Vodkaman

I would use some of rookies duct tape on the lego's. They can be a real pain to clean the plaster out if it gets inside.

Welcome back, glad to hear you're on the mend.

Seabasshunter3. I read through a few google searches. As far as I could determine, the speed is related to the frequency (Hz), therefore the motor should reduce to 4rpm. The problem is with the power, as stated by Mark. Power =voltage sq / load. Because of the reduction in voltage, this means that the reduction in available power is reduced by 100/144. This is a larger drop than just the ratio of the voltages. You would think that if the voltage drops that the motor would be able to handle it easier as it was designed for a higher voltage. All I can suggest is that you try it, but keep one finger on the kill switch and do not leave the motor unattended until you are very confident in its operation. You would think that with all the thousands of members, at least one would know about this stuff!

Welcome to TU. Some of the best innovations come by accident. There have been a few very good posts on posting pics in the last few weeks. Do a search on photobucket, these should get you up and running. Can't wait to see the pic.

It is really sad. hundreds of years of growth to make toilet paper! It's the same, well, much worse in Indonesia. They burn down forests of teak and other exotics to make burgers for McDonalds! So sad.

We would be about as welcome as a Mersey trout!

Limiting thread replies to tried and tested methods and suppressing untested ideas, in my un-humble opinion, would be a huge mistake. This would severely hinder progress of the art of lure design and manufacture. I accept your point, that it could happen that an inexperienced member could misinterpret the idea as gospel and waste time, money and other precious resources. This is only likely to occur if the idea is not qualified with a statement of untested. It is pointless posting new ideas separately if they are only relevant to a particular discussion and therefore should be included as part of that discussion. Any new ideas should be discussed, brainstormed, argued, even ridiculed but never suppressed. Wherever possible, new ideas should be tested before submission. I personally have invested hundreds of hours and considerable expense pursuing many of my own ideas before publishing to the TU forums. But, quite often, this is not practical, maybe due to lack of equipment or resources, which another member may have to hand and may feel enthused enough to take the idea to the next stage. I will continue to publish my ideas, labeled tested or untested accordingly, in the knowledge that there are at least a few members out there who will be interested and be prepared to push the boundaries and drag lure design, kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

I'm happy the idea worked out for you. If only I could get some of my other ideas put to the test, particularly the vacu-venting idea. I feel sure that small production pourers would be amazed at its possibilities.

Don't say that, you'll scare them off! It is evident from the givers and takers thread, that many people are reluctant to post because of the eperience demonstrated in most of the threads. In my opinion, this is a mistake. I believe ideas, suggestions and even gut feelings should be aired as posts. If an idea is not backed up with practical experience or testing, as long as the author says so, then only good can result, it at the very least provides food for thought. The real lurkers are those that regularly view the forums anonymously and never sign up and contribute.

Another scarey fact, most aircraft are designed in feet and inches. Every car I have worked on has been designed in metric.

I think stones are more a British thing. About the only thing they are used for is body weight. Large bags of potatoes, cement etc are sold by the hundred weight, which is 112 lbs or 8 stones! It just gets worse. Britain was resqued from a lot worse about 35 years ago. The monetary system was called LSD. LSD helped to get your head around it. Twelve pennies in a shilling, twenty shillings in a pound. One pound and one shilling in a guinnea. The coins were: farthing, hap'ny, penny, thripny bit, tanner, shilling (bob), floreign (2 bob), half a crown (2 'n 6), crown (5 bob), ten shilling note and a quid. To think people fought tooth and nail against decimalization!

I was wondering when you were going to pop in for a visit! There are 1000 cubic mm in a cubic cm (10x10x10). Therefore one unit = 10 cubic mm.

Good post Mark. The problem of switching from pounds to Kilo's and inches to centimeters, is not about the numbers. If it was, everyone would change over in a flash. There cannot be any arguement that metric, base 10 units are much easier and meaningful than imperial, multi base units. Hell, the base number changes within the one subject, example: ounces, pounds, stones are the imperial standard measurement of weight, I need not say more. The problem is 'the FEEL'. When you change over, you loose the 'feel' for a measurement. Example, 14st to me or 200lb to an American means a sedentary life style with a few too many burgers. It takes a long while to 'feel' that 90Kg means the same. This uncomfortable position of not being in control of the numbers is why the change is resisted. If a conscious effort is made to change or it is forced upon you, the change happens very quickly. The secret is not to mix and match. When I post, I usually post both units, placing the imperial in brackets. But some subjects just don't belong in imperial, the numbers are just too cumbersome. Density is one of them. If you don't want to change, I can respect that and will rejuvinate my efforts to publish in both units.

