Vodkaman

I started six months ago for exactly the same reasons that you have stated. This is a fascinating subject and there is enough to keep you busy for the winter. I was working in Sweden, lodging in a very small lodgings. I started off with spoons, but quickly realized that noise was going to be a problem. With just a small kitchen table to work on, I settled on basla wood lipped baits. Balsa is very easy to work and does not need great carpentry skills to get a result. As far as painting, I have not got that far yet, but many here use aerosol paints, or just get some decent brushes and acrylic paints from an art shop. The tools are as basic as it gets, but I would recommend a mini drill and a bunch of assorted bits, most use Dremel, good quality kit. I use a battery powered Dremel, this allows me to make modifications at the waters edge. This hobby is largely about ‘suck it and see’ trial and error. But search on the various aspects of the lure and you will find a wealth of information. If you cannot find the information or require further clarification, you have an army of helpers at your disposal. Good luck and post your results.

I assume DXF files ase OK. Do you want models of the mould with cavity, location spigots and sprue etc or just the model of the lure, or both. I can put together a model in the next week or two for testing.

I must have read a hundred posts on rotisserie motors by you guys and I just cannot understand why they are failing. Motors that size, geared down to 4 - 6 rpm should be capable of driving half a dozen wheels. Is the problem the balance, like Dean said? But a well balanced wheel, even fully loaded with a dozen of fatfingers lures should only require ounces to turn it. My guess is that the motors are burning out on start up, the initial load to start the wheel turning is killing the motors. They are designed for turning small chunks of meat located on the axis of rotation. You are rotating smaller weights but mounting them 12 inches off centre. It's a force times distance thing. The solution would be to either drive the rim with a friction wheel, which would mean finding a different geared motor, or assist the motor on power up by hand turning the wheel for a second.

JR, did you find any problem with the epoxy travelling along the string, a bit like capillary action. I found that it soaked along the thread a couple of millimeters. Not a big deal, I just needed to compensate the application. I made some five segment baits hinged with a nylon thread. I cut a knotch in the top and bottom of each segment and epoxied the thread in the knotch. I held the thread in place by superglue prior to epoxy. Although successful, I decided that it was too time consuming and fiddly and moved on to one piece lures.

Above is a link to another video clip sent to me by Clemmy (thank's Clemmy). It is another visual explanation of vortex shedding. I have posted it because it demonstrates that the effect is present without swirls of vortices being present. Pikemans point about, the lure still turns, even when it starts in line (zero angle). In this instance only vortex shedding could start the side movement. As many members have stated the importance of the rear portion of the ballast, I must conclude that the walk the dog action must be the result of a combination of effects as both the vortex theory and the momentum theory are working in the same direction. Reading back to the numbered points made by Riverman (page 2), points 2, 4 & 5 all basically refer to the same feature, there must be significant width at the front. This is required to forcefully part the water and initiate the vortex shedding. Point 1 increases the momentum for the walk the dog and point 6 would resist movement like trying to push a flat plate through the water. These two points would appear to contradict each other, but the rear mass creates momentum, once created, it takes force to stop it. A bit like pushing a truck, once it is moving it only takes a fraction of the energy to keep it moving. A fat rear end would provide that resistive force and dampen the action. I have always found that a fat rear end dampens my action! Point 3 is interesting. Vortices have a minimum speed of about 0.5 meters per second. Any slower than this and laminar flow occurs and the lure travels in a straight line. A longer lure would be heavier than a shorter lure, thus it has more forward momentum and would thus glide further.

Clamboni. The momentum idea is entirely reasonable. It would tie in with the tail weight, adding momentum to carry it past neutral and zag the other way. I still have not had a chance to view the posted video's, I am presuming the motion under constant retrieval is a slow 'S' action.

The blade works exactly the same as a crank bait lip. I experimented with the floating lip idea, thinking that I was onto something totally original. It is very dificult to come up with original ideas, but not impossible. Back to the drawing board!

Pikeman. You are right about the obsession, it's really annoying at times. I used to play both darts and pool, now I only play pool as there are no vortices to think about. You covered the tail moving from side to side in one sweeping statement. You have to ask 'what makes the tail move from side to side?'. This is the key question. You mention the pressure, if the pressure was constant, why should the tail wag?

