|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
 |
|||
|
As I am currently off work recovering from a minor operation I have been bumming about (there's a clue to the operation!) making a few two 2 strip quads from the oddments in the garage. I have just glued one up, hot melted on a set of ferrules, taped on some snakes and guess what? The rod delaminated after lets say a few dozen casts. Now here's the question, I have built two strips before with no problems whatsoever and I have one that has been hard fished by a few kids this season with no trouble at all. The glue I have used on this last quad was within date and not old stock BUT what I did differently from my previous experiments was to place the guides on the sides that didn't contain the nodes and as such the glue line was not on the neutral axis of the rod. Hence when flexed the two strips WANTED to separate. What do you lot think is this the reason for the failure? The glue line being highly stressed because it wasn't on the neutral axis? (Paul Blakley) Please excuse my ignorance but I am assuming that a two strip quad is made of two nominally rectangular strips of cane glued to leave enamel surfaces top and bottom with one glue line nominally at the mid depth of the section? I don't follow the bit about nodes/guide spacing. I assume the nodes are staggered top and bottom along the length? Any way, to try and help with an answer rather than ask more questions! If the glue line is at mid depth and hence nominally on the neutral axis then this is actually the worst place as the complimentary shear stress (that the glue has to sustain) is at its maximum at the neutral axis. This is the opposite from the bending stress that reaches a maximum in the outermost fibers and zero at the neutral axis. The shear stress distribution is parabolic so in practical terms in remains fairly high within the middle third of the section so small variations in the depth to neutral axis should not make a lot of odds. A normal four strip quad does not of course have this problem as no glue lines are parallel to top and bottom faces. (Gary Marshall) I should however point out that despite the engineering accuracy of these comments it does not mean that 2 strip quads won't work, just that you need to use good glue! (Gary Marshall) To continue, and for those of you who have built and fished with them, which side do you chaps put the rings/guides on: a) On a side with a glue line in ? b) On a side without the glue line and containing the power fibers and nodes? (Paul Blakley) The guides should go on one of the sides without a glue line. I agree with Gary Marshall that the having the glue line in the neutral axis puts the greatest shear stress on the glue, but I've had no problems so far with a PMQ that's been fished pretty hard. What kind of glue did you use? (Robert Kope) I usually use resorcinol on my rods but in this instance I am using PVA. I have built my last two strip units with PVA, guides on the enameled sides and have had no failures despite the rods being 'hammered' this year by a couple of kids that have been demoing them. I'll replane the failed strips, rebond and place the guides back on the enameled sides before handing over to the 'testers'. (Paul Blakley) I believe PVA (Titebond II Extend) is a better rodbuilding glue than most makers think. It's also non Toxic. (Marty DeSapio)
A Poor man’s quad (PMQ) is a four sided rod that is made with only two strips of bamboo per section, not the usual four. This means that two opposing flats are enamel and the remaining two are the sides of these strips. That is what it is in a nutshell, but someone else who has more knowledge than I can expand if necessary. A four strip quad requires two sets of forms owing to the different angles on each apex of the strips. A PMQ only requires one set. Now that I think about it, probably much easier to run through a router set up, too. Anyone? (Carl DiNardo) This is what I plan on trying. I have done this to make straight tapers. Run a length of hardwood on edge through the planer attached to a same length of a 1X6. Shim the strip on edge to correspond with the straight taper you want. I have used several thickness of double sided tape for this. Run the strip through the planer high end first and start removing wood. Keep running it through till you have planed the full length. Remove the tape and tapered strip from the 1X6. The end that that was planed first will be the thick end of the bamboo strip. Attach the bamboo strip to the tapered strip with double sided tape and run it through the planer. I was trying this with rough beveling and it worked. It should work to make the PMQ with a straight taper. I may be all wet but I will find out soon as I plan on trying it next week. Will let you know if it is a winner or a tomato stake for next years tomatoes. (Tony Spezio)
