Vodkaman

Welcome to TU. The tools that you require are largely dependant on your work space. Are you working on your kitchen table or do you have a workshop? As this is your first attempt, you can get away with the simplest of tools: box cutter knife (with the snap off blades), modellers tenon saw, drill and bits, various grades of sand paper. For sealing and top coat, a slow curing epoxy, acetone for cleaning, water based paints for art work. After half a dozen lures, you will know if you like the hobby. The next purchase would be a quality mini drill, most select Dremel for this and a set of bits for sanding etc. You may be considering an airbrush at this stage, or may stick with spray cans, many use the cans. As you get further into the passion, if you have a workshop, you will be considering a bandsaw, drill press and a belt sander. But some of the very best builders on this site make do with the basics. Dave

My FF mask has a fan ventilation system. It is a joy to use in this heat and humidity. Dave

To me, this just does not sound right. But I cannot argue against the facts. This also explains your earlier statements. I will have to go away and think about this some more. I lost a few brain cells last night and need time to recover. Dave

Spin doctor. Dave

Something in the above posts is not making sense to me. Providing the basic poured plastic floats, then the larger the bulk of the body, the more weight it will support, regardless of the shape. You need to find out how much weight a block of plastic will support. Weigh the frog body (without legs). Float the body, adding weight until it no longer floats. Weigh the weighted body. With this information it is possible to calculate the body weight to support the hook. For this example I have just made up numbers: Plain body (no legs) weighs 30gm Weight added for neutral buoyancy = 0.8gm Weight of hook required to float = 2.7gm 2.7gm / 0.8gm = 3.375 3.375 x 30gm = 101.25gm This is the minimum weight of plastic body to support the hook. Sorry for introducing numbers yet again, but this is a very simple way of helping you design a frog body for a specific hook. Dave

The problem with SS is that it work hardens under abrasive operations. When I was an apprentice, my forman caught me working a piece of SS on the grinder. He went nuts at me. When the wheel stopped turning, I could see why, the grinding wheel was nearly gone, worn away. I cannot remember the process for annealing SS, but a google search should bring some information. Dave

Rofish you are right, what was I thinking. Sorry tn bass. I feel this is going to be a very informative thread, as there are so many ways to skin this one. To collect all the ideas into one thread will be very useful for future searches. Dave

This is my way of calculating the ballast: 1. take the block of wood that I intend to use, measure length, breadth and depth in centimeters. 2. multiply the three numbers together, this gives you the block volume in cubic centimeters. 3. weight the block in grams. 4. divide the grams by the volume, this gives you the density of the wood in gm/cm³. 5. carve the lure body. 6. weigh the carved body. 7. divide the weight of the carved body by the density number. This gives you the approximate weight of the final lure for neutral buoyancy. So if you want a floater, you need to subtract 10% – 15% from the final weight, depending on how much float you want. 8. weight all the hardware, eyelets, hooks, split rings, lip, harness etc. 9. the ballast required is the final weight – float% - carved body weight – hardware – sealer, paint and top coat weight. The coatings you need to guess for the first lure. But if you weigh before and after and keep notes, you will have good numbers for the next lure. In fact, if you keep notes, then you only need weigh the hardware once. Computer spreadsheets are great for this method, they do all the math for you. I said “approximate” earlier, because the final weight is a bit more complicated. You are going to cut holes for the ballast and hardware. This removes some of the buoyant material and changes things. You are going to add to the final volume with your paint and top coat, this too changes things. But the method is good enough for floaters or sinkers, getting you close enough. You all know me, I like to keep things complicated. Dave

WOW, 35, now I feel old. Happy birthday Jerry. Dave

Well spotted MM.

