The Board

Yep….and whether I can make it teaching or fishing relevant.

Stoatstail50 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2023 1:39 pm Yep….and whether I can make it teaching or fishing relevant.

Correct...

Stoatstail50 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2023 1:39 pm Yep….and whether I can make it teaching or fishing relevant.

You seem to be talking in circles. I emphasize my use of the word “seem” because our communication styles are different. On one hand I get the impression that you think none of the discussions here have affected teaching, fishing, casting in any way but you invest time reading it and trying to understand it to see if you can make it relevant to teaching or fishing. Obviously, I’m missing or misunderstanding something.

More important, in my mind, is what would help you make it relevant to teaching or fishing? Or, if you don’t feel any particular need for help in that area, would you care to share what you do find relevant?

Walter

you think none of the discussions here have affected teaching, fishing, casting in any way

Actually I said that I didn't believe they had a significant impact on the wider community...not none at all.

Many of the discussions on Sl have had a profound influence on me and no doubt many other people who have read them over the years. It is for that very reason that every thread is to be given fair consideration in my view.

What I dispute, is that threads in tech anal or its current manifestation have had any significant effect out in the wider community. Your pet peeve is an example, much disputed on here but still given great credence out in the wider instructor or angling community who are working happily away with erroneous or functionally useless homespun concepts that were debunked decades ago.

I'm not going to argue that these things are not academically interesting, all I am doing is viewing a thread from a teaching or angling perspective. Perspective being something I assume you would agree is necessary to these debates.

How do I judge relevance ? I have to work from where I am...do I understand the concept sufficiently to harness it either to discuss it in a bar or for teaching or for fishing ? If I don't, it's not going to come up in a pub, a lesson and when I'm out on the water it won't cross my mind at all. This doesn't mean I won't try to understand it which is why I may continue to follow the thread...or I may not, the current thread on line elasticity being a case in point.

With respect to the issue of "lift" in a particular shaped loop, it is of zero consequence to the overwhelming majority of recreational casters who dont have the expertise to form loops of significantly different shapes. For those small number that do, it's only relevant if lift in the loop is something you are particularly interested in achieving and, on the evidence so far, you're not likely to know whether there was any at all because the effect, if it exists at all, is ludicrously small. It might be relevant if anybody's loops, line or fly leg, in any plane, were observably veering off up, down or sideways. Then I may find some relevance in the discussion...but they don't...so it's a subject parked next to lawnmowers being invented in Stroud for me.

I suspect many people who drive cars couldn’t tell you how the combustion engine works. And those who can are not necessarily driving any different to those who can’t. I was also of the same opinion as Mark. Particularly when it comes to very obscure topics. But a few people (Graeme for example) told me that physics had improved his casting. And so I’m happy to believe that for some it does. For most people it doesn’t and while many are happy with the conclusion that loops are flown by magic, there is a certain type of brain that wants to take things apart to understand how they work.

I would say that the theory doesn’t wag the rod, however I’ve come across casters who have got the wrong end of the stick and are trying to move the tip in a straight line and performing contortions to try to make this happen. There is also a huge belief in “rod loading” which affects people’s cast. Ironically even with physics disputing this, the idea continues.

So I don’t know. But I would like to know how it works.

Cheers, Paul

Mark,

I think we’re mostly on the same page.

WRT to the lift thing, back in post 81 of this thread I gave the results of my calculation showing that it would amount to 3 mm (maybe as high as 12 mm depending on loop shape) of deviation in a horizontal cast of 20 m. I’m still working the math but I expect it will be less when shooting line. Mathematically, it’s of interest to people who find that sort of thing interesting but it’s of no relevance to anybody else I can think of even if they have total control over their loops.

For myself, that’s what I mean by perspective.

Paul,

Maybe the issue is that the topic list has gotten too esoteric. I’m all for people violently debating the minute details of how quantum and relativistic effects apply to the size of the hackle on dry flies but maybe some of the more basic topics, like rod loading, need to be part of the mix? I know a lot of that has been discussed in the past but it’s the nature of these type of discussion boards that things tend to fade into antiquity. People who have been here for a while often say, “we discussed that on the old board”, but, “Out of sight, out of mind” as the saying goes.

For those small number that do, it's only relevant if lift in the loop is something you are particularly interested in achieving and, on the evidence so far, you're not likely to know whether there was any at all because the effect, if it exists at all, is ludicrously small.

Mark,
That being the case why do you think a loop with an inclined section of line going to the rod leg of the loop stays in the air as it rolls out much longer than you would expect for the "hang time" you would expect because of the loop height drop due to the effects of gravity?

Gordy

gordonjudd wrote: ↑Wed Nov 29, 2023 4:40 pm

For those small number that do, it's only relevant if lift in the loop is something you are particularly interested in achieving and, on the evidence so far, you're not likely to know whether there was any at all because the effect, if it exists at all, is ludicrously small.

Mark,
That being the case why do you think a loop with an inclined section of line going to the rod leg of the loop stays in the air as it rolls out much longer than you would expect for the "hang time" you would expect because of the loop height drop due to the effects of gravity?

Gordy

For the last time - it fucking well doesn't, we all chuck the line upwards. This is why my side casts don't veer - because there is no lift. The lift paper and others are codswallop - fly casting pixies are more plausible

Your continued insistence that this massively flawed research is gospel is embarrassing.

James,

3 mm is codswallop?

Got it.

I shall register that along with the definitions of big and small in my personal world of physics definitions.