ELASTICITY OF RODS. 37 



should droop very little from the straight line. 

 To render this somewhat less indefinite, I subjoin 

 two figures. 



Fig. 2. Fi?. 1. 



R 



Scale 1-lOth of an inch to the foot. 



A to B (salmon rod) 18 E to F (trout rod) ..14 3i 



BtoC 1 5 FtoG 1 6 



B to D o 10^ F to H 5 4 



In Figure 1, ab is supposed to be my eighteen 

 foot four-jointed salmon-rod, straight ; when held 

 at the but horizontally, as Mr. Ronalds says, it 

 will, of its own weight assume the line a c, the 

 point c diverging seventeen inches from the 

 straight line, or the height at which a is held. 

 And I find on attaching to the point b a half 

 pou7id weight, it will bring it down, as a d, to d, 

 which is five feet ten inches and a half out of the 

 straight line. 



In Figure 2, e f is my fourteen feet three 

 inches and a half three-jointed trout-rod, straight. 

 It droops eighteen inches, as to g, of its own 

 weight ; and to h, equal to five feet four inches, 

 by a quarter of a pound weight attached at the 

 point, having, therefore, little more than half the 

 elastic strength of the salmon-rod. These two 

 facts may be perhaps some guide as to a 



