If you'd like to see a variety of newsletter subjects you can subscribe to our email at info@anglersresource.net subject line "newsletter"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/08/2016 04:11PM by Jim Ising.

I would like the mention that the blank support distance for the CCS measurements is 10% of the rod's total length. Also, the "RDA" was taken from the Big Picture component of the CCS.

................

Thanks Tom, my objective was to point out the value of developing a database using a consistent method (whatever it may be) to compare one blank to another.

But that's the problem with RDA - it doesn't provide relative results because it doesn't use a consistent support standard.

The CCS provides this by standardizing both the forward support point and the deflection amount based on a percentage of total blank length.

..............

I just tested a 7 foot blank at both the 10% support length of 8.4 inches and 9.4 inches and found no difference. I realize that a standard method is recommended, but for blanks between 6' 6" and 7' 6", how much error is expected between supports of 7.8 and 9.0? In other words, what does the data show for testing a 7 foot blank at + or - 1 inch of 8.4? 5% difference? 10%? In which direction for power and AA?

The greater the deviation the greater the error. The idea that "it won't matter that much" is what separates scientific systems from other "systems." By the way, the 10% is not a "recommendation," it's a specific standard as set by the CCS if you want accurate readings per that system.

Considering that setting up at 10% isn't any harder than setting up at any other setting, why not set up at the system's required standard?

..............

I don't have the room for a CCS rig that uses a 4 x 8 sheet of pegboard, so setting up at 10% for various blank lengths does cause some inconvenience with my rig. I understand that 10% is the "holy grail," but was interested in what you thought about the magnitude of the error if a 10% deviation to the 10% standard were used. If the expected error were to be less than the variation in blanks then it would be a minor deviation. If larger than the possible blank variation it would make more sense to take on the inconvenience with every measurement.l I found that I could not find the difference in the one time I checked, but was interested if you had data on the expected error.

Deviating from either the support or the deflection distance constants means you are not going to get accurate readings. Putting the forward support point somewhere other than the prescribed 10% distance means your results are simply not as accurate as they would otherwise be, and therefore not relative to any other actual CCS measurements. It doesn't matter if it's the CCS, or a tape measure, a scale, etc., if they're not used accurately the results won't be accurate nor relative.

You don't need a pegboard to use the CCS. You can do it with a tape measure - you only have to measure the difference between the starting level point to the amount of deflection. Therefore if you have room for the blank, you have room to use the CCS accurately.

...............

Here's something to think about. Suppose you buy a blank that the manufacturer has listed as being 72 inches in length. You take it out of the bag and measure it and find that it is only 70 inches long. Would you be upset? After all, that is only a 3% error. How much difference can 3% really make?

I cannot see the wisdom in arguing for doing something incorrectly when it takes no more time to do it correctly.

Good point, Mike. However, as I said, it DOES take more time on my rig to change the anchor lengths. Also , length and CCS numbers are two different things, and I expect that the variation in length of blanks is probably on the order of 1/16 or 1/8 inch , less than 1/100 %, if I got my decimal right. Very very small. I expect the variation in blank power numbers is on the order of 5%, an entirely different ball game. Maybe a manufacturer or someone with a lot of data can shed light on this.

I'm being told specifically that ANY deviation from the support constants means I am not getting accurate readings, and I'd like to know how inaccurate they are. Everyone states the obvious, that it is better to do it according to the recipe, AND I AGREE, but no one seems to have any data on the consequences of a fairly small deviation from the constant. Or are unwilling to share their data.

Think of it this way, I'm making a gallon batch of chile and the recipe calls for 1/4 teaspoon of something. I only have 7/32 on hand. Will the chile be ruined if I don't inconveniently run to the store for that 1/32 teaspoon of an ingredient? Will the chile be ruined?

Yes I know I don't need pegboard, and I also know that I have correlated quite well with the manufacturer numbers on at least 5 blanks. Without pegboard it is definitely more difficult to make accurate deflection measurements, but it can be done. But that in itself is a compromise to the specs of CCS.

Since there is no benefit in setting up incorrectly, it's doubtful any such data exists. If you want that data, you'll have to run the different set ups and record the differences for yourself.

Any deviation will result in less than accurate results. If you don't believe this, set up your forward support point at the mid-point of the rod blank and run the numbers. Now move it back to the prescribed 10% constant and run them again. There will be a huge difference. The greater the deviation, the greater the error. The less the deviation the less the error, but any deviation will result in some amount of error.

Take a length of 1-inch PVC pole and make inch marks on it. That's all you need for the deflection distance recordings. Costs next to nothing and stores in a corner out of the way.

............

Tom, there is "some error" in any measurement.

I have a PVC pole with inch marks on it. I'm surprised you don't mention that any deviation in height in the distance between that pole and your mount will affect the reading, as in a floor that is not pure horizontal. With pegboard it's easy to level the board to eliminate that possible error. And no mention of the effect of spine or blanks that are not straight.

I'm not arguing that the position of the support has nothing to do with accuracy. I never said that I did. Your suggestion of setting up in the middle of the blank is nothing close to what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a 10% deviation to a dimension of 8.4 inches for a 7 foot rod, or .84 inches. I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid, so never mind about setting up in the middle of the blank.

I have 5 blanks that measure between 6' 9 ' and 9 feet that correlate well with the manufacturer, all taken with supports at 9 inches, if I remember right. I have taken data once with a 7 foot rod with the mounts at two different positions an inch apart , one position being the recommended position, once and found no difference, will do it on more blanks as I measure them. If I find significant error, I'll report back.

I never was arguing against the scientific method; I was only trying to see if someone knew the sensitivity of mounting distance to the results. I'll take care of it.

Yes there is always some error, which is why I said the greater the deviation the greater the error. If done correctly, however, the error in this case will be infinitesimal.

My point about using the mid-point was to serve to indicate that yes, there will be a difference if you use something other than the specified support constant. It illustrates that the further you are from the specified the constant, the greater the error. The closer you are then the less the error. And again, if you adhere to the specified constant, any error will be infinitesimal.

.................

I tried very hard to see how Jim's post concerning newsletter topics led to a discussion about CCS. I saw no topic at angler's resource concerning CCS or RDA measurements. I know point blanks reference these measurement but saw no information on how they were performed. Please let us know what going on here, I am sort of confused how this discussion started, and I'm sure others are also. Thanks Jim, there is a lot of good information at Angler's Resource.
Norm

.

If you go to the link Jim listed and take a moment to read it, you will see the RDA (CCS Big Picture) and CCS mentioned.

..................

I went to the link Jim posted and all I get is an e-mail link to sign up for the news letter, nothing else. I have gone to angler's resource site and looked everywhere on the site concerning CCS and RDA and nothing. I am using an I-pad for this, so maybe not getting to the right site. Please paste in the site so I can see what's going on. Thanks
Norm

Hello Tom

Jim has changed something, all I get clicking on his mailto:[email protected] is an E-Mail set-up.
I don't get anything like you are talking about!

Tight Wraps & Tighter Lines.

Bob,

New Bern, NC.

[pointblankrods.com]

Evidently he removed the link which went to an earlier topic from their newsletter.

...............

Mike, I have seen the point blank info before, but nothing there concerning how the measurements were taken. Still confused!