Vodkaman

Cooling the molds faster is a fairly easy problem to solve. After diamond, silver, copper and gold, aluminium is the best conductor of heat. You could stick the mold in front of a fan, but the speed of the unrestricted air over the mold would be fairly slow and very inefficient. I suggest a box with dimensions of 1" larger all round than your largest mold. A wire mesh tray preferably on wheels for easy operation, this will allow cooling of ALL sides. The box and shelf designed long enough to carry the number of molds in use. A computer extraction fan at one end to draw air over the molds. The computer fans use 1.8W whereas a stand fan uses 30W, this represents a power saving of x16. The reduced section area as the air passes over the mold results in a high velocity and a very efficient cooling system. I built a box based on this principle for air drying pop molds, water logged wooden lures and my socks. The box was an amazing tool. If I had to put a number on your application, I would say x5 to x10 times faster. Dave

Good point. Dave

If 50yo cork cleans up like new then why bother. Keep it natural and appreciate the cork. Dave

I make my own very cheap solid fiberglass 65” rods. The competition ponds here have overhead shelters to protect from the rain, hence 65”. I had too many failures with commercial hollow rods. The local tackle shop sells all the standard parts. Because I am using a solid glass rod blank, there is always a large gap to fill. I do this with string neatly wound on, in ¾” sections an inch apart. Once I have a very easy slide fit, I soak the string sections with runny CA glue. I slap on a generous coat of 5 min epoxy and slide the handle blank into place. If your gap is small then yes, tape is the way to go. The point of cork is the feel and grip. If you don’t peel the plastic off then you miss out on that quality feel, a bit like leaving the plastic on your car seats. Dave

My friend cast over a cow that was wading in the shallows. I begged him not to reel in, but my brain has blocked the rest of the memory, so I presume that it was not good! Dave

Moving away from lead is a good idea, get used to it because lead will eventually get a total ban. My CAD designed lures are based on steel balls, but I still have about10Lbs of soft lead sheet should I feel inclined to cut some wood. Dave

Thanks Rich. Getting back to the original post, I really do want to read more of member's experiences with deep divers, experiences, failures, explanations. Even dimensional information, eye location (distance from tip to eye AND distance from tip to lure nose), ballast location. Observations of lure angle 'guestimates' for successful divers, and any more information that can be provided. In the mean time, I will build a CAD model and take a look at the mechanics. Lip dimension information would be very useful too as I do not currently see any way of predicting a lip size for a particular lure. If I can gather enough data from deep builders I am hoping a pattern might emerge. This reads like I am trying to steal valuable information, believe me I am not. I have no plans to build deep divers. I simply want to learn and pass that knowledge on, like I always TRY to do. PM me if you don't want to post. Dave

In addition, I need to re-evaluate my thoughts on the subject, as expressed in my reply to Travis. buoyancy obviously has more of an affect than I thought. This is what makes TU such a good learning environment. Thanks for the enlightenment RPM Dave

RPM - It must have been a huge buoyancy force to have that effect, as you stated. The other clue is the 'thumping' action. This is an indication that the lure is swimming at a very steep angle. The drag from the lip is very high but the down force is small. The optimum angle is around 45 degrees for maximum depth. This smaller angle presents less lip, so less thump but more down force. To achieve this, your tow eye needs to go further forward. Dave

RPM - I do have an explanation, but Vodkaman's home made vodka has kicked in fairly severely at this time. So I will address the explanation tomorrow. All will be explained Dave

