rofish

I wonder if we sometimes are unconsciously developing theories based on some bad dreams we've had in the past. I can tell you that there is not a single type of minnow in the area I fish, that has developed a kill spot. Apart trout which has a lot of spots (but you would not call them "kill spots", I think), there are no such small fish here. Some of the fish would develop several spots but this happens only during the mating season (the european chub, for instance). So the theory developped by Vodkaman is right, I think. In fact, his theory is the most logical of all. But we are already used to that. I think lurebuilders shoud not concentrate on kill spots, but rather on action, color mix, depth, etc. So why is still the kill spot a problem for debate? I think this happens only because in the US waters there are some minnows with a kill spot and the lurebuilders try to copy them. If so, I would understand the fact that lurebuilders in the US make some minnow lures with a kill spot. But would they put a kill spot on a catfish-like lure? Finally, I think that the most important think for a lurebuilder is that he has confidence in his lures, no matter if they have a kill spot or not.

76gator, If the lure spirals when burned, there are 2 usual culprits for this phenomenon: 1) The lip is not symetrical, as in Mark's example, and you have to proceed as he did 2) The lip looks symetrical, but has a slight angle to a side. Sometimes this cannot even be seen if you look at the lure, but the testing of the lure will tell you if the angle is good or not. In this case you have to shave the lip at one side. The action of the lure will improve, the lure will have perhaps an erratic action, but there is no guarantee that it will not spiral if burned. There are 2 variables which affect the solving of this problem: a) the surface of the lip compared to the lure. With a smaller lip, you will be able to easier solve the problem. What matters here is the ratio between the surface of the lip and the volume and length of the lure. the angle of the lip towards one side. If the angle is barely visible or not visible at all, your chances to make the lure run straight are better. If the angle to one side is very big, you simply have to change the lip, because you will not be able to solve the problem by shaving the lip. Also put the lure in a bucket of water or something similar and look at it when the water is still. Does the lure have an angle to one side? Because if it has, this may be the 3rd culprit for an anwanted action (the lure has a problem with weight placement).

Here is my way of adding bb's. When the lure is square, I drill all the necessary holes for wire eyes and lead, also the lip slot and, in this case the hole for the rattle. Best thing to use is a drill press, but with a little exercise I can drill the hole for the rattle with a hand cord drill. The hole for the rattle is placed towards the tail: http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k5/rofish_2006/rofish_2006-4/bb-howto001.jpg Then I shape the blank, and I introduce in the hole for the rattle a small piece of brass tube which fits tight in the hole. If the thickness of the wood I use is 14 mm, the length of the metal tube will be 8 mm, so as to leave 3 mm on each side of the lure. http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k5/rofish_2006/rofish_2006-4/bb-howto002.jpg I make a dowel from the same type of wood as the lure, sanding flat one end, and also sanding the end in a conical shape. The end of the dowel will be good for me when the dowel goes into the hole for 3 mm, and cannot go further, because its conical shape. Then I superglue a piece of thin metal sheet at the end of the dowel (which is sanded, for a better grip of the glue: http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k5/rofish_2006/rofish_2006-4/bb-howto003.jpg Using regular scissors, I cut off the excess sheet, then I use a file to finish the work: http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k5/rofish_2006/rofish_2006-4/bb-howto004.jpg Then I put some superglue all around the end of the dowel, making sure that the glue does not reach the surface of the metal sheet, then I press the dowel into the hole. http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k5/rofish_2006/rofish_2006-4/bb-howto005.jpg After a while, I take my fretsaw, which I own from the time I was a child, and cut off the dowel, making several cuts from the outside to the center of the dowel: http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k5/rofish_2006/rofish_2006-4/bb-howto006.jpg Then I introduce a BB in the brass tube, and I repeat the operation at the other end of the hole. I make sure than the dowel is in an upper position against the bb, so as the bb will stay at the other end of the hole, in case some superglue would reach the brass tube: http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k5/rofish_2006/rofish_2006-4/bb-howto007.jpg Then I sand: http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k5/rofish_2006/rofish_2006-4/bb-howto008.jpg Usually, I also use some epoxy putty over the dowel for a better smoothing of the surface. If you use a very hard wood, the metal tube is not really necessary. But here I used a soft and light wood. That's all, falks.

Mark, They say that when the US sneezes, Europe gets a cold. Or we imported something we wouldn't like to. So I back up your wishes for the next year. Merry Christmas to all.

In my experience only self adhesive foil will cause you problems because the glue which is applied to it is not solvent resistant. If you use plain foil and contact glue you will be able to put a coat of solvent thinned epoxy clearcoat on top of it without fear about the foil lifting. I sometimes use propionate solution on top of the foil, but propionate does not adhere very well to metal. In my case the propionate adheres to the thin paper which is glued onto the foil, and this is a very strong bond.

