alan tani @ alantani.com fishing reel repair rebuild tutorial A New Take On 6/0 Double Dogs
Reel Repair by Alan Tani
June 18, 2019, 11:37:14 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: A New Take On 6/0 Double Dogs  (Read 869 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Gfish
Gfish
Member
*
Online Online

Posts: 1913


What? Me worry?


« Reply #15 on: October 12, 2018, 10:56:09 AM »

Put the gear sleeve inna mail today Chad. Turns out it's a regular style, with 10 teeth! My short-term memory sucks. Relatively new. Uh-oh, now you might gotta reshape the dogs? Hope not.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2018, 10:57:53 AM by Gfish » Logged

Fishing tackle is an art form and all fish caught on the right tackle are"Gfish"!
jurelometer
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 378


« Reply #16 on: October 12, 2018, 11:15:41 AM »

Nice, innovative work.  Thanks for showing it.  I can't make out the dog posts, though.  Are they peened, or what?   How do they relate to the bridge screws that used to be there?

On the issue of synchronized vs. alternating dogs, there was a discussion a few years ago.  Sal was advocating for synchronized dogs, and finally was convinced that there is no such thing as dual dogs synchronized closely enough to provide the strength hoped for.  I think that's true.  (Haven't found the thread yet.)

--Mike

I was in on that discussion, and I think we ended up concluding that both sides of the argument had some merit.  While I still don't think there is significant load sharing,  I no longer believe that extra non-alternating dogs are pointless.

The more elastic the system is and the tighter the tolerances,  the more non-alternating dogs will share the load.  For the type of reels we are talking about,  I didn't  think there could be much load sharing going on,  therefore non-alternating dogs would not  end up  significantly increasing the max load.

When things  go south, a complete  dog failure means parts are jammed or broken off and floating around. Having a second dog may not help much in this situation.

BUT: 

Even without any load sharing, a second (alternating or non-alternating) dog can up to double the dog lifespan at heavy load, as long as you don't exceed the limits of a single dog.   Each dog is stressed half as frequently over the lifespan of both dogs combined.   Also, once a dog starts to fail,  it has a better chance of not gumming up the works with non-alternating dogs as there will be less travel before the secondary takes over.

What is more important (but gets less attention from us)  than the number of dogs is the boring engineer stuff:  how well the post is supported, how well the dog and ratchet stay aligned (e.g. twisting potential), the  engagement surface area between the dog/ ratchet tooth, the diameter of the ratchet,  if  the force of the ratchet on the dog is on a tangent with the diameter of the ratchet at the center of the tooth,  whether the dog is straight or curved, etc, etc.  Basic mechanical engineering stuff that is centuries old.

Sticking more dogs in a reel can add value,  but getting the engineering right is the big thing.  If you look at  the Cortez upgrade to the 113N, you will see that  it  addressed the design and manufacturing  issues that caused a two dog 113N to be weaker than a one dog 113H.  Tom didn't add a third dog.

Getting back on topic:  It looks like Chad is paying attention to getting the posts as strong as possible, so it looks  to me like he is on the right track.   Do you think we can talk him into pushing the reel to failure in the interest of science?    Grin Grin Grin
Logged
Darin Crofton
Tampa, FL Photographer
Firearms Group
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 829


Work is for people who don't fish!


WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 12, 2018, 11:25:23 AM »

Nice, innovative work.  Thanks for showing it.  I can't make out the dog posts, though.  Are they peened, or what?   How do they relate to the bridge screws that used to be there?

On the issue of synchronized vs. alternating dogs, there was a discussion a few years ago.  Sal was advocating for synchronized dogs, and finally was convinced that there is no such thing as dual dogs synchronized closely enough to provide the strength hoped for.  I think that's true.  (Haven't found the thread yet.)

--Mike

I was in on that discussion, and I think we ended up concluding that both sides of the argument had some merit.  While I still don't think there is significant load sharing,  I no longer believe that extra non-alternating dogs are pointless.

The more elastic the system is and the tighter the tolerances,  the more non-alternating dogs will share the load.  For the type of reels we are talking about,  I didn't  think there could be much load sharing going on,  therefore non-alternating dogs would not  end up  significantly increasing the max load.

When things  go south, a complete  dog failure means parts are jammed or broken off and floating around. Having a second dog may not help much in this situation.