Eastman03 - believe me, I am itching to 'dive' in on this post, but I do not feel that I have enough real information to offer. Rest assured, I am typing away in a word document parallel to this post, trying to put something useful together, but as far as making profound statements, experience holds me back. Everything you mentioned in your post is entirely reasonable. But the dampening comment contradicts the water forces thing. The lure is going to move regardless of the ballast number, within the realistic limits of lure building. As speed increases so the effect of gravity and buoyancy decreases relative to the water forces. As speed increases, the water forces increase, but the static forces of ballast and buoyancy remain constant. It is all about static (still) and dynamic (moving) forces. Within reasonable dimensions of lip and eye position, Deep divers are 'theoretically' a lot more stable than shallow cranks. The reason being that the COG and COB (up and down forces) are way above the swim axis line. As speed increases, the width of the lip has more effect. Eventually a speed is reached were the lure will roll over. The only thing that can throw out a deep diver, apart from a bad tow eye location (too far forward or rear), is an excessively wide lip. A bit like one of those toy clowns with a round base that always stands up because the COG is so low. This is a subject that interests me immensely, but with no building or practical testing experience to back up my thoughts, I feel that I must hold back until my confidence in my ideas prevails. I will get back to my word document and hope to come up with some useful engineering explanations, but I doubt most of you will enjoy Dave

Travis - let me expand. Throw a 1Lb spherical weight and retrieve as fast as possible. The weight will bounce along the bottom of the lake. Gradually reduce the weight and a point is reached were the weight no longer touches the bottom. The weight is still well beyond the limits of lure making, we would never make a lure with such a down force. This demonstrates that the effect of line thickness is far greater than tweaking the ballast as it is the line resistance that is keeping the weight off the bottom. If line thickness can have such a profound effect then the buoyancy/gravity of the lure becomes insignificant, and we must concentrate on the moving dynamic water forces that the lure experiences. Dave

Travis - I agree with the principle, I would certainly go for neutral buoyancy for such a lure. BUT, once the lure is in motion, the water forces far outweigh any gravitation or buoyancy forces. Dave

I hope to revisit the hinge one day, if I think of an easier way to build it. Way too fiddly as it was. I posted it here somewhere, but the images are probably lost. Dave

JD - crying here Dave

Oh wow! As a college lab, there was not the same volume of polishing going on for the glitter effect. I really struggled to take in the information though. But that is college life, they just keep shoveling new stuff in there day in day out. The one lab I hated more was the steam lab. I am sure they deliberately arranged for the pressure release valve to kick in half way through the lesson. One of the students was a steam guy and I am sure he was in on the joke because he would never flinch while the rest of us would dive for cover Dave

Mark - Dang, I love reading your posts. Thought I had found a double hitter Dave

Mark - I did metallurgy as part of my aeronautical college course. I hated every minute Dave

Mark - I will bow to experience never having built a deep diver. I have only shallow waters available to me. Deep divers are a complex lure, all about balance above and below the tow eye, so tow eye proportional positioning is everything. Deep diver theory needs to be a different thread, and all I can contribute is hypotheses, ideas. Dave

I did a video that compared lip shapes. The difference between square and round was very minimal, so I prefer square, they are easier to produce and alignment is easier to visualize. Dave

I was a member of a cyclone build your own forum. Can't remember the name. Dave

Yes, it is just the commonest SS wire, but questions were asked and I answered them. It has been rather a silly thread at times, but that is what happens when you wander off the main street into my world. Still, it hasn't been all bad. We are now all experts on annealing and work hardening of 304, and we have a new idea for imparting a little extra hardness into the eye bend. Surely it doesn't get better than that Dave

In years gone by I have done a lot of reading on cyclone separators. There are even forums dedicated to their design. Definitely the way to go. Dave

The problem is that all most of us know about annealing is what we learned in metalwork class in school, and that was all about regular mild steel. The fact is that annealing is different for every metal and alloy, including stainless in its various forms. It is a very complex subject. I could throw out some BIG words like martensitic, austenitic and more. The message is that a little research has to be done for every application of every alloy. Dave

I just had a quick play, but it is very tedious without a vise to hold the pin. I would say bend 90 degrees around the pin and straighten, repeat three times, then wrap the twists. The eye portion is definitely a lot tougher. You would have to do comparison load tests (hang a bucket of water) to see if the actions reduce eye distortion. Dave