The only explanation can be a difference in density. Resin mixed with MB's is a lot denser than the woods that we generally use. If you are weighing the resin blanks and they weigh the same as the original wood, then I cannot offer an explanation. Dave

One of my favorite quotes: Note left by wife of absent husband, "You're dinner's in the dog". I have all my receipts for the last three years, but am not brave enough to add them up. Dave

Great pics, especially the crappy. My bet is that you will see that pic on the side of a few baits in the not too distant future, using a photo transfer process. Dave

You can get a lot more technical with a vacuum former. Check out the video's from the 2010 TU meet. A little work, but not necessarily expensive. Worth checking out. Dave

I agree too. But I have been lucky with the members that I have conversed with through the pm system, I cannot remember anyone not acknowledging any help I was able to give. On a very similar note, their have been lots of 'brainstorming' threads, were several members have tried to solve a problem, such as paint/topcoat issues, balancing, molding problems etc. After about 20 or so ideas, the thread eventually dies, with no report back as to what worked. Then months later the same question will arise again and we all have to go through the same list of possible solutions. This can be very frustrating. Dave

I watched the live feeds. They were a great idea and I am sure that the quality and snags can be fixed for next year. Still enjoyed the experience very much. You guys must have been hoarding those ideas for a long time. Some very innovative ideas. I liked them all, particularly the vacuum project, because I am working on something similar my self. The compressed sponge drying wheel, very good, also the other drying wheel. Tiredness and exhaustion got the better of me in the end and I fell asleep in my computer chair. No reflection on you guys, the time difference was 12 hours after all. Anyone who has not viewed the vids, I recommend that you take a peak. So thanks guys for the experience. Dave

Steve, like I said, great info. Dave

Great info, but you are not allowed to advertise your company. Read the rules. I shouldn't even have to post this. Moderators are supposed to spot these infringements, but they don't seem to care. I hope the link and this post get deleted very quickly. Dave

Dieter. My thoughts are that the line of the lip is too close to the 'X'ing point, thus the forces at the lip do not have enough leverage to swing the tail. Unfortunately moving the weights rearwards will alter your desired nose down configuration. I firmly believe that we should design the bait to do what WE want it to do, so percevere. Try to get the lip further forward and/or position the weights very slightly more to the rear. In the vid, I can see that the lure is trying to wiggle, so it is close. Also, I remember testing some deeper swimmers in a swimming pool and noticed that as soon as the lure contacted the bottom, the action was killed. So, as Jamie suggested, try it in deeper water, it may work. Dave

Will do Pikey. Dave

Well you mat not consider yourself as pioneering, but you have taken the current information available, decided it is not perfect, which we all know and searched for something better. That is a pioneering attitude. The reason for this thread and the hundreds like it, is because the perfect solution has not been found. I hope for hundreds more threads like this one, so that maybe one day.... You get my drift. I use prop, but only because this is all that is available to me locally. I try lots of products of the shelves, but I have not found anything remotely worth writing about. Keep searching and reporting. Dave

Awesome mold, congrats. I recently experimented with making a vacuum box, using a shop vac. The results for PoP were amazing. Pretty much zero bubbles. This would not work for RTV, as the viscosity would not allow the bubbles to escape. But for the low viscosity of PoP, it really worked and is now part of my standard practice. Dave

I admire your pioneering attitude for searching for something new. You have avoided the standard choices of top coats: Devcon 2 ton, Envirotex lite, Dick Nites, propionate. Have you tried these products and if so, how do they compare? As I stated above, respect for your exploration. No derision intended. If more people took your attitude, this art would advance much more progressively. Dave

It is an interesting idea, but it is only going to give you a profile cut, unless I am reading wrong. You still have to round off and shape the blank, which is where the variation from blank to blank comes in. If the shaped blanks vary, then the ballast has to vary to suit. Of course the wood density is going to vary too. In my opinion, a computer print out of the blank shape, glued to the stock, roughly band sawed and then finished with the belt sander is almost as quick. I don't see significant time savings here. But I could be missing something. Dave

Unfortunately, Michael has not been on TU since May 2006. Pity, because I would have liked to see what he was writing about too. Dave