rofish

Please explain something to me. Some mention a pressure of 10 psi at which shooting is possible. The pressure at sea level is 1 atm. which is equal to 14.696 psi. If you have a pressure of 10 psi in your air tank, this means that the atmospheric pressure is higher than the pressure in your tank. How can you shoot in such a situation? I don't have an airbrush, so I do not know much about such a tool, but I want to learn, to be prepared if I will ever have one. But some things seem curious to me.

My question is purely a theoretical one, the answer to witch having no chances to be ever tested effectively. Let

Vman, you convinced me, so I agree. A small mention, though. I think the depth at which the trolling crankbait reaches a balance also depends on the speed of the boat. But I cannot imagine how the speed does that.

Vman, I did not know that the pressure in an airplane is the one which you normally have at 10 000 ft. That explains the problems with the ears. Your explanation is very logical.

I think you are perfectly right with your balloons examples. And the airplane example is the same example as a submarine. The difference is that in the case of a submarine, the pressure is applied from outside to the wall, while in an airplane flying high in the sky the pressure is from inside out. Both submarine and airplane preserve the pressure that humans are used to. This is not exactly right, since you sometimes feel your ears sore in an airplane. But your ears would feel a very light change in the pressure of the surrounding air. Something similar happens with crankbaits deep under the water. What I was saying is that from 8 or 6 atm to 1 atm (the pressure at sea level) there is a much higher difference compared to the difference from 1 atm. to 0 atm (maximum lack of pressure that you could obtain in a jar, using some vacuum devices). I think you could not get 0 atm with usual vacuum devices. Moreover, a crankbait's topcoat can withstand high pressure mainly because it leans on the wood (the deeper the crankbait is supposed to run, the strongest the wood should be), while with your test (pressure from inside out) the topcoat would lean on nothing.

Senkoman85, You think that air would shrink in a plastic hollow crankbait. Does air shrink in a submarine? The pressure of the water is applied to the wall of the crankbait or submarine, not to the air inside them. And yes, plastic crankbaits can implode at high pressure, because their walls are plastic, not steel. About your study. Do you think that if you reverse the conditions (from 8 atm. instead of 1 atm, compared with 0 atm instead of 1 atm. the results could be compared? Not mentioning that it may be difficult to reach 0 atm. in a jar. I would think twice before I would make such a test.

Theflyingplatypus, With all the input you have, I think you do not know what to believe. Let me answer your question first. A crankbait wobbles (or wiggles?) from side to side. The imaginary lines which show the head to tail lines when the lure is maximum to the left and maximum to the right, form an

To be practical: If you want your crankbaits to go very deep, it means you do not fish on a river, but on a lake. Best fishing on a lake is from a boat. If you get your crankbait hooked on a stone, tree or something else deep into the water, and you do not want to loose it, you will position your boat above the lure, and with a device specially designed for it, you will get back your lure. I remember 2 drawings which were posted by Palmetto Balsa not long ago (don't know how to find them) showing a man holding a weight in each hand. In the first one he kept the weights in his extended arms, and in the second the arms with the weights were kept against his chest. When I speak about heavily weighted crankbaits, I mean that the weight should be placed at the point where the 2 lines of the "X" meet. This would be the point where the weight would have little effect on the action. The weight should be, I think, like a cone, more to the belly and less to the back. What is really necessary to be determined is how much depth you win with such a crankbait, compared to the loss of the action. I repeat, I do not make sinking crankbaits. When I made a few by mistake (small ones, easy to go wrong with them) I found out that they go much deeper than I need for my river fishing, and eventually I lost them. I think that if sinking crankbaits would not have a good action, nobody would buy them.

It happened again. I forgot to mention something. If you have a sinking crankbait designed to run deep, you cast your bait, then wait until it reaches the bottom (or nearly, if your count down is correct), and then your lure would swim in deep water with an upward attitude. Such a lure would be closer to the bottom for a longer distance, compared to a floating one, which has first to go deeper and only afterwards it would swim upwards.

Clamboni, I totally agree ...... up to your last words. A heavily weighted crankbait would still be "X"ing at higher depth, even if not so fast, because it still has a lip which was designed to give the lure that action.

If disagreement would mean that we cannot be friends anymore, I would retract my words. I think I forgot to mention something. When I speak about a sinking crankbait as opposed to a floating one, I mean fast sinking crankbait. Not really made out of lead, but a heavy one. If a heavy weighted crankbait would have a different action compared to the same crankbait made in a floating version, that's a totally different matter.

Vman, I also think the way you do (about my second question). I am sure that you will never be able to run a slow sinking crankbait at the depth where this crankbait is supposed to become a floating one (or let's say a neutral buoyancy one) because long before this would become possible, the line would move the crankbait upwards, (or it would not allow it to go deeper) because the other end of the line is well above the crankbait. As to the floating vs. sinking crankbaits, I think that the same crankbait would be able to go deeper by 30-40% in case you transform the crankbait from a floating one into a sinking one. This is only my guess, not something I have tested yet.

