Spey casting dynamics

[Traditionalist]

I'm puzzled why this was not obvious from the beginning, the principle of shooting heads rely on it to cast further, they are designed to do that.

im not suggesting overpowering the 35' cast though, I'm saying that the energy needed to lift and maintain 35' is enough to shoot to 70', depending on the weight and length of head obviously,
beyond about 70' you are moving out of the designed range of most lines at a 5 weight, but a bog standard snowbee xs will lift and shoot to 70 with the momentum of the back cast and rod load no worries i just did it between rain bursts there.

This is just nonsense.

If you lift  and carry 35 feet of line, then you are providing the necessary force to do so at every stroke. The force required to carry 35 feet of line will not propel that line 70 feet.

A back cast provides no momentum at all to the forward cast, it merely straightens the line, and depending on the line weight may provide some preload to the rod which can give the effect of a lengthened forward stroke.

The "principle" of shooting heads depends on what you are using them for. They are mostly used for distance casting, and the principle there is to allow better rod loading with a shorter piece of line and use light backing to reduce drag.

You are not half as puzzled as I am that somebody would post nonsense like this and expect to be taken seriously.

TL
MC

[Traditionalist]

whatever mike, I'm not going to be rude back, i think my posts are clear enough for anyone that understands the basics of casting.

Your posts on this have been a load of unmitigated nonsense. You obviously do not understand the basics of casting.

That is not being rude, it is merely a statement of fact.

One of the reasons I decided not to post any more on the matter is that stupidity annoys me, and I might then indeed be tempted to rudeness. I can assure you most emphatically that you would notice immediately if I was being rude to you.

Presumably you imagine if you keep on repeating this total shite that somebody will eventually believe you. 

Good luck and goodbye.

TL
MC

[Traditionalist]

By the way, the tactic of posting a load of rubbish after you have made a public fool of yourself, in the hope of annoying somebody enough to insult you and get the thread pulled wont work with me. Too many people have tried.  I doubt Fred will fall for it either.

You can not possibly be as stupid as you are attempting to appear, so I can only assume some other motive.

Whatever it is I am not interested and I certainly wont reply to any more of your posts.

MC

[Inchlaggan]

Sort out your definitions of energy, effort and force guys, you're confusing me!
I have watched a guy sit in the boat with his casting forearm resting on the gunwale throughout the cast and chuck out 65ft plus of line. Others have to stand up (wrong!) and the cast begins at the knees to attain the same distance.
All else being equal, the energy required to propel that amount of line that distance is equal, but the effort is greater in the second case, and thus the energy expended in the process is greater.
The difference is the tool (rod and line) and the ability to use them to efficient effect. Knowing Master-Caster's set-up is only a very small part of the story.
I cannot be ersed to find out what line, leader, and fly weigh, allow for air resistance, gravity and much else come to, but can do the simple calculation at the end that determines the number of Joules required to complete the task. But that number is the absolute minimum for the task in hand. The energy expended by the angler will be much more. There will be an optimum (enregy minimising) set up of rod and line, and of the movement of both in all planes, a machine, but there is no 100% efficient machine, so the Joules expended to chuck out line and fly will only tend to the theoretical number, and usually exceed it by several orders of magnitude. The addition of the human element makes efficiency less likely.
Knowledge of the "personal optimum" is worth pursuing, there is no "universal optimum", therein lies the distinction between a lecturer and a coach, though both may term themselves both expert and teacher.

[Wildfisher]

Come on chaps, be pals!   

In a casting DVD I have by the late Mel Krieger he classified casters into two groups: engineers and poets. He said the first group needs to know how things work in order to learn and  the other one relies more on feeling and doing  things.

I'm certainly no poet and as an engineer it might just be I am misunderstanding  something here, but I can't quite grasp how the same energy is required for a 35 and 70 foot cast.

This really does not only apply to casting, so even a basic knowledge of casting is not essential. The same applies to a football hooligan (ex or current) throwing a half brick. More energy is required to propel the ½ brick into the opposing supporters at the far  end than into the centre circle.  Now the effect would be far easier to see with the ½ brick than it would be with a fly rod and line because once the ½ brick has left the hand of the  football hooligan he no longer has control over its distance or path.  With the fly rod and line he does, so perhaps he is doing something different with the 35 and 70 foot cast.  I have no experience of ½  brick propulsion  and I'm not one of the best casters, but I do understand basic physics and both a fly line and a ½ brick require more energy input in order  to travel farther.    :

[Wildfisher]

That makes no difference. It's a basic law of physics that to travel farther requires more energy. Work = force x distance. You may be confusing efficiency. Efficiency will waste less energy, a better caster should be more efficient, but that does not alter the fact that to travel farther requires more energy.

I burn more petrol  traveling  to Wick than I do to Inverness, it's twice as far and requires twice as much energy (fuel). I can reduce this fuel usage by driving efficiently and wasting less. I can cast farther is I waste less of the energy I am applying.

If you can think of a way to 1/2 my fuel bills I'm all ears!  :lol:

[Inchlaggan]

That makes no difference. It's a basic law of physics that to travel farther requires more energy. Work = force x distance. You may be confusing efficiency. Efficiency will waste less energy, a better caster should be more efficient, but that does not alter the fact that to travel farther requires more energy.

I burn more petrol  traveling  to Wick than I do to Inverness, it's twice as far and requires twice as much energy (fuel). I can reduce this fuel usage by driving efficiently and wasting less.

If you can think of a way to 1/2 my fuel bills I'm all ears!  :lol:

You are cofusing theoretical physics with the practial. It is easy (even allowing for friction and air resistance) to contrive a situation where driving  from home to Inverness and Wick would use the same amount of fuel. Inverness just has to be high enough above the start and finish point to allow you to freewheel to Wick.
The same is true of the 1/2 brick at the fitba', give the thug a Roman catapult and he can hit the far end easily, for less energy expended than chucking it (by hand) to the centre circle.
Use a machine, such as rod and line.

[Wildfisher]

But it still makes no difference.  To cast 70 feet with a rod and line requires more energy than to cast 35 feet with the same rod and line.  Yes, different machines may alter the  mechanical advantage, but all things being equal more distance requires more energy.

[Wildfisher]

PS . any idea of how to smuggle a trebuchet  into Easter Road?    :lol:

[Wildfisher]

It makes no difference the laws of physics apply no matter what you are chucking. If you  are chucking the same object using the same gear under the same conditions and the object travels farther it has travelled farther because it has been provided with the energy to do so. 

Yes, technique may improve efficiency of energy use (fewer losses), no one is arguing about that.

Archimedes once said "Give me a long enough TCR,  a fancy tapered line, a Sage  baseball cap  and a place to stand, and I will cast to the other end of the rugby pitch".    So choice of gear can make a difference, however, with all other things equal it requires more energy to make the same object travel farther.  It's just the way things are. I don't like it any more than you do. If I could get something for nothing do you really think I'd be sitting here discussing this shit?  Not a  chance, I'd be in Canada right now catching wild 'bows and cutthroats.   :lol: