Thank you!

[Graeme H]

I've only been fly fishing for nearly 9 years. From the time I started until now, I've been able to successfully apply the standard, easy to understand physics I learnt in high school and early university to rapidly improve my casting. I can use my knowledge of that simple physics (and a lot of practice) to make any loop shape I want, including upside down and sideways loops.

I can also apply that simple physics when I teach casting. It seems to work there too.

At no point has a numerical model presented in Tech Anal been able to answer any of the questions I've had. Indeed, if I had tried to apply them, I'd be hopelessly confused by the mismatches between observations and model predictions. Ignoring these numeric models hasn't harmed my development so far.

I actually think the Tech Anal Forum does more harm than good to the SL community. We've permanently lost a LOT of really knowledgable casters from this community due to the endless loops of discussions about numeric models. And still nothing is resolved. It's not because the concepts of physics are "too complex" for these very smart people to absorb: it's because the concepts being promoted don't fit well with observations. Of course people don't believe them if the models don't explain anything nor reliably predict an outcome.

Things in Tech Anal are improving recently because we are all finally able to access high speed videography and some easy-to-use software to technically analyse observed data. The requirement for numeric modelling to create things that look like loops is fading and fly lines being cast by real people can be examined in detail now.

Cordially yours,
Graeme

[Paul Arden]

What’s past is past, Graeme. We’ve moved on, the Board moves on. People come and go and sometimes come back again. That’s the nature of these things. Sexyloops is 21 years old. A few people have been here right from the start and are still here - Lars, Lasse for example. In that time I would say that there has been at least four distinct Board communities. I guess you’ve seen it as one in your time But I’ve seen many and I’m currently working on the next.

I used to think about it and wonder why it goes in waves and it think it’s just the circle of life. A tide comes in and washes a bunch shipwrecked pirates up on the beach, they hang around and discuss whatever connects them the most, and then they gradually move on. And then another tide comes in and so on.

For those of us who stay on this beach it certainly makes our life more interesting!

The Board membership is also shaped considerably by my lifestyle. When I was spending my summers in NZ and Australia there was a lot more Kiwi and Aussie contributors. When I was living in Canada and the USA we had more contributors from these countries. Here in Malaysia and SE Asia unfortunately we don’t get much of a kick through, I think this is because English is a second language here, but I’m working on it.

(It is harder nowadays with FaceBook and all that crap - still something I have noticed is that it keeps segments of old SL communities together which is good! After all The Sexyloops Board has always, in part anyway, been about making friends with other Sexyloops readers).

I don’t lament over past communities. Whenever I meet a member from one of them we can have a good laugh - about Mike’s poetry or Frank’s Rock Star Guides or whatever relates back to their time. The flaming barstool thread? (I really must try to resurrect that old Board).

Now that the technical side of fly casting is friendlier - and I have to say, really kicking arse at the moment - I will work on bringing in new members into the other forums. After all The Board is not only about discussing the physics of flycasting.

Cheers, Paul

[Graeme H]

Yeah, that's true Paul. People do come and go. A strong board survives the tides. It would be nice to get a few of them washing back up onto the shores though.

However, I know from personal experience that many of the people who've left since I've been here still discuss the physics of fly casting amongst themselves and with me. They just don't share their knowledge here any longer, and that's the lament I feel.

Notice how Lars, Lasse and James rarely post in Tech Anal? It's a quarantined area that the smart long-term members avoid. Maybe that's a reflection on me.

I enjoy all the sections of the forum and the friends I've made here. Some more than others ...

Cheers,
Graeme

[Paul Arden]

Well I’m trying to fix it mate. I’ve been working on it for the past month. And I think it’s much better now. I intend to keep it this way too.

I think Aitor will come back. It might take him another 20 or 30 years. Maybe he doesn’t - that’s a loss, but what can you do? The door is always open - we haven’t fallen out; we drink beer and fish together. I have another 50 years of fly fishing to do; this Board will still be here in 50 years time. I’m not quite sure what will happen to it after that but I’ll figure something out before I get my Drag Opposing Gravity Angel Wings

I take a long term view. People come, people go, sometimes people come back. Nothing is forever. My door is always open.


We’re not there yet, but at some point we will have a section on Sexyloops that explains the physics of fly casting and it will link back to the Board discussions in the order that we learned it. I say we’re not there yet because I don’t think anyone expected the result Lee just got from his two heads cast.

