Re Setting forms-need for precision - Harold Bacon
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C18959.28A3C280
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Tom, Bob and Others.
A few statements were made that needs clearing up. The old
timers didn't measure their sticks as you and I would today. They measured
the ferrule station when they first set up to run a certain model rod. Their
steel patterns were measured in 256th of an inch. We need to remember that
they used a steel or wood pattern which controlled the accuracy of their
strips.
Leonard claimed to cut strips that were within .001" of each other. I have
attached a copy of the Original tapers used by Leonard before 1917. these
readings were made by Rubin Leonard and was from the original notebook.
Best Hal.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jill and Tom Ausfeld <>
To: Bob Nunley <>; ;
Cc: <>; Rod Makers (E-mail)
<>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: Setting forms-need for precision?
> Bob,
> I agree with all you say, I adhere to the .001" spec myself. But... With
> the variability of cane, .001" is probably overkill. It is prudent to
> strive for the tightest reasonably achievable tolerance in order to keep
> variance to a minimum, and I think .001" is not that difficult to obtain.
> If I were to say that I plane my rods to within .0005", would mine be
> better?? More precise, maybe, could you tell the difference casting, I
> suspect not. I'll go out on a limb here, I think varaition between two
rods
> is more of a function of cane and its treatment than dimensions, assuming
a
> resonable tolerance of say .005".
> My point was of the original post was: if you are having problems
> achieveing .001", don't abandon rod making, perfectly good rods can be
built
> with much less tolerance, and they will just as good as anybodies if they
> cast nice. Just don't bank on making a twin.
> happy holidays
> tom
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bob Nunley <>
> To: <>; ;
> Cc: <>; Rod Makers (E-mail)
> <>
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 10:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Setting forms-need for precision?
>
>
> > > Of course we are kidding ourselves, old timers used to shoot for 1/64"
> > > (.015").
> > Tom,
> > True, but then again, why do we, as rodmakers, and other fishers and
> > collectors of cane say that "WE" are making better bamboo rods than have
> > ever been made? My opinion is because we do have tools, instruments and
> > knowledge that make it possible for us to make more precision fishing
> rods.
> > Notice that a lot of the "old timers" didn't put a line weight on their
> > rods? Reason "may" have been that with a 1/64th tolerance that they had
> NO
> > IDEA what they were going to turn out. BUT, measure SOME of the Old
> Timers
> > rods, like Lyle Dickerson, Payne, Gillum, and you'll find that not only
> are
> > their tolerances just as tight as ours, but in some cases, like
Dickerson,
> > I've seen rods that were DEAD ON, not only in dimension from flat to
flat,
> > but from station to station in like rods. The "Masters" among the old
> > timers did NOT settle for a 1/64th tolerance, they were definitely
> sticklers
> > for consistent rods
> > Still, going back to an earlier response of mine on this subject,
we,
> as
> > a group, tend to use a much higher percentage of cane that the "old
> timers"
> > and some of the contemporary master makers. Ask Glenn Brackett what his
> > cull rate is. Ask Bob Summers. Ask Ron Kusse. Ask T&T, Orvis and even
> > Partridge! I believe, in most cases, you'll find that none of these use
> > more than about half of the cane they buy, and some of them consider
> 30-35%
> > usable cane to be a good average. I know more than one who has sent
back
> or
> > thrown out entire bales because they did not meet their set standards.
I
> > know one that hasn't even started production yet (but will soon and has
> been
> > in the business in the past) that has a varmit fence off of his back
deck
> > made of bamboo that a lot of people would be happy to make rods from.
> Jerry
> > M. saw the fence, and heard me threaten to sneak back at night and steal
> it!
> > The "old timers" and "masters" were not near as tolerant of variations
in
> > power fiber density or outer appearance of the cane as "most" rodmakers
> are
> > today. I know a few guys that use almost every culm they buy. Then
> again,
> > I had a phone conversation the other day with someone that's very
> respected
> > in the rodmaking world where we discussed how nice it would be if we
could
> > buy a bale where even half of them met our standards...
> > Patrick points out in an email I recieved in the same batch as
yours,
> > that in the luthier industry, thickness in soundboards and backs on
> > instruments are changed according to grain of the wood. When you buy a
> good
> > aged spruce soundboard and highly flamed maple back for a violin, you
> could
> > pay as much for those two pieces of wood as many charge for a custom fly
> > rod... that's the wood alone! In that case, it's prudent to adjust
> > dimension to the material. In our case, a bale of cane, delivered,
> shipping
> > and all, cost about $24 a culm (going by an invoice I just paid to
> Demarest
> > this morning). We can afford to cull the material to get as consistent
a
> > material, and therefore as consistent a product, as possible. If we do
> this
> > properly, then dimension should remain the same, and the tolerance we
> build
> > buy should remain as tight as is possible to maintain that consistent
> > product. I'm sure Patrick will agree with me on this (both of us having
> > exprience in making violins), if I could find a stack of 20 soundboards
> that
> > ALL had 21 grains per inch, I wouldn't adjust the graduation (somewhat
> same
> > as a rod taper) of a soundboard from violin to violin... and if I could
> find
> > a bale of bamboo where the power fiber density was the same throughout,
> I'd
> > never throw away or burn a single stick of cane.
> >
> > Just my thoughts,
> > Bob
> > R.L. Nunley, Rodmaker
> > Custom Split Cane Flyrods
> > http://www.caneflyrod.com
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jill and Tom Ausfeld" <>
> > To: <>;
> > Cc: <>; "Rod Makers (E-mail)"
> > <>
> > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 8:35 AM
> > Subject: Re: Setting forms-need for precision?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > tom
> > > ---- Original Message -----
> > > From: <>
> > > To: <>
> > > Cc: <>; Rod Makers (E-mail)
> > > <>
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2001 9:21 AM
> > > Subject: Setting forms-need for precision?
> > >
> > >
> > > > That raises (at least for me) an interesting question: Given the
> > > variability
> > > > in the size, number and density of "powerfibers," are we kidding
> > > ourselves
> > > > with the need for 0.001" (0.01"?) precision in setting tapers?
> > > > dws.
> > > >
> > > > Harry Boyd wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Pete,
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, there is. Some would argue that a far more accurate
method
> > of
> > > > > setting forms involves using drill rods, dial calipers, and a
little
> > > > > mathematics. I think there is an excellent description on one of
> the
> > > list
> > > > > contributors websites -- perhaps Chris Bogart's site??
> > > > >
> > > > > Harry
> > > > >
> > > > > PS - A dial indicator with a 60* point can be fashioned
> > > inexpensively
> > > > > enough. Total cost should be less than $35 even if you buy the
base
> > > from
> > > > > Enco
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter Van Schaack wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Is there another way to set your forms gap other than using a
> depth
> > > gage?
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > -- Harry Boyd --
> > > > > http://www.canerods.com/ -- Bamboo Rods --
> > > > > http://www.fbcwin.com/ -- Our Church --
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>