I was quite surprised about this, as the math theory says they'll have far more power fibers than a hex rod, and should be close to equal with a 4 strip quad. I've never cast a PMQ, but I have cast a nice little 4 Strip Quad that Bob Maulucci made, and it certainly seems to me to be capable of a nice amount of power. It probably doesn't matter much for me in the long run if it's a slow soft rod or not, as I'd be using it as a small stream rod where I'd be unlikely to ever need to cast with more than 20-25 feet of line out the tiptop, I'm curious about the properties of the rod, however. So, my question for those of you who have made/cast PMQs, how do you feel they compare to hex rods and 4 strip quads, assuming same lengths, line weights, etc.? (Claude Freaner) My experience has been just the opposite, however it may be because I have built 7 foot or less rod lengths. I find the PMQ's are at least as powerful as a standard quad. The only real issue I find with them is that they are more difficult to straighten, and some, but not all, seem to not want to stay straight. If you build a heavy or longer rod, the % of pith in the butt will start going up. That may create a power issue, but I don't know that for sure. The only big one I have ever cast was a para 15 conversion. It didn't have as much punch as I thought it should, but then again, I'm not so sure an extreme parabolic taper is a good candidate for conversion. Everything changes when you change geometry. You have to build a few conversion sets to understand it. If you want a good taper to start with, go to the rodmakers site and bring up the PHY midge taper. Multiply the numbers by .95, and you will have a zippy little 4 weight quad. (Tom Smithwick) I was casting Robert Kope's 2 strip quad last week, and it seems every bit as powerful as any quadrate rod I have ever made. Maybe that says more about me than about the 2 strips, but I like them. (Bob Maulucci) I cast Tom Smithwick's PMQ at the SRG and I have to say it is one of the nicest casting bamboo rods I have cast. It was effortless to make a good cast and real smooth. I did not think it was soft at all. I came home with plans to make one but knee replacement has kept me out of the shop for a good while. It is time for me to start thinking about it again. Go for it, you will not be sorry. (Tony Spezio) I have made several rods to the same taper in conventional 4-strip quads and in 2-strip quads. As far as I and my friends can tell, the actions are identical. (Bill Fink) I've built only one, and have another under construction. I made mine rectangular in the tip, so I can't directly compare it to any other taper, but I don't think it is weak at all. The one I built is a 7' that I intended for a 4 wt, but it seems to like a 5 wt better. The only thing I'd be concerned about is if you build a larger rod, the pith in the butt could be a problem as Tom pointed out. The pith could cause a problems with both the stiffness and the durability of the rod. Because the entire center of the rod has lower density of fibers, it will be more prone to compression when the rod is flexed, which could result in a rod that feels limper. I'm actually more concerned about the durability since the center of the rod is where you have the greatest shear forces and that is where your only glue line is. I'm not an engineer, but it seems to me that when you get down to the butt of a larger rod, this glue line will be bonding pith to pith right where the shear forces are at their greatest. Other than that, make your strips very wide, and get them absolutely straight before you start planing. (Robert Kope) I am not an engineer either, but it occurs to me that, as the center line in a poor man's quad (the glue line) lies dead center in the casting plane, there would be no sheer forces whatsoever. All the forces of compression/tension occur on either side of a center line, increasing only as the outer walls are reached. I think the term "dead center" is apt, in that there are few if any forces at work there. (Bill Harms) Taper discussions are my favorite, I can't resist casting my line in on this one... The center line truly does experience no stresses whatsoever so long as the tensile and compressive strengths of the material in question are equal... this however, is not usually the case. For most woods the compressive strength is much less than its tensile strength, this causes the neutral axis to move away from the center line during bending and move toward the tensile side. Bamboo behaves in a similar fashion, its much stronger in tension than compression... test this for your self by taking a castoff section (I know none of you have those laying around, I'll send you a stick from my lifetime supply upon request) from the junk pile and bending it until it breaks, the outer surface of bending will break with the usual fibers sticking out but not before the inside of the bend gives way first and buckles (shows as a crease). Try it some time. I'm not an engineer either I just like to make fun of them. :) (Kyle Druey) I'm afraid I have to disagree a bit with you on this one. I do agree that the compression side will act more on the pith than the power fibers, moving the compressed power fibers a bit closer to the center line, but I also think that the pith on the tension side is going to be compressed toward the center line by the tension on the power fibers. A quick visual example of what I'm talking about would be to take your garden hose and slowly bend it - you can see the compression side move in, and you can also see the tension side collapsing toward the center as well. Without spending a whole lot of money on some really esoteric testing equipment, I suspect we'll never know for sure. Since I haven't won the lottery yet, guess it'll have to wait. <G> (Claude Freaner)