The thread is not hijacked, JR asked the question. But, on the subject, if the lure lies flat, it is probably the ballast drilled too far in, or if a dense wood has been used and the shape of the section is wider at the bottom, the ballast might not be significant enough to bring it to the vertical. Beautiful lures, would be a shame to have to put a lip on them. Clamboni, what you say is true, but the rules have to apply to all or the rules don't work. The other theory available is aerodynamic theory. It still applies in water. Example, if one side of the body is curved more than the other, the curve will draw that side further out and the lure will swim a diagonal, but it will never switch direction. I have never managed to work aerodynamic theory to get the lure to oscillate. In the case of gliders and sliders not having a sharp edge to form a vortex, it is fairly probable that a good vortex is not formed, but a pressure difference will still be generated due to turbulence, having a similar effect, so the vortex theory would at least serve as a good analogy. In fact both theories are the same. In aerodynamic theory we talk about turbulence. This is just a collection of random eddies or vortices. The difference is that a flat plate will produce a well defined pure vortex, which will in turn provide a predictable outcome, ie vortex shedding (video clip). On the other hand, vortex theory gives a good explanation for an oscillating condition (vortex shedding). But to be brutally honest, it is not you guys that I am trying to convince, it is myself, so I am very happy to be challenged. I feel that some good will come from this discussion.

Just go ahead and order it in her name. When it arrives, tell her it was her Christmas present, a new Hair brush. The phone operator must have heard me wrong!

Thank's again riverman, very useful information. Unless a theory satisfies every condition, it fails. I will give thought to your numbered points and check them against my theories. As regard vortex theory, it was easier for me to take this route, as it is still fresh in my mind after tackling the lip operation theory. The flat plate, sharp edge of the lip lends itself nicely to a crisp vortex formation and I am confident that the theory works. As for lipless lures, I do not have the same confidence as yet. It was worth while putting my ideas out there, as it has brought a wealth of information and ideas from you all, to the table. In order to put this one to be, it requires as much information as possible, so if anyone has more observations on gliders AND sliders, please post it. Good subject.

Thank's Pikeman and Clamboni, I will go away and think carefully about your explanations. http://www.eng.vt.edu/fluids/msc/gallery/vortex/re200.htm Above is the link to the vortex shedding video.

Glider theory Thank you Riverman for the video links, I will try to get to an internet café this weekend to view them. Dean McClain, you are correct that something has to be present to initiate the action but I believe the action is not the result of a laminar flow. This is not to say that this is not possible, only that my explanation differs. I am fairly confident with my solution as it explains a slow ‘S’ motion, also the ‘zig-zag’ of the ‘walk the dog’ jerk motion. To understand what is happening to the glider, we must first consider certain aspects of the average fish. Why is the fish not shaped like a torpedo? Science has taught us that a blunt nosed cylinder is the most efficient shape for moving through water. Fish have been in the evolutionary chain for 100 million years. Darwin’s theory of evolution would indicate that they are closer to perfection than most other living species and yet the bodies are generally deep and humped. You could argue that because the average fish is slow moving, only capable of speed over a very short time, that the requirement for the perfect shape is not necessary to survival. In my opinion this argument is incorrect, the fish has achieved the perfect shape (explanation later in the text). Why does the fish have a pressure sensitive lateral line? The accepted general view is that the fish uses this feature to sense danger from predators and locate movement of other creatures for food etc. this may well be true but is not the main reason for the lateral line (explanation later in the text). Why do fish have scales? This question is one of the great anomalies, a very big unanswered question. Many believe that scales are purely armor for protection. My own theory differs from this idea and will be explained later in the text. Other questions such as what purpose does the dorsal fin serve? And a question aired on this site a few months ago, do fish move their heads when swimming? Will also be answered. I read a thesis document by Tryantafyllou a few months ago, sent to me by prof.dr. Arthur E.P. Veldman, who I contacted to gain permission to use his vortex video clip. This very heavy read discussed how fish use vortices while swimming. It did not discuss the whole story, but concentrated on aspects relevant to its subject. This document was the first clue. If the fish uses vortices to swim, it must first create the vortex. If the fish was torpedo shaped then no vortex would be created due to the streamlined shape. The fish needs the hump back to generate the swirl of water called a vortex. This vortex is reinforced by the fish moving its head from side to side. The fish then leans into the vortex to ride it as it flows down stream. As the fish does this, its body bends. This bending action opens up the scales, which act like small cups, capturing the energy from the vortex, driving the fish forward. Finally, the fish presses against the vortex with its tail, extracting the last bit of energy. The vortex then splits into two smaller vortices, rotating in opposite directions. The next vortex forms on the opposite side of the fish hump and the process repeats. In my opinion, the purpose of the pressure sensitive lateral line, is to inform the fish about the location of the vortex so that the fish can time its movements accordingly. The purpose of the dorsal fin could be to either add extra sensing of the vortex or to actually assist the formation by waving from side to side like a flag. If this theory is true, then evolution has indeed given the fish the perfect shape. So how does all this information relate to our glider lure? I remember seeing a glider lure on this site a few months ago, I specifically remember the humped shape of the back. It struck me as being ugly in form. The purpose of the hump is now clear and the theory holds up. As the lure is pulled through the water, the flow over the hump generates a vortex. This low pressure disturbance pulls the head of the lure to one side and the lure swims at an angle to the retrieve direction. As the vortex flows down stream, the next vortex forms on the opposite side of the hump, drawing the head in the opposite direction. The lure then swims at an angle opposite to the first, hence a slow zig-zag or ‘S’ type motion. The theory also works for ‘walk the dog’ action. When the lure is jerked, the sudden sharp movement generates a strong vortex on one side, causing the lure to ‘zig’ at an angle. The lure comes to a halt and all vortices are gone. The lure is jerked again. But as the lure is already sitting in the water at an angle, the water is forced over the hump in the opposite direction. This forces the lure to change direction and the lure ‘zags’. Thus ‘walk the dog’ is borne. If the theory is correct then there are a number of design considerations to be taken into account for a successful glider. The lure must swim slightly nose down so that good flow over the hump is achieved. This can be done by a forward ballast location and/or mounting the eye slightly rear of the nose. The back of the lure must form a hump about a third to half of the length. The lure can be improved by exaggerating the hump towards its peak, this will help the vortex form cleaner. Also, the body forward of the hump could be flattened, this too would probably improve the vortex, scooping the water up and then pouring over the side. A pair of side ridges could be built into the body, from the nose, running down the lateral line and meeting at the top of the hump. These ridges need only be 1mm deep. They would have the effect of tripping up the flow over the side and strengthen the vortex, a bit like the flat plate lip on a crank. I hope this all gives you food for thought and maybe one or two of you will try the theories out. Personally I am out of action as regards prototyping for the next year or so. Thoughts please!