Mark and Pete, both good, simple practical solutions. Just what I was looking for. Thanks for the feedback.

The balsa seems to have advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand it gets ripped up by the process, but it is very quick and easy to clean up. I have been considering pouring a block of polyester resin and machining that to make a positive master. It drills OK, so I am assuming that it will be suitable for machining, but I don't know for sure. It is fairly cheap and obviously no grain to take into consideration. Have you considered other materials? The end result looks very good. Many thanks for sharing. Keep posting as the job progresses.

I guess my digital dexterity needs enhancing. It's like trying to perform brain surgery with hands like a pound of pork sausages. I just need practise. I was just wondering if anyone uses any specific technique for positioning. I have read of the technique of drilling a lateral hole through the body at the eye position, to aid alignment, here on TU.

Mark, both specific gravity and density in what ever units are equally useful for determining the relative buoyancy attributes between wood types. But the clear advantage of measuring the density in gm/cm³ is that the density of water is 1gm/cm³. Therefore, you have a direct indication of the buoyancy of the wood. This figure is far more useful. It is an amazing coincidence that 1cm³ of water weighs exactly 1gm. It is almost as if the weight system was arranged specifically for lure design!

Impossible? I love a challenge.

Rofish, you are correct. I made a mistake, used the weight from the 36 inch board for the 9 inch weight. Sorry about that. Density = 0.137 is a much more realistic value!

Yes it is. In fact that is the information that PB has provided above. But as usual, I went over the top. The beauty of this method is that it can calculate the density of any scrap of wood or any other buoyant material. The method reads complicated, but once you have done it once, it is quite simple. I think the method was worth bringing to the table. The principles used in this method can be applied to other aspects of the lure, such as: Calculating the buoyancy of an existing lure, in order to duplicate the buoyancy characteristics in the next lure. Improving repeatability in production. Calculating the effect of a top coat on the buoyancy. Another example: you want a suspending bait. In the bath tub, you hang the lead to achieve suspension. Drill a hole, fit the lead. But the resulting suspension does not happen. The above method will help explain the error and allow you fix it.

I developed this technique for predicting the ballast for a lure, long before I get to the painting stage. I would shape the body, seal it to prevent water ingress and then do the volumetric calculation to obtain the density. If the test is to be performed on unsealed wood, it would probably be a good idea to weigh the wood sample by itself before the buoyancy test.

As it happens, I have just been working on a future thread, of which this is a part of. To calculate the density of an unknown sample of wood: Chop off a sample piece. Size or shape is not important. However, the larger the sample, the more accurate the data. Attach pure lead to achieve neutral buoyancy (just below the surface). 1. Accurately weigh the sample+lead, in grams. 2. Accurately weigh the lead only, in grams. One gram of water occupies a volume of one centimeter cubed. Therefore, the volume of the sample can be calculated, knowing that the density of pure lead is 11.389gm/cm³. 3. Calculate the volume of the lead by dividing the weight of the lead only by 11.389 4. Calculate the volume of the sample by subtracting the volume of the lead from the weight of the sample+lead weight. 5. Calculate the weight of the sample by subtracting the weight of the lead only from the weight of the sample plus lead. 6. Calculate the density of the sample by dividing the weight of the sample by the volume of the sample. Now I've got a headache, as I suspect anyone else reading this has. But from the information you have given above, I calculate a density of 0.55gm/cm³. To calculate this, convert all your figures to metric (grams and centimeter cubes). Divide the weight by the volume. This figure is very high for balsa, which is normaly about 0.12gm/cm³.

Looks good here. Thanks for all the work Jerry. Dave

That is going to be quite some mould. A vertical split for the tail and a horizontal split for the claws and legs. Those skinny legs are going to take some pouring too!

As long as you don't start going on about pink skirts, you'll be OK. Welcome to the fray Seargent.