Or do I also need to use a multiplier of some sort since there's just two strips? (Joe West) You can just convert a hex taper to a quad and use that for a PMQ. There may be minor differences due to the 2-strip construction, but they're not enough to worry about. (Robert Kope)
Can anybody recommend a powerful 8 wt or greater quad taper that I can PMQ? Or should I just take a Nunley bonefish and Quad-ify it in Hexrod? (Joe West) Start with about an .080 or .090 tip and make a straight taper increasing about .009 or .010 every 6". Should be fast and able to pick up a sink tip or throw a long line. (Bob Maulucci) I think you mean .009 or .010 every 3". The .009/3" is the same as a Powell "B9" and the .010/3" would be faster than that. At .010/6", station 95 on a 96" (8 ft.) rod would be .090 + .010/6x95 = .248 - a real noodle! (Tom Bowden) That is .009 or .010 for the strip, not the rod. Sorry for the confusion, I am getting so used to working in strip sizes not blank sizes. It is exactly the Powell B9 formula. Think about it, .009 every 3" would be a broom. (Bob Maulucci)
This is from Wise Fisherman's Encyclopedia. I think it is a good basis for taper design. The full text is available on Reed's site. Fly and Spinning Rods ------------------------- Plug Casting Rods ------------------- The taper figures given above infer the rate at which the diameter changes per linear foot. Individual strips, of course, will measure but half this amount. A sense of proportion must be exercised in the design of any rod. For example, it would be utterly ridiculous to design a 7-foot fly rod with a tip much larger than 1/16" (.062) Suggested tip diameters for various fly rod lengths are: 7 foot - .060" These are given as beginning points, a tolerance of several thousandths of an inch either way being perfectly proper." (Bob Maulucci)
1. While PMQs require no planing form, they are actually much harder to make well as compared to hex rods. Your abilities as a woodworker and your manual dexterity are tested to a higher degree. 2. There are not 5 other strips to provide straightness and support. Therefore, your strips must be dead-@ss straight. Trying to straighten after glue-up is MUCH more difficult than with hex rods. Since straightening is really the most difficult, laborious, and time-consuming part of the process and the one that that requires the most experienced touch, this very fact may want to make you want to think twice before tackling this construction method if you are a beginner. 3. Truly using no planing form will almost certainly make a rod that has canted angles toward the tip. Build some kind of a form or jig as the weight of the plane seems to change the angle of the cut on the very flexible tip section. 4. Ferruling these things is a pain because they are usually rectangular. I don't own a 4-jaw independent chuck. You really need to have one, or you must cover the rod with tubing of some sort. That second option is only stopgap as it is really not that accurate. You also must broach/peen the ferrule on a piece of key stock or the rod itself. So, my conclusion is that while it is an interesting process that provides a fine rod, it is actually quite a bit more difficult to make a rod approaching perfection than 6-strip construction. Don't forget that most published info and tools are for hex only or MAYBE square quads, but rectangular quads leave you in a wasteland. If I had it to do over again, I'd have spent my time and energy making 2 hex rods. While my first two rods (which I shan't show the likes of you master craftsmen for fear of rebuke!) cast well, they do not approach perfection. Not that they should, though. Just my 2 cents, take it for what it is. (Joe West) Why is the PMQ rectangular and not square? I've never built a PMQ, but I have built many four-strip quads in both square and rectangular versions. I have always turned the ferrule stations by hand by rotating the blank and filing off the corners. It seems like that should work with a PMQ as well. I too have found the rectangular rods hard to straighten, although I am not sure why they are harder than a square quad. (Bill Lamberson) The particular taper I have is rectangular. No magic. I think the straightening might have