Spey Pages banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I need some help. I have been trying to work out the basic physics of a Spey cast (and the overhead cast as well) to derive some basic functional mathematical models which will adequately and qualitatively---not quantitatively---explain a series of empirical observations. i am obviously too stupid to get anywhere, and have been reviewing the basics without much success. My background is limited to basic college level physics, but i think the majority of this stuff could be explained with a synthesis of basic newtonian physics and a smattering of wave mechanics.

If anyone is interested in helping me, I would love to hear from you! please send me a PM...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
Well,

When I was officially a dork I played around with the idea of deriving the mechanics involved in a fly cast. This was during my senior year as a budding undergraduate physicist.

What I found is that brains bigger than my own beat me to the punch. Therefore, I did what any self respecting dude would do: defer to the experts.

Check out this link...

I hope that this helps you out.

-Mike
 

·
Hooked on Salmon
Joined
·
161 Posts
Bubba!

Please, please - don't try. You are about to commit a crime.....
It is like trying to define the process behind good art, fine sex or what makes a wine really stand out.

Spend that theoretical time fishing - send the the tight loops out whithout bothering what mathematical formulas are behind them.
Pleasure is not to be understood - just to be enjoyed!!!

Per
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Dogue, I've always been uncomfortable with parts of the derivation that you noted. There is a part of the discussion where he talks of modeling the line as a series of rigid cylinders connected by frictionless hinges. Having experienced hinging at a braided loop connector I do not see how that is a reasonable way to model this system. But then I'm an engineer not a physicist.

Per Stadigh, I can understand exactly where you are coming from.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
mike

thanks so much for the link. i read it with fascination, and will look up Spolek and Robson's original articles. the simplification and modeling of Kommers is quite nice, but i think lacks in the inclusion of Robson's rod mechanics. i would have never thought to use Lagrange transformations to solve for the more interesting stuff! i have been interested in the physics of the spey cast, which adds a third dimension to the whole kit and kaboodle. i would like to prove mathematically some observations on and theories on maximum casting efficiency, including the coefficient of restitution (for lack of a better term) of a rod with a given action, and the effects of casting a projectile model (e.g. shooting head) versus a continuously changing mass model (e.g. long belly line), and ultimately hope to quantify elements of rod design... my next little project!

per: i appreciate your sentiments, and i have no desire to demystify the sexiness of a well performed cast (believe me, in my profession, all wonderful aspects of the acts of procreation, and many of the senses have been demystified to a large extent, but it doesn't in any way decrease the wonder, rather it increases it... many of the worlds top physicists and astronomers are paradoxically the most religious of people!)! however, the aristotelian view of the universe held sway for nearly 1500 years until copernicus opened the door for keppler, brahe, galileo, and newton... i think the universe is far more romantic and full of bewilderment now than ever before!

please don't report me to the thought police!!!! (or more importantly, don't push me into the freezing waters of the rynda this june!)
 

·
Hooked on Salmon
Joined
·
161 Posts
Way - don't worry. I'll be catching them while you run your formulas under the midnight sun............:hehe:

And you John; this topic probably shreds light over why some majored in engineering whereas others, like me, did it in Architecture... :tsk_tsk:

Hope you got my reply from the positive angle. Göran Andersson, who very well might be the World's finest caster, did a video where he went a bit too deep into pseudo physics. It was all about animated rolling wheels and defined planes. Rather than bringing clarity it caused vast confusion, at least to me. That video is what I had in mind when getting at you, Bubba.

"Tight (and un-analyzed) loops"

Per
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
per

no worries, man. not interested in re-inventing the wheel, just had some thoughts regarding rod mechanics. no interests in pseudo-physics, i think that if you are going to use physics, better be the real thing. certainly, one cannot define what makes great music great!

you already catch enough salmon, i might have to make you cast one-handed (your underhand only)... give the yank a bit of a handicap on one of your home rivers to make things fair???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
459 Posts
Don't think too much , just fish and relax
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
I agree with most of the comments above. I never wholeheartedly investigated the fly casting models cited above because I also disagree and/or question many of the basic assumptions that serve as the foundation for the models. But, the fly cast is a very difficult event to model and I appreciate the attempts by the powers that be.

I looked into the models just to see if I had anything special to offer rod manufacturing companies before I sold out and took a job (albeit a fairly interesting and cool job if you ask me) in the world of electrical engineering.

At this point in my life I tend to leave the equations at the door when I exit my place of work. Outside of the office I still keep an active mind but I intentionally pursue aesthetic interests rather than interests directly involving science and engineering. Then again there is always a delightful connection between these two seemingly opposite arenas of thought.

Alas, to each his own. I support anyone who honestly pursues answers to the questions that continually surface in their minds.

Take care,

Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,027 Posts
Well, the simple answer may be ...

If we understood all the 'mechanics' of rod design we wouldn't be tempted to dump $700 to $1,000 on a spey rod. Plus reel, Plus line, plus 'backing' of choice, plus.....

Well, there went my summer vacation in Europe.
;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
actually fred,

if someone really did understand the materials technology in rod design and how it related to the fly cast (or spey cast), theoretically, a totally killer combination could be made that was even better than greenheart and silk... i would be glad to lay down more than current asking price for a rod like that!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,548 Posts
Art responding to Science:
Note that Bubba's subject is the mechanics of the spey cast, not the spey rod. Quanitfying what the rod does would be difficult enough, but the spey cast consists of interactions between the rod, the line (we'll mercifully ignore the leader and fly for now) - and you, the spey caster. Combined, it's enough to crash a Cray supercomputer.
I think that much of the appeal of spey-casting, though seldom expressed, is our immediate experience of the process. To me, after seven years, every successful spey cast seems like a minor miracle. Two dictionary references: Kinematics: in physics, the study of motion exclusive of the influences of mass and force. Kinesthesia: the sensation of bodily position, presence, or movement resulting chiefly from stimulation of sensory nerve endings in muscles, tendons, and joints.
Normally, making a spey cast feels good to your proprioceptors: special receptors in your muscles, joints, ligaments, tendons and inner ears, in much the same way that the first slow back-stretch after arising in the morning feels good. But that's a little off Bubba's subject.
Consider Mike Maxwell's casting style. Although he uses arms and shoulders somewhat less than most of us do, he makes maximum use of "body rock." It reminds me of some films I've seen of medieval catapults, which lurch backward and forward on their base skids while propelling boulders with slow, awesome power. Perhaps it's necessary to get the most out of Maxwell's very slow "true spey"-action rods. Mike, his rod and line are one kind of casting unit. Perhaps, therefore, a caster working a fast-action spey rod, and shorter-head line are a different kind of unit involving different body movements. :eyecrazy:
There, I've done my part. Someone else can do the math.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top