Mark, oh Mark,
Thank you for completing the resposnses as promised.
If you go back and re-read your own postings, (as I have done several times) from the very beginning of this thread, you will notice:
1) a gradual shifting of your insistence from downward forces towards a combination of forward movement with downward late emphasis. Nothing wrong with that latter motion-- I never said there was (you wrongly assumed I did). Maybe that's the way threads evolve, but I'm pretty sure its not the scientific method. I suggest stating a thesis clearly, narrowly defined, with a minimum number of variables, well defined terms, and sharp focus thereafter.
2) a tendency to utilize what I will call "selective viewing" (of presented video "evidence"), similar to the selective hearing (balance of coment deleted prior to posting)
3) Deleted, with apologies to all, Mark especially. Knee jerk reaction. Not wise.
4) no evidence that your interpretation of Center Mass as applied here is getting any traction. I couldn't help but notice the head length in your diagrams is only slightly longer than the rod; i.e. unrealistic. Since the center mass is not instanly present at the moment of infuence, only the front portion of a "ass heavy" head will be affected by the rotation forces you describe, and it will likely fail to function at all on long heads/lines.
5) you never answered the question as to why a tennis ball, but not a fly line could be directed into multiple paths from an identical set-up. It would seem critically important to resolve such apparent inconsistencies, yet you somehow breeze right by them. Hint: it has to do with the tennis ball being a compact solid object as opposed to a long flexible one, presenting itself in the time and position of release quite differently, not to mention their behavioral differences in relation to a short tether such as overhang.
6) very early responses by others sugessted the anchor played a vital role in the success of this rotational movement, perhaps you missed that one (Idid initially)--too bad.
7) my citing of action/reaction principles as a primary factor in the rising rear portion of the front loop recieved the same subtle dismissal, much like your failure to explain the hump in the lower leg of the D loop in Tellis' video. (Al Buhr has excellent text and photos depicting this in his book).
8) your insistence on a "fixed pivot", "pulling the rod down rotates the overhang", and "dragging the rod tip down is the most effective way to move the CM forward" are all still unproven at this point. (IMO).
I have verified to my personal satisfaction in my "lawn experiment" that excessive downward force negatively effects forward travel. Perhaps you could take the time to verify this for yourself.
In summation, though it was an interesting discussion, and I learned some things I hadn't previously known, it was less rewarding than I'd hoped-- perhaps you feel that way too, albeit for different reasons. If, in the future, you refine the nut of your argument into something genuinly novel, please share it. You previously hinted that it was the description, not the technique that was new, that may be as good as it gets.
I posted (on the other site), a very brief description of the actual effects of the motion as I see them (without referring to you).You may wish to read it, if only for clarification of my opinion on this topic, since I had never previously offered it. You'll be able to locate it easily, having perused the thread previously.
I'm hoping to leave the table peaceably here, hoping you can do the same. If you think you'be been "punched" again here, so be it. I can't control your response, but will certainly be held responsible for mine. If we interact in the future, it will be to our mutual benefit to establish and follow certain groundrules...
With a polite, firm handshake, and a diffent perception,
Greg