to do something with the unequal stiffness in different planes. I did my first one by hand and it turned out better than the one I did on my lathe with 3-jaw chuck! Agree on that one! (Joe West) 1. Yup. Work slowly, check your strips early and often, both for taper dimension AND squareness as you plane them down. Eyeballing squareness does NOT cut it here. 2. Straighter is better, certainly. If you're binding the tip section for glue-up, hanging it with a good weight (5# or so) seems to result in a much straighter section. Tom Smithwick also has a no-binding method involving a piece of metal angle stock and a bunch of bulldog clips that also tends to leave the sections straighter after glue-up than they otherwise might be. His method is in the archives... 3. Tips are a bear. Again, checking your squareness early and often helps, but those thin sections do tend to squirm around under planing pressure. I have a feeling that a tip planing board with a shallow (~0.020" deep) groove in it, say 0.100 - 0.125" wide would serve to stabilize the thinnest section and keep things from getting too far out of hand. I've not tried this yet, but will let you know 4. I cut my ferrule stations by hand with nothing more than sandpaper. Seemed to work a treat. IMO, the "float" you have doing the ferrule station by hand compensates for a multitude of sins. I used 4-tab ferrules on my PMQ, and crowned and thinned, they laid right down w/o resorting to peening. Your mileage may vary, depending on what ferrule you use and how you want to prep it. So, my conclusion is that.. While I agree that it's tougher to approach "perfect" with a PMQ, you learn a lot in making one. It'll teach you to be careful in your work, that's for sure! If I had it to do over again, I'd have spent my time and energy making 2 hex rods. On the other hand, I feel the time I've spent making my first PMQ was well spent. No, the rod won't be a "looker," but that was never the goal. The goal was to learn technique and process in dealing with cane, while producing a serviceable rod. Practice with a purpose, as it were. I also submit that if one worked out their technique and process to the point where they were making a decent PMQ, they would be well down the learning curve toward producing a near perfect hex rod right out of the gate. My PMQ isn't quite there, but it's only s/n #1 (and still under construction). Next one will be much improved! (Todd Enders) Was that my rectangular taper? I must admit that the one PMQ I have finished is the sorriest looking rod I've done. Still, I feel it's nothing to be ashamed of. I took it to Grayrock 2 years ago and the FFF conclave in Idaho Falls last August. Joan Wulff even cast it. In my view, the casting characteristics of that rod more than make up for its cosmetic flaws. I do agree with most of your observations about the care and skill that PMQs require. I have not yet had to discard a single hex rod section I've made. I have completed only one PMQ and have 2 more that I just glued up (for the second time), and so far have about a 40% reject rate on PMQ rod sections. The plus side is the minimal tools required, and the time saving resulting from only having to deal with 2 strips for each rod section (if you can get past the QC problem). I planed out two 2/2 rods and glued up one of them last Sunday. Of course, they still need to be planed to width. My first PMQ I underestimated how wide the strips needed to be and had to discard the tips after they were glued up because they were not wide enough. On the first attempt at the two rods I'm working on I overcompensated and made the strips too wide. I have bound mine with a homemade Bellinger-style binder and the tip sections were something of a challenge because they would flop and jump going through the binder. Binding with string also puts nearly all the pressure laterally, parallel to the glue line and only presses the strips together at the edges. This resulted in tip sections that looked fine initially, but had bad glue lines when I planed off the sides. I think this was exacerbated by the PU glue I used which tended to foam and force the strips even farther apart in the center. My solution for this problem was to get some small diameter Delrin rod (3/8" and 1/4") and split it lengthwise with the bandsaw, then plane off the saw-marks on the inside. I placed half of the Delrin rod on either side of the rod section when I ran it through the binder. This makes the sections round or oval in cross-section as they go through the binder and puts all the pressure perpendicular to the glue line. The ones I did last Sunday have no visible glue lines. They're also quite a bit straighter than ones I've bound without the Delrin rods, though they're still a far cry from the straightness of a hex rod right out of the binder. (Robert Kope)