I think the problem of finding the right eyes is linked mostly to the problem of who is going to fish the crankbaits, you or some other guys. If you are the one who is going to fish the lures, then you can save your money and make the crankbaits without eyes at all. The fish wouldn't care, or they might even be more interested in a blind minnow than in a normal one. If you intend to give your lures to others, then you don't have to make things more complicated thant they already are. Mother nature has given very small eyes to some fish, and very big to some others. So I agree with what it was already said before, that what you like best is the best for a certain lure.

paulsvolks75, I think you did not get too many answers to your question. But look what marvels the search function of this forum is capable of (and these are only threads with "lure holder" in the title: Tackleunderground - Search Results

I also totally agree with what Palmetto says. If someone will choose a vague thread title, he may have less chances to get the answers he expects, but also he may have problems later, when he would like to review the thread, using the search function. But I would like to go deeper into the problem, and try to guess why this is happening. I think that there are not (too many) long time TU members doing this. Usually such

I fish with the inline spinners and minnows I make, mostly with inline spinners. My personal "best" was 10 spinners lost in a single fishing day. It was a very windy day with the wind changing direction in seconds, and my lures landed mostly in the bushes on the opposite side of the river, or in trees.

Mountain Man, I've played around with the picture in post 5. I hope you can recognize it. If you like it or not, that's another matter:

Westy, I remember that Palmetto Balsa has discovered that if he shoots thin propionate solution over the paint, in small quantities, leaving enough curing time between coats, the acetone in the propionate solution will not react with the paint. I haven't tried it yet (since I do not have an airbrush ) so I think he is the one who can answer all your questions.

V-man, I guess I forgot to say, that I was speaking about the first coat of propionate. But you have understood it the right way. I could add that I made the same experiment after half an hour from dipping the blank into the solulion, and the propionate still sprang out of the lure when it was exposed to high heat. In fact, I believe that heat is the only solution to cure a blank which was completely soaked in propionate solution. Otherwise, there will be traces of solvent inside the lure, even if you leave it to cure for a month. So I try to warm my blanks before sealing them, knowing that the lure can withstand higher pressure from outside then it can from the inside (remember when we discussed about pressures in submarines and airplains?) So if you leave your crankbait in the sun, it will have better chances to survive in case the blank was sealed at a higher temperature.

Palmetto B, Thanks. Sometimes when I reread my posts, I can find some mistakes. Perhaps they represent about 20% of the total you can find? Nevertheless, I think the ideas behind the words can be understood. rhahn427, I use a thinner which is meant for "nitrocellulosic products". The label also indicates it's components: toluene, acetone and butyl acetate, but says nothing about proportions. You said you've made a device on the lid and it contains a gasket. That gasket has to be solvent resistant, I think you know this. Now let me tell you something else, because I see you intend to soak the blanks. I know of 3 ways to accomplish a deep penetration of the wood: 1) This happened to a friend of mine (pikeman, also on this site). He left the blank in the jar with the propionate solution, and forgot about it (he went away from home for a week). When he came back, he found the blank on the bottom of the jar, which means that the wood was completely soaked in solution. 2) Palmetto Balsa has developped a way of deep penetration of the wood by using a vacuum device. There is a thead somewhere here where he explains in detail what he has done and what he has found out. Maybe you can find this thread, because there are some very interesting things to read there. 3) I thought about using heat for deep penetration of wood. I put the blanks in the oven, and when they were almost hot, I soaked them in propionate for about 2-3 minutes. But I had a theory about this soaking process, which I had to prove to myself, and I think I did. After submerging the hot blank into the solution (using pliers on a wire eye tie) I let them hang on an S wire. The surface dried off quickly, in less than a minute, because the blank still had a higher temperature than the room's temperature. After about 10 minutes, I put the lure back into the oven. What do you think it happened next? Propionate solution sprang out of the blank in places. I do not recommend my method to anyone, because of the risk of an explosion. I was very careful, I turned off the gas fire before putting the soaked lures back in the oven, then after some minutes I opened the door of the oven, so that the accumulated solvent vapors there could escape out, then repeated the process, but still, there is a risk. Anyway, the fact that the propionate solution came out of the lure when using heat, had a meaning for me: perhaps only heat can take out the unnecessary wet solution of propionate which is deep inside the wood. Soaking completely the blank in solution has, in my oppinion, 2 major desadvantages: - it makes the lure heavier - the trapped solvent inside the lure can cause problems afterwards, when the lure is exposed to different temperatures My theory was that since the lure starts to dry off from the outside to the inside, the cured layer at the outside will prevent the solution deep inside the lure to cure. After all, we are talking about a sealer here, don't we? So even if you will let the lure cure for a week at room's temperature, the wet solution inside the lure cannot cure. The wood is not a homogenous material, so in some places the solution will go deeper than in others. Still, I do not want anymore my crankbaits to be fully loaded with propionate solution. Now I only warm the blank before the dipping, then put again the blank at the same temperature (or higher). This is also less time consuming. I think you have now enough information to start working with this stuff.

