Vodkaman

I found this technique here on http://www.tackleund...h__1#entry33351 In theory, the technique is used to find the volume of a lure, but in our application, it also tell us what the final weight of the lure needs to be for neutral buoyancy in fresh water. The down side for you guys, is that you have to work in grams, NOT ounces. The Archimedes dunk test: 1 - Fill a beaker with enough water to completely submerge your lure, without touching sides or bottom. 2 - Place beaker of water on scales. 3 - Set the scales to measure grams and zero. 4 - Hold the nose eye with long nose pliers and submerge in the water, upto the eye. Leave the hooks on for this. 5 - Read off the scale and write the number down. Because one gram of water has a volume of one centimeter cube, the number written down represents the volume of the lure in centimeter cubes. The number also represents what the final lure should weigh (in grams) if you are going for neutral buoyancy. If you want a floater, just add less ballast. This test can be done as early as the first seal of the body, to get an early indication of the final weight of the lure, or right at the end of the build process. If you want to tweak the final lure to get neutral, fit all the hooks etc and test. This will indicate the size of the slug you need to add. Another application is, if you want to copy a lure and get the same amount of float. Weigh the original (with hooks) and divide by the dunk test weight. This will give you a ratio. When you build your copy, ballast to achieve the same ratio. I have been using this technique for a few months now and it is quick, very accurate and simple. I recommend that you at least give it a try out. Dave

I just went down to the cave and tried the Dremel drum sander. It removes the blemish very fast, but leaves a heavily scratched surface. Next I tried the Dremel flap wheel. Still harsh, but a distinct improvement. I then tried a regular flap wheel in the drill press, on a slow speed. I think that this is the answer. Hands free, much softer cut but still fast. Ideal if you have hundreds to do. Dave

Three more experiments carried out today: 1 – I tried Blatz’ suggestion, of a dense wood head (V7) attached to a light body (V4). The intention being to prove that wood density makes a difference with head shake. The result was no difference, still lots of head shake. 2 – I attached the V7 dense head to the body of V3, the double pin hinged lure. For a successful test, this needed to fail and show head shake. The result was head shake. This proves that the head shake solution is in the double pin hinge. It could either be the rounding of the head section (no V shape) or the mechanics of the double pin hinge itself. Rather than make or modify another head, to test the rounded head idea, I decided to test the hinge itself on lure V3. 3 – I immobilized the hinge in the head of V3 (double pin hinge) with rolled up paper. The result was head shake. I then removed the rolls of paper and the head shake was gone. Explanation – referring to the two PDF files attached, diagrams 1 to 4 describe the pin – eye hinge and diagrams 5 – 8 describe the double pin hinge. DP theory_Sheet_1.pdf DP theory_Sheet_2.pdf The water flows across the head and starts a vortex. The flow turns back and pushes the second section along its length, causing the side movement. Diagrams 1 and 2 show the effect of the water pushing on the end of section 2, resulting in the swing of section 2, just like pushing a door open. Diagrams 3 and 4 show the effect of the water pushing close to the pivot hinge of section 2. There is no leverage to move section 2 alone, so the force rotates both sections 1 and 2 around the centre of gravity of section 1, resulting in head shake. Diagrams 5 and 6 show the effect of the water pushing on the end of section 2, resulting in the swing of section 2, just like pushing a door open (same as diagrams 1 and 2). Diagrams 7 and 8 show the effect of the water pushing close to the pivot hinge of section 2. The extra pivot in section 1 allows section 2 to move without dragging section 1 with it, resulting in no head shake. This is all my theory/opinion and may or may not be true, but it does fit. Conclusions – This suite of experiments has convinced me that wood density and ballast placement has very little effect on how a swimbait performs. If the ballast is placed too high, instability will result. This is just as well, as the opportunities for varying ballast location is very limited. If a swimbait does not swim, moving the ballast or changing the material is not going to fix it in my opinion. Flat head or rounded head made very little difference. If head shake is a problem for you, then you need to reconsider the hinge type. These experiments are only valid for the low nose geometry body. Whether things will be different for other shaped bodies, I don’t know, but I suspect not. This concludes this set of experiments. Should I decide to do more, I will start a new thread. Dave DP theory_Sheet_2.pdf DP theory_Sheet_1.pdf DP theory_Sheet_2.pdf DP theory_Sheet_1.pdf DP theory_Sheet_2.pdf DP theory_Sheet_1.pdf DP theory_Sheet_2.pdf DP theory_Sheet_1.pdf DP theory_Sheet_2.pdf DP theory_Sheet_1.pdf DP theory_Sheet_2.pdf DP theory_Sheet_1.pdf DP theory_Sheet_2.pdf DP theory_Sheet_1.pdf DP theory_Sheet_2.pdf DP theory_Sheet_1.pdf