When I plane strips for a PMQ, I mark the stations on the rind side of the strips, and write the half-dimension of the rod next to the mark. This makes it quicker to check progress toward the final thickness than to be constantly referring to my notebook. This also makes it simple to correct for planing errors on the first strip. Anyway, here's the tip: if you overshoot the target thickness at a station on the first strip, you can just add the error to the thickness of the second strip, no harm, no foul. For example, if the final thickness of the rod at a station is 0.130, you are shooting for strips that are 0.065 at that station. If you plane too much off the first strip so it's 3 thousandths undersized (0.062), all you have to do is add the error to the other strip (make it 0.068), and there's no problem. It isn't going to make a bit of difference if the glue line goes exactly down the center of the rod or not. (Robert Kope) This is what I did on two PMQs, too. They both cast great (but are a little ugly, not anything having to do with the dimensions being off, but rather my general lack of skills). Can you (or any gurus) think that there might be any empirical difference in action in this situation vs. normal? Off axis bending??? Maybe not? (Joe West)
Consider the cross section of the rods. In a PMQ there are less power fibers found at the center of the 2 strips. In the 4 strip cross section, the apex of the 4 strips meet at the center and it would seem that the 4 strip quad would therefore have a higher concentration of power fibers. To take that an additional step, it would stand to reason that there would be differences in the characteristics of the rods. I don't have any experience with quads, so perhaps those that have build and cast both might have an opinion. Is my hypothesis correct? (Tim Wilhelm) Do you notice a bit of a spine in your PMQ's or do you try to make them a little on the flat side to compensate? What I'm getting at is that the occasionally ballyhooed Montagne rods are reported to feature a non-square cross-section. Couldn't the PMQ's duplicate this effect? (Jim Utzerath) I expected the things to be directional due to the asymmetrical distribution of power fiber. I never did any actual deflection tests, but it does not appear to be a big issue. I don't see why you could not play around with asymmetrical sections if you wanted to, but I would not start out that way. Basically, I agree with what Mike wrote on the topic, and agree that a hollow built real quad offers the serious advantage. I think of the PMQs as a quick and dirty rod and build them that way. On one of them I noticed that the sides were slightly concave. I figured out that I had glued with a water base glue, planed the sides while moisture was still present, and the sides shrank inward after the rod was built. That got me to thinking it was like hollowing the rod on the outside. I never pursued the idea, thinking that strength of the narrower pith material would be a problem, but the rod would be sort of like an I beam. (Tom Smithwick) Not to change the subject, but what do you gentlemen think of Per Brandin's assertion that the hollow hex is lightest of all. Look here. On those crazy PMQs why not just drill out holes from the pith to pith side. They could be Wiffle Rods. (Bob Maulucci) NO rod is the lightest of all, but that rod doesn't deliver in the casting department. As in the parabolic versus fast tapers controversy, we are interested in the work the rod design will perform. Even a 'light' hex section is relatively inefficient insofar as its ratio of work-performing flat area to neutral axis material, along for the ride, because the 'sides' of the hex go around the horn to get to the other side (and must do so, because the work-performing flats are of less width than the section depth, so this width and inefficiency are necessary, merely to keep the section from deflecting from the plane of bending). Moreover, 'light' is a blindness, and even an obstruction to natural objects, unless it is a discipline respecting the other, obligatory objects of design. The purported virtues of 'lightness' can never be taken alone to depict overall virtue. Neither the builder nor the user of a rod are truly interested merely in weight. We need so much stiffness to generate the acceleration we are after. You can't get that without mass; you can't exceed maximum permissible section depth per bending, because if you do, you exceed either (or both) maximum permissible tensile or compressive stress; and therefore you can only increase stiffness beyond maximum section depth per bending by increasing flat width in the work-performing flats. A quad is the first logical/practical step in solving the need for more performance. Rectangular provides the singular avenue for further performance, without limitation -- and is (by far) the highest-performing section design. Regular design objects therefore predicate AND REQUIRE a rectangular section; and of course, the ratio of work-performing flat area per neutral material is the greatest in the rectangular section -- so here as well you have the