highly doubt and I believe that there is a source that mentions it for the very fist time, else this would have not spread back in these times of slow flowing information)

The benefits of this new thinking have by far not all been discovered. And they won't be visible if you keep thinking like people 100 years ago.

Ask yourself questions about the loop:

1 where is it coming from? What is the loops foundation?
2 what is the concept of the loop good for? What's its purpose?

And allow me to answer the questions partly

To 1 : nobody knows, worldwide
To 2: in my opinion the only thi lng that the concept of the (tight) loop does is setting people under pressure to throw them all the time. And that leads to a lot of frustration, makes FF difficult for a lot people. I think it's a dogma that doest do casting and casters no favours at all. For the reasons that it distracts from important things such as the sound/casting relation.
I know a lot of people who cast loud for all their lives and struggle with their fishing. If u have the consciousness to recognize that, then u can change. If u think in loops u cannot see this correlation. Just an example and there are plenty more.

Unfortunately the weather is a bit too Irish to shoot footage atm.

I won't get tired to repeat myself. Flycasting is a lot of repitions by nature thoughtless repetitions do not lead to progress. Maybe u noticed that already in your own casting. Change brings progress.

It changed my casting into a way more natural smooth kind of operation. After 20 years of practice. So I think the wave concept leads to a more natural, fluid style of casting. Because with waves u can become like water, with loops u can't.

Cheers and TL
Michael

[Graeme H]

Some mates and I have decided we're casting goblins. Tight goblins, wide goblins, side goblins, tailing goblins (not to be confused with trailing goblins) and morphing goblins. I'm sure that will clear up any confusion from this point on.

[John Waters]

"So I think the wave concept leads to a more natural, fluid style of casting"

How does that happen Micheal, given the loop or wave or whatever name you choose, is an output of the cast? To change any aspect of the cast you must change an input, a driver or a causal action which will generate that different outcome. That outcome in casting is the resultant line shape, loop, wave or whatever term is used. So any change must be sourced to how the caster moves the rod. That is my issue with any claim that a change in the name of the resultant line shape will somehow make the rod movement more natural, fluid, efficient or effective. I do not understand how you can link or connect the change of the name of the outcome of the cast (line shape) to a body movement or rod movement change which creates the cast. Until that connection is clearly defined, quantified and proven, the wave concept has no substance.

Happy to be proven wrong but the key for me is proof of your concept and that, I have not seen todate.

John