BUT: 

Even without any load sharing, a second (alternating or non-alternating) dog can up to double the dog lifespan at heavy load, as long as you don't exceed the limits of a single dog.   Each dog is stressed half as frequently over the lifespan of both dogs combined.   Also, once a dog starts to fail,  it has a better chance of not gumming up the works with non-alternating dogs as there will be less travel before the secondary takes over.

What is more important (but gets less attention from us)  than the number of dogs is the boring engineer stuff:  how well the post is supported, how well the dog and ratchet stay aligned (e.g. twisting potential), the  engagement surface area between the dog/ ratchet tooth, the diameter of the ratchet,  if  the force of the ratchet on the dog is on a tangent with the diameter of the ratchet at the center of the tooth,  whether the dog is straight or curved, etc, etc.  Basic mechanical engineering stuff that is centuries old.

Sticking more dogs in a reel can add value,  but getting the engineering right is the big thing.  If you look at  the Cortez upgrade to the 113N, you will see that  it  addressed the design and manufacturing  issues that caused a two dog 113N to be weaker than a one dog 113H.  Tom didn't add a third dog.

Getting back on topic:  It looks like Chad is paying attention to getting the posts as strong as possible, so it looks  to me like he is on the right track.   Do you think we can talk him into pushing the reel to failure in the interest of science?    Grin Grin Grin
jurelometer great explanation of some of your knowledge on this subject, I'm trying to learn all I can on how a reel works and this was very insightful, thank you, Darin
Logged

God, Family and Fishing, what else is there?
xjchad
Sensei
Member
***
Online Online

Posts: 833



« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2018, 12:41:49 PM »

Thanks guys!

Put the gear sleeve inna mail today Chad. Turns out it's a regular style, with 10 teeth! My short-term memory sucks. Relatively new. Uh-oh, now you might gotta reshape the dogs? Hope not.

Thank you so much Gfish!!!


I was in on that discussion, and I think we ended up concluding that both sides of the argument had some merit.  While I still don't think there is significant load sharing,  I no longer believe that extra non-alternating dogs are pointless.

The more elastic the system is and the tighter the tolerances,  the more non-alternating dogs will share the load.  For the type of reels we are talking about,  I didn't  think there could be much load sharing going on,  therefore non-alternating dogs would not  end up  significantly increasing the max load.

When things  go south, a complete  dog failure means parts are jammed or broken off and floating around. Having a second dog may not help much in this situation.

BUT: 

Even without any load sharing, a second (alternating or non-alternating) dog can up to double the dog lifespan at heavy load, as long as you don't exceed the limits of a single dog.   Each dog is stressed half as frequently over the lifespan of both dogs combined.   Also, once a dog starts to fail,  it has a better chance of not gumming up the works with non-alternating dogs as there will be less travel before the secondary takes over.

What is more important (but gets less attention from us)  than the number of dogs is the boring engineer stuff:  how well the post is supported, how well the dog and ratchet stay aligned (e.g. twisting potential), the  engagement surface area between the dog/ ratchet tooth, the diameter of the ratchet,  if  the force of the ratchet on the dog is on a tangent with the diameter of the ratchet at the center of the tooth,  whether the dog is straight or curved, etc, etc.  Basic mechanical engineering stuff that is centuries old.

Sticking more dogs in a reel can add value,  but getting the engineering right is the big thing.  If you look at  the Cortez upgrade to the 113N, you will see that  it  addressed the design and manufacturing  issues that caused a two dog 113N to be weaker than a one dog 113H.  Tom didn't add a third dog.

Getting back on topic:  It looks like Chad is paying attention to getting the posts as strong as possible, so it looks  to me like he is on the right track.   Do you think we can talk him into pushing the reel to failure in the interest of science?    Grin Grin Grin

Thank you Jurelometer!
There are definitely a lot of variables and even as I play with this more, I'm thinking of new ideas.
I have another bridge that I'm going to try another idea on and see how it looks.
Thanks for all the feedback!

I might be enticed to push it to failure  Wink  I'd really like to see what happens as well  Grin
Logged

Husband, Father, Fisherman
mike1010
Photo Group
Member
**
Online Online

Posts: 507



« Reply #19 on: October 14, 2018, 11:20:40 AM »

Thank you, jurelometer, for correcting my memory.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.222 seconds with 17 queries.