Where I come from, we use two of them on a hook for bait. That was before I got into to hard baits (avatar).

I think that I've figured it out (in my sleep last night). I'll start typing it out tonight. Sorry in advance, it's not going to be brief.

Are you sure, with my bad reputation for confusing people! Wind a length of string on your finger. Form a loop and place the loop on your finger and pull tight. For safety put at least two. It is the simplest knot of all, but don't forget the superglue!

I have always used a couple of half hitches and applied a spot of superglue to the finished knot. This enables the thread to be trimmed close without danger of it falling apart. A spot of 5 minute epoxy would do the trick also and give a nice finish.

Savacs is studying Hydro' (Sorry Savacs)!

So how does a successful swim bait swim? Does it naturally swim in an 'S' shaped pattern or does it require the jerk input to get the zigzag motion. I've never made one, only concentrating on lipped baits so far.

Most split the lure, instal the wire then glue the halves together. I can see how this method would give you problems as the lip would go in after the wire. The method that I use on my prototypes is to cut a slot down the belly (or the back) of the shaped body using a thick cutting disk in a drill (dremel). This allows you to fit the lip first. Form the eye, thread the wire through the lip. Check the length and form the tail eye (and belly). Tuck the wire into the slot and hold in place with superglue. Fill the slot with wood filler or epoxy. The wire can be pushed deeper to allow for fitting the ballast. But there are other ways of solving the ballast problem. Cut a slot in the ballast or fit the ballast as a flat lead plate, recessed to hide it. For a professional finish, effort must be invested to hide the slot but this is not a huge problem. I have used this method from the start and have had no problems. The tricky part is forming the rear eye as when the wire is twisted, the length shortens. But it is not necessary to twist the wire, just bend it over about an inch. It will never pull out.

I've twisted 7 strand and fixed it like solid wire, you must twist it in the same direction as the strand twist or it will unravel. Also, the loop must be kept small as the first heavy load will set the loop in an elongated shape. The small loops make for a very tidy joint. As for durability of a straight through 7 strand hinge, no one has given any feedback for or against.

WOW! Love it all, the lip, paint job AND the photo.

Drinking on the rocks can seriously damage your health! VODKAMAN

Good solution Riverman. I particularly like the fact that it can be dismantled.

I think Fatfingers is on the money, the eye may need to be move back 2 or 3 millimetres. The lure looks really great. I would frame this one for posterity and get on with sorting out the problems. It is very disheartening after all the work, not to have it swim, but this is a good lesson for the future. On the next one, I would take it to the water with just a sealing coat to keep the water out. In fact, I would not plan to take the next one to a finish. Take some cutting gear with you. Take a few diferent size lips and fix them in position with soft glue (UHU) so they can be quickly swapped over. Extend the eye so that it sticks out 3/8 inch, this will enable you to experiment with the eye location. Swim the lure horizontal and make a note of the line angle to the water. Try the ballast a little forward. My guess is the lure is suffering from death roll type 2, I wrote an article on this subject not too long ago called 'death roll'. If you still struggle to get a swimmer, post again with all the information, measurements, ballast positions, materials, etc. This site loves to sort out these type of problems as we have ALL been there. good luck.