I do not know much about deep divers, because I do not make or buy them. But I have a few questions about. 1. Why do we need to always think about floating crankbaits that we want to push deeper into the water, since you can easier achieve that with a sinking one? Is there some kind of competition that I cannot think about? 2. (More theoretical this one, so more need for Vman's help). How deep into the water must a sinking crankbait dive, before it turns into a floating one ? (at that depth). At least that is what I think. A slow sinking crankbait would sink until it reaches deeper water with higher pressure, which would transform the sinking crankbait into a floating one. Are my assumptions incorrect?

Imagine a balsa crankbait which you could fit tight in a steel sheet envelope. Would the air inside the wood be compressed? Or imagine a mini submarine with people on bord, which could dive to big depth. Are people inside the submarine affected by the great pressure of the ocean at such depth? I think that a crankbait running at considerable depth would be affected by the pressure (would shrink) only it the topcoat allows it. And that depends also on how strong the wood is.

Rookie, how does your voice sound like?

Thanks for the straight help from a straight guy... If I get it right, you think that splitting the advisory/consultancy expenses would be good for all of us? But you know what they say, tons of information on TU, about any question you may ask. Maybe you, me and others do not know how to use the search function?

I also thank you for the information, Palmetto. Things are clearer in my mind as far as this wood is concerned. Think I begin to like it more. But I don't think you should consider a nickname change, as Vman suggested (). We are all very used to the the one you have now. For those who like rattles in their crankbaits: if my hearing is good, I think that a rattle is noisier in Paulownia wood, than in other types of wood.

I myself would like to see if I am any good at making jointed crankbaits or swimbaits. I already did the first stages which were mentioned here - drawings, types of connections between segments, etc. I surely want myself to go through the trial and error method, but at the same time I try to avoid possible mistakes that I could make, if I could learn from the experience of others. For the moment, I have a specific question, which refers to weighting. Do I need to weigh each segment of a swimbait? My first impression would be that I need to do so, to avoid difference in buoyancy of different segments. But how am I going to do that?

I heard of a saying, going like this: A man cannot meet all the women in this world, but he is supposed to try...

Fatfingers, I like the fact that you do not doubt the sanity of TU luremakers, who spend more money to build their lures, than they would spend if they would just buy them.

Yake Bait, I remember a technique I used years ago when I was making my floats out of cork wood. I pressed a sewing needle at one end of the cork, until the needle was more than half into the length of the cork, then I repeated the operation at the other end of the cork, and in 99% of the cases, the second hole would meet the first one. So at boths ends of the cork, the hole was where I wanted it to be. I think the same technique could be applied to make the hole from one end to another of a crankbait. If you start the through hole at both ends, the possible deviation of the drill bit would be reduced by half. I presume you make the hole while the crankbait is in the "square" stage, because it is easier that way.

BobP I'll tell you why I don't want to rotate my baits for this long: it's because the electrical motor would get hot. I bought it as a second hand one (the only possibility for a new one seems to be to buy a microwave oven and take the motor out of it). So I don't know if a microwave electrical motor would normally get hot after an hour, or there is something wrong with the motor I have. What about thinning the epoxy with alcohol?

I think there might be a strong reason to thin the epoxy before brushing it on a lure. I speak for those using the printing foil technique. I have discovered that if you thin the the first layer of epoxy, the foil will show itself through the printed image. If you do not thin it, or if you use propionate solution, this will not happen. After the first layer of thinned epoxy, you can add layers of other clearcoats, including unthinned epoxy, and you can still see the reflectiveness of the foil. I add 10 - 12 drops of thinner (with a pipette) to prepare the necessary quantity for 2 baits, about 2 1/2 inches long. The picture shows 2 lures which were first coated with thinned Devcon 2T, then with 8 layers of propionate solution. BopP, I am very surprised to see that you rotate your baits for at least an hour with unthinned Devcon, and 2-3 hours if you thin it. The Devcon 2T I have, would not be good to brush it on a bait after about 10-12 min. from mixing (it hardens very quickly). I "eyeball" the quantities coming out from the syringes. Let's suppose I am wrong and I put more from the "A" component. Next time I use the epoxy, I will be necessarily wrong in the other direction (I will put more from "B"). But in both cases the epoxy becomes too hard to apply in about 10-12 minutes. Anyway, why do you need to spin the lures for this long? And what does the "30 minutes" refer to? I am just begining to "get aquaintance" with this material. I do not know what denaturated alcohol is. Do you think I could use 96 degrees alcohol (alimentary stuff) or sanitary alcohol (60 degrees) ?

I forgot to mention that I do not carve my crankbaits. I'm affraid that if I do, I will not make crankbaits anymore:)

http://steffendecoys.ws/page2.html