Logic change

[Swami805]

Those micro wave guides have been around for several years and I haven't seen anyone who doesn't have a financial interest get on the bandwagon    Does seem to be too close together to do much good.

[Jeri]

I've mentioned this before that when we seem to get it right, we get a reversing tunnel of smaller coils coming back towards the reel from the first guide. This I believe is a function of the 3 or 4 guides that form the rapid reduction guides - whether spacing or sizes. This effect only happens just after launch and right the way through to the last second or so of the 5 second flight - then dissipates when the sinker starts to slow at the end.

I can't see that kind of harmonic happening with Microwave guides, from the single rapid reduction guide.

One of our tests of a new blank or guide scheme, will usually consist of a few moderate power casts to feel how the rod reacts and any immediate issues. Followed by rapidly increasing the power into the casts to absolute maximum - 'cast it, as if trying to break it!' For it is only when under maximum load that faults might start to show. We have often had other rods brought to us, where the rod works fine under moderate power, but under maximum power, line wraps, crack offs and other faults happen - this is not a situation of a good design. Good designs need to work under all power loadings. You can hardly sell a product with a label on 'Use only with moderate power.'

[oldmanjoe]

   I think i know what you are referring to , when you say , reversing tunnel of smaller coils coming back towards the reel from the first guide.
      There is a wave of harmonic that takes place , first ,second and third .   Line Speed and temperature/air density  plays a part in the wave duration and speed that this happens in .       
      I agree  , that the Microwave is to fast of a choke cone .   

[gstours]

What I was referring to was spacific to a stripper guide on the spiral wrap application to keep the line centered possibly going back onto the reely thing.  In this special rod there is no casting and I cannot see why large diameter guides need to be used to keep the line from touching the blank?
   Generally when you think tall guides you also get larger diameter as well,?   Right?   
        Maybe I didn't make my case perfectly clear?    

[JasonGotaProblem]

What I was referring to was spacific to a stripper guide on the spiral wrap application to keep the line centered possibly going back onto the reely thing.  In this special rod there is no casting and I cannot see why large diameter guides need to be used to keep the line from touching the blank?
   Generally when you think tall guides you also get larger diameter as well,?   Right?   
        Maybe I didn't make my case perfectly clear?    

You've certainly made your case clearer with this post. The Fuji KL-H series are high frame versions of the same diameter guides. I like them. I'm using them on the one rod I've built. doesn't that just make my opinion sound so relevant?

I don't have a boat of my own or reliable access to one, and I've never fished a conventional reel. So everything rod-design-related is viewed through the lens of how it affects casting on a spinning rig. There's my disclaimer.

[philaroman]

look at the Fuji Reverse/Tall (pg. 35)
https://www.fujitackle.eu/flippingbook/34/
might be of interest for various above ideas

[Jeri]

look at the Fuji Reverse/Tall (pg. 35)
https://www.fujitackle.eu/flippingbook/34/
might be of interest for various above ideas

Those titanium guides RV are seriously expensive, but in the 12H, 16H and 20H, no higher than LC 12M, 16M and 20, which are much cheaper, and could well be an option for a spiral wrapped rod.

Just a thought.

[jurelometer]

Attempt to return briefly to the stated topic: what are the logistics of starting with the runners instead of the reducers? Are you doing test casts with no reducer guides at first? Or are you just spacing them from the top down but not test casting til all guides are roughly in place?

I would argue that you need to test the whole mess at once, because it is an integrated system.  If you test cast with just the runners, you are not loading the rod the same, and are using the lowest runner as a temporary choke guide. Except for the bottom few guides,  you should not  require much tweaking if you have a decent static load placement technique.

It is useful to point out that  placement/height/ring size is serving two puposes. The first is to enable you to distribute the load across the blank in a preferred manner when initiating a cast, working a lure, and/or fighting a fish.  The second purpose is to enable the line to travel from the reel through the tip with a minimal loss of energy after a cast is released and the blank has straightened out.  There is usually a bit of a tradeoff between these two. Depending on how the rod is used, one will matter more than the other.

Remember that impact (mass * acceleration) is the enemy of casting distance, not friction (compressive force * coefficient of friction).  Once the cast is released and the line is shooting out, there is little compressive force from the line on the guides so there is little frictional force robbing energy from the cast.  But waves or coils on the line are going to continuously whack the frames and sides of the rings until choked down, and the faster the line speed, the harder the whack.    So it is way more important to have the right height and ring size (and location)  than it is to have the fanciest inserts.

Reduction is not too tricky with conventional rods where we don't have to deal with big twisty coils coming off the side of a spool located away from the blank  as with a spinning rod.  Getting reduction a bit wrong on a conventional rod does not come with too much of a penalty.  I have heard it is more tricky with spinners, but I have little firsthand experience, as I rarely use spinning rods due to an allergic condition

-J

[jurelometer]

A few  more thoughts:

1. The tip first guide placement heuristic actually makes it harder for me to visualize the whole process.  But that could just be a function of how my brain works.