greatest efficiency (weight per work performed, or, if you prefer, 'lightness' [per desirable work]). In any tubular structure, a design which deploys *any* material to optimum advantage (weight per necessary service) deploys the material at optimum diameter and minimal permissible wall thickness. The maximum deployable diameter is limited to where, in the bending structure, maximum compressive or tensile stress are incurred. Thus, where we are deploying any material to maximum advantage, we are deploying it at maximum permissible section depth; and wherever, to achieve performance objects, it is necessary to increase flat width beyond the miniscule flats of the hex, to square and beyond, this makes the superhollow rectangular section the lightest -- as well as the singular solution for the further respects of the discipline. The superhollow rectangular section therefore will remain the most powerful and fastest recovering section in history, for all history to come, because it is physically impossible for the hex or generic quad to deliver its performance -- or to do so more efficiently (with purportedly less weight, per what?). (Mike Montagne) My rather extensive rodmaking work, in all geometries, hex, penta, quad and trirods leads me to be certain that on an equal-weight basis the penta is clearly superior. The trirod is not to be ruled out. Quads are always slower and need to be beefed up in the butt area to compare in quickness to pentas. But great rods can be made in all geometries. (Bill Fink) You are correct that the real quad has more power fibers, but the missing fibers in a PMQ are at the center of the rod as it flexes where they don't do much good. I am not sure about large scale PMQs, never having built one. The small PMQs that I and others have built seem to perform at least as well as their more distinguished cousins, in fact, I harbor an uneasy notion that they might actually be better casters. If so, it must be that the rods are lighter because of the less dense material at the center, and the power fibers being concentrated at the outer edges where they do the most good. These rods are what they are, they will never have the class of a real quad, but it's not because they don't cast. (Tom Smithwick) I don't remember the fellow's name who invented the PMQ, but back in the 80s he asked me what I thought about the concept before he built one -- no opinions, just engineering ramifications. Of course, I compared it to the rectangular section for him. Basically, the meanings of the differences are these. WEIGHT: Indeed, a PMQ may be ever so slightly lighter than a solid quad, because it loses the density of the power fibers in the side strips of the conventional quad. This difference will be most substantial in the lower butt sections, where it means less. In upper tips, where the effect would be greater, there is virtually no difference, because your dense fibers are extended so much toward the neutral axis. A dramatically hollow-built quad however (which is an assumable goal of a quad builder) will inherit a far more substantial weight (loss) advantage, because, for instance, it would be physically impossible to render supported hollow structures in the PMQ as light as my superhollow construction. In my hollow built construction, the entire central core of the rod is removed -- even through the ferrules and reelseat. * By far the greatest potential weight advantage therefore goes to the superhollow quad; and therefore a PMQ may show a negligible, relatively meaningless weight advantage only over an equivalently tapered solid quad. Whether this miniscule potential advantage even exists however, will depend much on the success of the builder; and laying out any proof to a claimed advantage, because the purported advantage is so dubious and contingent, will be a suspect affair -- silly as the story of the King's Robe, while entirely ignoring the far greater advantages of hollow construction. STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY: The structural integrity of the PMQ and conventional quad will be approximately equal. The neutral axis, which moves across the plane where the PMQ is glued together, incurs very little stress. The neutral axis, being defined as a region where tension and compression are not incurred (although there must be shear to either side then), naturally moves across from forward to backward sides in any material which does not have equal tensile and compressive strength and reaction to stress. So there is some stress on the PMQ glue lines and pithier material of the central cross-section, but this should be of little consequence. The greatest shear stress is where the greatest differentials between tensile and compressive stress in adjacent regions are engendered. Depending on material and construction, this may be anywhere in a section. The greatest tensile and compressive stress however are always incurred at the forward and backward extremes of the casting