Vodkaman, Unfortunately, I can show you only crankbaits made with the printing foil technique. Here they are: 1) This one has about 18-20 layers of propionate solution as clearcoat http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k5/rofish_2006/rofish_2006-4/crank1-prop.jpg 2) This one has a single coat of Devcon 2 ton http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k5/rofish_2006/rofish_2006-4/crank2-D2T.jpg 3) And finally a small thing with a layer of thinned Devcon 2T on top of which I added about 9-10 layers of propionate http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k5/rofish_2006/rofish_2006-4/crank3-D2Tprop.jpg I think you can notice the following facts: 1) If I use only propionate on top of the printed picture, the foil doesn't want to show too much through the printed image 2) Same happens if I use a coat of straight Devcon 2T. It is perfect to level out the surface, but you would not be able to see that I have used a foil with a pattern on it. 3) If I thin the epoxy, the foil will show up through the image, and will remain so, even after applying about 10 layers of propionate afterwards. The foil also shows up beautifully if I use only propionate solution, but this will last less than a minute (while it is still very wet).

Well, I think just the other way round. If as a sealer, the propionate coat can be overpainted in 48 hours, without any subsequent damage to the paint, even if the propionate will still continue to cure for about a month, then the more sure you can be about the propionate as a clearcoat, because there is nothing on top of it, so it can damage nothing. You just go fishing your lures after 48 hours from your last layer of propionate as clearcoat, and the clearcoat will continue to cure in your tackle box, as long as it likes to. I must admit that you have a good point about Vodkaman. Well, you know him better ...

rhahn427, I think all you need is some courage to make the solution. I had never measured the required proportion between the 2 components. Even the first time in my life that I made the solution, I put 3 teaspoons of propionate pellets in a jar of about 250 ml ( 8.45 fl.oz.), then filled it about 60% with solvent, and after complete dissolving (2-3 days) I tried the solution with a scrap piece of wood, to see how fast the drops fall off the wood. As the first layer of solution penetrates the wood, maybe the best feeling of how fast the drops fall off the lure can be attained after 2-3 layers. If needed, I added some more solvent. You have to bear in mind that after using the solution for several lures, the solvent will partially evaporate, and this will make the solution thicker. Practically each time you unscrew the lid of the jar, the solution will become thicker. You may be very scientific when you prepare the solution, and ways can be found to come up with the right quantities without the help of a digital scale ( I admire Vodkaman because he can always find a practical solution to a problem). But then, as you use the propionate solution which will become thicker, you will need to add solvent to it. How much will you add? I think that not even Vodkaman will be able to help you with this. In other words, you may start preparing your solution in a very scientifical way, but then you will need to be an artist to correct its viscosity. I would suggest you the following: 1) First step is to find the right jar for you, and this depends on the maximum length of the lures you intend to make. The jar has to be about 15-25% taller than the length of the lures. 2) Divide the capacity of the jar in 2 (as per volume, so in fl.oz.). Put 3 teaspoons of propionate pellets for each 4 fl. oz. of that half capacity of the jar. For instance, if the jar has a capacity of 16 fl.oz., you will need 6 teaspoons of pellets and 8 fl.oz. of solvent. 3) Let the mixture dissolve for some days, shaking the jar occasionally. I do not stir the solution with a stick or teaspoon, because I do not want to unscrew the lid of the jar. Depending on the solvent you use, the complete dissolving happens between 2 and 7 days (it also depends on how often you stir in, or shake the jar). Acetone is great to dissolve propionate pellets, but I don

Hazmail, I remember that a wise man said once that he tries the epoxy first, before applying it on baits, or something like that. He would put some on different materials, to see how how strong the epoxy was. Why don't you put some epoxy on mylar and on different types of foil, to see how strong is the bond between epoxy and mylar? I might guess that epoxy does not bond too well to mylar. But there are also some other reasons why I do not like to use mylar instead of foil.

I think this way you can easily open the images. I transformed the PSD images in JPEG images. And now they match together. One more thing: this is a new image I created, not tried it yet, so I hope the proportions between the image and the template are right (for 14 mm thick wood). And here is a photofinish belly without any paint on it. I simply cannot understand how LooksLikeSimbad could make the same thing from the second attempt. It took me some years to do so.

There are infinite possibilities to modify a picture in photoshop - color, size, contrast etc To compress the image size you go image/image size, then you chose not to constrain proportions for width/height, and then you introduce the new values for width and height. How much you will reduce them depends mainly on how thick the lure will be ( to compensate for the roundness of the lure). For instance, I usually reduce both width and height by 8%, then I reduce again the height by another 20%. But the new width and height depend on other things too. So you have to make several trials. After reducing the width and height, I print the image (I only need the outline of it, so I can type the name of the fish in the middle), glue it on soft metal sheet, cut it out, file/sand the edge, and this is how I make the stencil for the respective fish photo ( to trace the outline of the lure on the wood). Here is an example. I hope the pictures will not be automatically resized: Sorry, these 2 won't go together. I just reduced the 2 images, to be accepted by TU. But they are not proportional. Anyway, I guess you have an adeea about how to proceed. This is just a little thing you can do with photoshop. I would like that LooksLikeSinbad could tell us how he created that beautiful image.

Perfect images and perfect lures. How long did you say you've been in the business? Just tell us pls. what clear is there on those lures. Looks very nice.

I happened to discover a matte finish on some of my lures after using propionate + acetone in a thick solution which was left for months in a jar. Problem is, that the finish is not only matte, it is milky as well.