While it up is definitely useful to remind ourselves that the line is being pulled and not pushed, I believe that the optimization for distance of of casting guide size /height/location of moving line starts at the reel.

When loading unloading the rod during cast, the guides serve a vital function by distributing and releasing load.  The line is not moving until toward the very end of the unloading. At this point all we care about is how the guides affect how the rod is being loaded.

Once the line is launched, the guides now become an  an impediment to distance, by robbing line speed  due to impact of the line on the sides of the guide frame and rings, and a slight aid to distance by keeping the line from slapping the blank.   Waves and coils form as the line leaves the reel.  If the guides could  magically dissapear after the cast is released, I suspect that distance would improve.

To miminize repeated line impact as the line leaves the reel and forms and reforms coils and waves that bang into successive guides and blank sections, we have to come up with a strategy of managing coils and waves.  Too hard for my brain to work backwards.  Maybe I need a brain upgrade

2.  Microwave guides.

The slow motion video shows that the internal ring is doing the majority of the work of reducing the waves/coils.  It would be a very easy test  to compare  against an identical setup with the bowl flush microwave guide replaced with a single ring guide of  the same diameter and distance from the blank as the internal ring. This would show whether the pairing of a large and small ring provided much benefit, or if the value was simply in using a small ring farther from the blank.

And I agree with Jason that casting the two rods differently in the other video makes for a pretty useless comparison.  First of all, having to adapt your casting stroke to accommodate a new guide is a pretty big negative.    Secondly, if you are casting  too flat for optimal distance, you can get less line slap and greater distance by simply changing the launch angle and using less force without changing any guides.

I am calling shenanigans on the microwave in the absense of better evidence.  Even if the microwave turns out to be better  than an old style large diameter ring,  the better comparison is against  the other options now available.  Especially the ones that don't look as goofy.

-J

[JasonGotaProblem]

And I agree with Jason that casting the two rods differently in the other video makes for a pretty useless comparison.  First of all, having to adapt your casting stroke to accommodate a new guide is a pretty big negative.    Secondly, if you are casting  too flat for optimal distance, you can get less line slap and greater distance by simply changing the launch angle and using less force without changing any guides.

I am calling shenanigans on the microwave in the absense of better evidence.  Even if the microwave turns out to be better  than an old style large diameter ring,  the better comparison is against  the other options now available.  Especially the ones that don't look as goofy.

-J

What really gets me is that someone went through the effort (like a full day of it) of building 2 rods because they truly believed they'd see a longer cast from the air wave. In fact I'd bet there was a second camera pointed down range. Why else would they use a brightly colored sinker and say to leave the first one out there? I suspect after a few terrible attempts trying to cast identically and seeing the airwave fall short, they figured out how to cast differently so they compare more favorably. Then in fhe end decided not to include the video because it hurt their case. I feel like i can smell the cognitive dissonance in the 2nd half of the video from here.

Truthfully I went into that video not expecting to be convinced. But in reality I left fully convinced.

[Jeri]

  I think i know what you are referring to , when you say , reversing tunnel of smaller coils coming back towards the reel from the first guide.
      There is a wave of harmonic that takes place , first ,second and third .   Line Speed and temperature/air density  plays a part in the wave duration and speed that this happens in .       
      I agree  , that the Microwave is to fast of a choke cone .   

That is very much the point that I have been making, and it is best approached from reversing the traditional build logic, by working from the tip down the blank towards the reel. Line speed is the biggest influence on criteria to establish the reversing tunnel, as I have yet to have much experience of it on shorter spinning rods - probably because we build so few. The shortest rods we have managed it on so far, as a couple of 'specials' used by guys walking the banks of the Okavango and Zambezi, and need massive distances with their lures to target Tigerfish - these rods were just 9'-6" long, but again built with the first guide at about 100-120cms up the rod from the reel seat.

The other aspect of this reverse tunnel effect, is it reduces the 'guide/line' banging that Jurelometer favours as the main source of power loss, as the tunnel is at the size of the insert of the first guide. Subsequent guides are having only to cope with very small wave action. In our surf rod situations we are talking about coils coming off the reels at over 70mm diameter, but flowing very smoothly and silently through a first guide insert of only 11mm internal diameter.

Temperature/air density, we have only experienced the extremes of Namibia, where in the north on the rivers in summer, it exceeds 45 degrees C, and on the coast in winter where it can be as cold as 10 degrees C during the day - without any significant, or noticeable difference in performance.

Latter this year we have a commissioned development project with a 2 piece 7'-2" rod to work on, maybe we will see some other aspects develop, specifically to shorter rods.