When sanding balsa, sand across the grain. If you sand along the grain, you are just going to remove the soft tissue between the grains. Forget about achieving a smooth finish before applying the sealer. In fact, the rougher the surface, the better. The sealer has to be thin, to soak into the surface. It will raise the grain, but it will also fix it. Once the seal coat has hardened, then you can go for your finish. expect to do the seal coat thing twice. Straight D2T is a bit thick for this job. It won't soak in, but if you thin it with a few drops of denatured alcohol, you will get better results. I don't use D2T, but if you do a search on 'denatured' I am sure you will find a ton of information. Personally, I have been using CA glue of late, but I would imagine that on an absorbant material like balsa, this would get expensive, but it does seal well. Propionate would be a good solution for sealing balsa, but lots of members use thinned D2T, so it must work well. I read your post and it seems that you already understand the problem and your method is on the right track. Get the seal coat right and your lures will shine. Dave

The tutorial is still there: http://www.tackleunderground.com/community/topic/22156-wire-jig/page__p__165275__fromsearch__1#entry165275 Dave

Nitro98, I don't want to get into piano hinges, but if it is true, there is something to learn here. Do you have a link to a video of a piano hinged bait swimming? I think the main difference is the much reduced play with the piano hinge, yet the play in the double pin hinge is massive. In fact, out of water and hanging from your fingers, it looks positively ugly. Here is a pic of what I mean: You mentioned the roll and you are right, the reduced play of the piano hinge would reduce the roll and probably increase the amplitude/movement. I will have a think about tightening up the hinges, reducing the play. When you are ready to start work on the tank, pm me and I will share some ideas and experiences to help you. Thanks for the solid input Nitro. Blatz, first of all, you don't need to be a builder to have an idea. I have designed aircraft for a living and never been near a pilots seat. The dense wood for the first section is a great idea and I will be trying that one out. Your argument against your second idea is a strong one. I don't fancy the extra work, but it maybe something that I will try further down the road. Notice in the videos how the roll leads from the bottom. This indicates where the water is pushing on the body. The water curls over the top of the head, pulling at the head. It then continues to curl over and pushes at the bottom. If this is true, then raising the CoG of the rear sections would only make the roll worse. Other than tightening up the hinges, I do not see a solution for the roll. Good input, thanks. Dave

Blatz, the heat shrink that I used in the stencil post, was 0.017" thick. To be honest, I didn't realize it was so thin until I measured it just now. The thickness doubles up once you shrink it, depending on how much you shrink it, more in some places. So, you need to start as thin as possible. Dave

Mark, the douple pin joint will not work with a 'V' shaped body, the joint movement is restricted. I suggest you cut some card shapes and try it first. I have another solution for the belly hook hardware, which sits under the lower screw hinge eye. It is a 'V' shaped wire form, the holes for which are drilled both sides of the hinge eye. A little fiddly, but after building a few, it is no problem and a lot stronger than a single twisted eye. I guess I should start a new thread with it. I'll take some pics next time I build one. Dave