plane. The greatest potential stress therefore is in the outer corners. Here, providing best gluing techniques are deployed, the conventional quad may enjoy a small advantage in both the reinforcement of the outer corners by the glue, and in further strength added by the power fibers of the adjacent side strips. Here, we must recognize this advantage may never be a meaningful factor, if PMQs do not exhibit a tendency to come apart in the corners, particularly after a great many repeated cycles of reversing stress. My experience with quads and the gluing methods I used demonstrated perfect reliability over severe use, including extended use on British Columbia steelhead, with fast sinking lines and huge wet flies cast at long distance. * Particularly because the heavier fibers of the cane may serve somewhat to reinforce the corners of the PMQ, perhaps there is no issue here. But we know how seasoned cane can tend to split, particularly after some damage; and some of us may elect therefore to prefer to reinforce the corners with the glue lines of the conventional quad. Of course, alternative methods may be deployed to reinforce the corners of the PMQ, but, if this entails impregnation, there will be considerable cost to the assumed weight advantage over only the solid quad, with a possible result being that the remainder of the pithier areas, picking up the impregnation possibly to an even greater degree, consume more weight than the assumed advantage over the conventional quad. CASTING Other than the virtually negligible weight advantage a PMQ may have over a solid quad, there is no reason whatever to assume a PMQ casts better. After all, this is the only real difference in the rod, and, after gluing, depending on glue consumption, the difference may not even exist over a conventional, solid quad. Particularly as, in the PMQ, we are cementing the rod together across the less dense material of the inner pith, who knows, we might even more than pick up the weight difference we have assumed we have lost there, in additional glue penetrating the porous central material of the section. Additionally, the PMQ suffers some minor disadvantage in concentration of power fibers in the corners, where the greatest contribution to stiffness is made. Obviously, this is a detriment to performance. MEETING DESIGN OBJECTS If weight loss were a bona fide object of PMQ construction, the builder has eliminated the much greater advantages of superhollow construction from their horizon. Usually, a whole separate set of tools and skills will be necessary to restore that prospect when the builder finally recognizes that superhollow construction vastly multiplies the efficiency of the quad, further separating it from conventional hex construction. So the builder who embarks in the PMQ direction will obstruct their achievement of far more meaningful weight advantages to be achieved by hollow building techniques, at the cost of retooling for truly superior (and demonstrable) weight advantages. If weight loss is an intended advantage then, why limit the potential advantage to the negligible potentials of PMQ applications? (Mike Montagne)
I soaked the strips for a few days, straightened them out tonight, rough tapered them into some slightly oversize rectangles, and bound them together. Then I went to throw them in my oven to dry them out and heat treat them. Small problem. My mica oven is only 5 feet long (the rod is 6 feet). I swore I built the oven 6 feet long for this very purpose - NOT the Case. What's the best way for me to heat treat these strips? I don't want to go to any expense making a new type of oven. I guess I could poke a hole in the insulation of my oven and cook half of length at a time. Maybe someone has a better suggestion though. (Aaron Gaffney) The old fashioned way--- A piece of iron pipe, threaded on the ends, capped with pipe caps with a hole in each, hang with wire loops, put the strips inside, cap and heat with a propane torch while turning the pipe in the wire loops. You are done when no more steam comes out of the little holes. (Steve Weiss) I recently got some black steel pipe from Home Depot for some woodworking pipe clamps. They were covered inside and out with some smelly oil-solvent mix, I suppose to prevent rust. Make sure to scrub them with a detergent or degreaser first. Also, just a thought, the bottom 10 inches or so will be covered with reel seat and grip. Maybe do your regular heat treatment but with the butt end sticking out and then hit the butt end with a heat gun for a few minutes. (Joe Handwerker) I've been told, by people who seem to know, that if you flame, you don't need to heat treat. I tried it once as an experiment. Made 2 rods as nearly identical as possible from the same culm and only heat treated one beyond the flaming. No difference I can tell, both cast the same, no sets etc. For what it's worth. (Neil Savage)
For spinning rods use 0.022"/5" of travel along the length. (Don Anderson) |
|||