Cheers, Paul

[Walter]

Graeme, James,

Why are you here? If models have no value to you then why participate in Tech Anal? You
sound a bit like the kid who wants to know why they have learn math except that you have a choice to stay or go. I would guess that even though you don’t see value in much of the DOGma you are still curious and looking for greater understanding. I understand you are both tech savvy so you are both by nature curious about the tech stuff even if you don’t see direct applicability.

Paul,

You are getting a taste of what the forum could be but there are still a lot of cracks in the structure. I am one of the people who washed away and came back in a later tide. I left because the forum became polarized and the focus was on proving the other side wrong at all costs and when I started to be part of the problem I decided it was time to take a break. I’m back because there seems to be a change happening and I would like to help that to happen. But like I say there are still some inherent problems that need to be dealt with before I decide if I’m staying or going.

Gordy,

You are not the only smart person on the board. I would venture to say that you are not the smartest person in the room.

End of rant.

[Paul Arden]

the forum became polarized and the focus was on proving the other side wrong at all costs

Whatever happens let’s not go back to that! The easiest way to sort out differences of opinion is to run controlled tests. The lift or DOG discussion has the potential to go around and around. So let’s make some videos of controlled tests and measure what’s happening.

We currently have two throughly interesting things at the moment that we can discuss 1) real time acceleration of the fly leg after loop formation which has been filmed several times now. 2) a reversed Spey style head overtaking a Spey head which runs contrary to what we expect.

Cheers, Paul

[Graeme H]

Hi Walter,

I'm here to help people think critically about the things they read on this site. I don't mind if people don't believe the things I write as long as they make good arguments against mine. I actually prefer it when people question my statements and force me to investigate further. It's a great way to learn more. If I can devise an experiment to support my point of view, I think some good for the whole site can come from it.

I've never said models have no value. I use and create models all the time in my work (I often use the very same quote James used.) Models are very useful when they have application and represent observations well. I even think there is utility in some of the ones we see presented here. However, when a model is presented as actual data and/or it's used in situations it was not designed to represent, misleading information can be derived from it. I'm here to raise concerns about the misuse of models and present evidence against their misuse.

Finally, I'm here because there is no other place to discuss casting physics with other nerds. Yes, covering the same shit all the time frustrates me, but as I learn more and develop better arguments, I see things here can and do change. Lately, they have.

To paraphrase an old classic, bad science triumphs when good scientists do nothing.

Cheers,
Graeme

[Torsten]

Yes, I'd agree, the Forum has taken a positive development. One of the reasons is is surely, that we're making more efforts to moderate it. Maybe that's not in everyone's interest and we're losing people on the way - we can't be everybody's darling. But I think we're deciding what's best for the board. And this is a room where everybody likes to write and not a hostile place. I'll try to have more time for moderating and I'll earlier intervene when I see destructive tendencies.

Walter has it well written. James posting for instance contains commonplaces and killer arguments. Sure models are abstractions of the reality, but that doesn't mean that they're not useful. When you're not interested in contribution, why write here? Graeme is different, I can see that he really likes to contribute, we just need guide the energy in the right direction.

I've not the impression that Gordy likes to be smarter than others; I'm guessing - as a retired engineer - he just has more resources than others and therefore more time for writing and investigating.

Once we have raised the quality of the discussions, I think it's realistic to get others from the industry involved like Bruce etc.

One shortcoming that I can see is that the discussions are often not straightforward, get too easily off-topic. We need a strategy to optimize that; perhaps by defining the scope of the thread clearer by the topic starter.

--

OK - one thing I'd do is to rename this subsection to reflect the recent changes. An idea would just be "Physics."

[James9118]

Graeme, James,

Why are you here? If models have no value to you then why participate in Tech Anal? You
sound a bit like the kid who wants to know why they have learn math except that you have a choice to stay or go. I

Walter,

I've never said that models aren't useful - my whole working career has revolved around them. However, they only become useful once they've achieved some degree of validity, and this is where casting physics currently falls short in my book for many reasons.

James.

[gordonjudd]

Gordy, I would venture to say that you are not the smartest person in the room

Walter,
And I heartily agree. Torsten, Daniel, and Grunde have a much broader understanding of physics than I do. As I have said before stand back when an EE takes on complicated problems involving flexible (although with some Ey bending moment value),distributed, variable mass properties that also involve the wave equation.

I do have a stack of technical papers on the subject however, so I think I have kept up to date on the technical literature on the physics of casting ever since Dr. Robson published his paper in 1989.

I've not the impression that Gordy likes to be smarter than others; I'm guessing - as a retired engineer - he just has more resources than others and therefore more time for writing and investigating.

All true. I have had an interest in the physics of casting as a hobby for 35 years, and have made contact with people all over the world because of it.

Gordy