Since my last post, I have completed two more test swimbaits: V5 – split ballast, top and bottom. The thinking being, to increase the inertia at the top, to stop the roll. The only effect this had was to reduce stability a little, making the swimming action a bit raggedy. Apart from that, the action was no different, nice ‘S’ shape and lots of head movement. I have made a video, but it hardly seems worth posting, as it looks the same as all the others. V6 – rounded forehead shape. The thinking behind this change, was to reduce the lip effect of the flat that I had built into the other lures, hoping that the ‘pull’ from the water would reduce, thus reducing the head shake. It made no difference, still nice swim action, but lots of head movement. Again, no point in posting the video. This is now starting to get frustrating, as I really want to solve and be able to control the head shake. Mark, I accept your lengthening the head section idea and I would have moved on by now, except that V3 (double pin hinge design) swam with virtually zero head shake, which tells me that I am missing something. The only things left to test for head shake are: Joint shape – both sides of the double pin hinge are rounded. I fail to see how this can affect things, but it needs to be tested. I will probably modify one of the earlier baits for this test, as there is so much work in building these babies, especially for a test that I am not convinced about. Wood density – the double pin hinged lure was constructed from a different wood with a slightly higher density and this is looking favorite as the explanation for the head shaking. I really wanted to make the lighter wood work, but this is looking increasingly doubtful now. I will build a pin-eye jointed swimbait from a heavier wood, to compare. I am not convinced about this either, as most swimbait builders use heavier woods and their baits also have head shake. This is rapidly becoming an obsession. Am I missing something (apart from a life)? I will have a few more goes at this head shake thing and then, reluctantly, I will have to move on. One thing that I am pleased about, is that every build has swam well, with no failures. Dave

Good solutions to the problems. I like the circle centre template idea. The end stop made me smile too, simple but effective. An engineering mind at work. Thanks for posting. Dave

I take your point on the cost issue. I can get three 7" swimbaits out of one 1/2oz bottle. At first, this was way too expensive at $4 per bottle, but I have found a local supplier of a Chinese CA glue for less than a dollar per bottle. At 30c per lure, I think is acceptable, given the advantages. Another sealer to consider is propionate. Very cheap and fairly fast. It will need about 6 dips, but the time between dips is a few hours for the first dip and 10 minutes between the rest. Hope you find a solution that works for you. Dave

I can see how it failed now. I am guessing the bottom half of the joint tore out. There is a strong lever at work here, of about 10:1, plus the leverage that the fish gained. Could easily be 100Lb loaded onto just the bottom half of the joint. There are a number of design changes that can be made to reduce the chances of this happening again. 1 - a soft tail fin material. This would reduce the length of the lever. 2 - pin and soft glue the tail fin. This would allow the fin to rotate away under load. Not a good solution, as you will be continually repairing the tail. With no glue, out of the water the tail would rock up and down, but once in the water, it would have the correct alignment. I am going to try this on a bait, after this experience. 3 - larger diameter pin. This would increase the bearing load required to tear it out. A thin pin will tend to cut through the material. 4 - install a sleeve for the pin. By inserting a length of brass sleeve, you greatly increase the bearing tear out load. 5 - change to brass hardware. The steel pin-eye combo that you are using has no 'give', it is too strong. A brass twisted eye would have distorted and possibly saved the lure could easily be bent back into shape. Dave

That looks like zinc contamination. It would be worth testing the rest of the ingots befor putting in your pot. Cut a chunk off and melt it in a can. A lot of work, yes, but less work than having to clean out your pot. Once lead has been contaminated with zinc, it is hardly worth the effort to rescue it. Dave

Thanks for the kind words. Having mammoth I-net problems here. My system is dropping out every minute or so. It has dropped me twice so far into this post. I have had quite a few double posts, but missed that one, lol. The poly or acrylic might work, but keep in mind that you are hitting it with heat. Test a piece first before investing time. Your understanding of the profile plate is correct. matching plates each side and clamped. It may be easier and just as good to do a top profile and a bottom profile, making four plates in all. They will be much easier to make. I was going to try the vacuum molding, but having thrown the above together, I can see that this is a very doable solution. I need to explore other ways of cutting the material, I made a bit of a dogs dinner out of the test piece. If you come up with more cutting ideas, please post them, also pics of your results, even a tutorial of the method, would be a valuable addition. Dave

The search did not work for me either. Here is a link to one of the pics, the other pic is adjacent: http://www.tackleunderground.com/community/gallery/image/8542-bluegill-cranks/ Nice pic Rman. Dave

If your hooks are getting to the brown stage, then they are subject to temperatures of around 500F. You should check the temperature of your oven. Here is a link showing the various colors and their corresponding temperatures: http://www.bluebladesteel.com/temper_colors_chart.html I am fairly sure that your hooks will not have been damaged. Dave

There has been some great ideas posted in this thread. Try a few out and see what you can do with your current equipment first. A new camera is always nice, but may not be necessary to fill your needs. Post pics as you go, in this thread, so that we can all see the differences, doesn't have to be baits, this thread is about pics. Dave

There are much easier and quicker ways to seal your baits, I don't think I would have the patience for using Etex as a sealer. In my opinion, the object of a sealier is to: Raise the grain, so that it can be sanded flat and provide a glass smooth, faultless surface to paint on, giving professional paint jobs with no visible grain or hint of what is underneath. After sanding, a second sealer coat may be required, depending on how much you sanded off the first time. Seal the wood, so air cannot get out and water cannot get in. This prevents bubbles occuring later, when top coating. Also, if or when teeth breach the top coat, water does not enter the wood and allows you to continue using the lure. Harden the surface. This helps prevent the tooth problem, if the surface is hard, resisting penetration. To achieve all of the above, the sealer must have the ability to penetrate the wood fibres, it must soak in and cause the grain to raise. It must be hard and not rubbery and it must be quick, so that I can get on with the job. Currently, I am using CA glue. It achieves all my requirements, including speed. If you insist on using an epoxy, I suggest that you do it indoors, in temperatures that the epoxy is designed for, around 70F. Like Ben explained, it is always a good idea if the baits are a little warmer, so that the air inside does not expand. I would apply a thin coat of the epoxy, rub it in with my covered finger, wipe excess off and hang. After a few hours, repeat, then leave to harden. Sand and repeat if necessary. No need for rotating using this method. I suggest that you save the etex for the top coat and try the CA glue. Dave

Is it possible to add the author on the gallery pics, at least in the 'detail' format. The first thing anyone wants to know is who made the bait. Having to load up the thread just to find the name is a real pain. Dave

Just out of interest, how far in is the pin hole, from the edge to the hole centre? This part of swimbait design has hardly been touched. You should post the pic in this thread and lets have a discussion on it. I mount my rear hook on the next section along, so the hinge that gets loaded has a lot more meat on it. The tail section hinge just looks too flimsy on my baits. I just checked out a few of your baits and see that your rear eye placement is similar to mine. I'll wait for the pics. Dave

Seeing as I had a piece of heat shrink tubing, I decided to have a go and see what is involved. My first attempt was a shriveled blob of rubber, way too embarrassing to photograph. From this I learned that you have to clamp around the profile. Attempt No2, the shrink molding process went quite well. I used a spare wooden body blank for the job. Carving is tedious, but doable with a very sharp blade. I cut the template with the blank in situ. I think carving the empty stencil would be much more difficult, but If I had to do it, I would pack the stencil with modeling clay, to give it some substance to cut against. A good wash in soapy water would remove all traces. I think for the best results, you need to make a pair of plywood profile clamps, a couple of millimeters larger than the blank. This would give you a perfect crease around your master and a good definition of the shape, which would eliminate the problem that you had, by missing your target with your cuts. Obviously a lot more work, but you only have to make one set of profile plates to make as many stencils for that lure, as you like. If you don’t fancy the profile plate method, then strong clamps and lots of them. Arrange the clamps so that they are touching each other, for the best possible edge definition. Dave Seeing as I had a piece of heat shrink tubing, I decided to have a go and see what is involved. My first attempt was a shriveled blob of rubber, way too embarrassing to photograph. From this I learned that you have to clamp around the profile. Attempt No2, the shrink molding process went quite well. I used a spare wooden body blank for the job. Carving is tedious, but doable with a very sharp blade. I cut the template with the blank in situ. I think carving the empty stencil would be much more difficult, but If I had to do it, I would pack the stencil with modeling clay, to give it some substance to cut against. A good wash in soapy water would remove all traces. I think for the best results, you need to make a pair of plywood profile clamps, a couple of millimeters larger than the blank. This would give you a perfect crease around your master and a good definition of the shape, which would eliminate the problem that you had, by missing your target with your cuts. Obviously a lot more work, but you only have to make one set of profile plates to make as many stencils for that lure, as you like. If you don’t fancy the profile plate method, then strong clamps and lots of them. Arrange the clamps so that they are touching each other, for the best possible edge definition. Dave

DH, when you get around to having a go at the photoshop, post your questions, no matter how dumb they might seem. There are a lot of guys that use PS here. The questions will also help a lot of others, who maybe have PS, but are put off by its aparent complexity. Best of luch with the exams. Dave

I finally figured it out. Very neat tool, thanks for posting it. Dave

Thankyou Gino. Can you please post how you use the jig and a picture of a finished wire please. I am not seeing how it works, probably because I do not make that type of lure. Dave

There are several ways to improve pics. These can be broken down into three areas: composition - setting up the picture, selecting a background. This could be a set up like a log, shells etc. but don't get too crazy. Plain backgrounds can be very effective too. Choose a contrasting color, if the color is close or matching your lure, it will tend to get lost. Next time you are out shopping with the missus, drag her into the materials shop and see if they have any scraps of plain colors. Get some netting while you are there. Strong vibrant colors like red, blue etc. are nice, but they screw up the automatic color balance in the camera, but the pic can be rescued in editing. Play with the lighting, try the main light off to one side, with a smaller fill in light, to reduce the shadows. You do not want to eliminate shadows completely, they are a fact of life and add depth to the pic. Actually taking the picture - a light box is favorite here. Doesn't need to be anything fancy, a lined cardboard box will do nicely. It will need at leas two light sources, to eliminate hard shadows. Drape the material rather than fix it down, this way you eliminate distracting creases. If the size of the lure is important, include something to add scale to the pic, like a simple rule. If you are just using a camera with a built in flash, cover the flash with a few layers of white tissue. Experiment with the layers and see the results. This will reduce the shadows and reduce washout of whites and yellows. You will probably have to do a little work while editing, to put a bit of contrast back, but only takes seconds. Editing - A good photo editing software will allow you to rescue just about any badly taken pic. I use photoshop. First thing I do is crop the pic to look presentable. I then go to brightness/contrast and play with the sliders. Color balance next, I tweak the sliders to see if things can be improved. I save the file now to preserve the original. Next, image size, to modify the pixel count. The TU rule is 600x400, although you would not think such a rule existed judging by some of the 3Mb advertising hoardings posted here. I usually edit mine to 800x600, then 'save as' and give it a new name. Photoshop now allows you to change the JPEG quality, I set mine to 3. This has now reduced the 3Mb monster down to 50Kb or less and you cannot tell by looking at the picture, all the quality is there still. You cannot zoom in on TU, so why publish all the pixels that the human eye cannot see. All I can think of at the moment, but there is a lot more and I am sure plenty of tips will be comming your way. Dave