Vodkaman

I bought a box of dremel bits, in there was a tapered file bit. The most useful bit in the box.

Well, I have finally arrived in Lapala land. It's hot as hell and the humidity is unbearable. I've taken six showers today. The journey took 24 hours door to door. Not too many problems apart from having to pay $120 to change the date of my year return ticket, as you are not allowed in to Malaysia unless you have a valid ticket out. So the date must be two months from the entry date. The ironic thing is that I will never use the ticket, as the job moves to Shang-hai, China in six months. The second ironic thing is that the Malaysian passport official never even looked at the ticket. I very nearly had a rant at the guy, but past experience of globe trotting enabled me to keep my cake hole clamped. The hotel room reminded me of Sweden, my last port of call. If the room had a couple of birch branches, it would pass for a sauna with a temperature of 42 deg! I eventually managed to hassle the desk clerk to fix the air conditioning. This is what you get staying in cheap hotels. Before Mr L jumps in to defend his territory, I have to say that this city (Kuala lumpur) has some of the very finest hotels in the world, I am just too cheap to spend the money. Do a google on Sunway Lagoon hotel and check it out, well impressive. I was wondering how I was going to find my old friend and taxi driver, Mr Bob, when he walked into the bar. He spotted me as he drove past with a passenger. He abandoned his car (and passengers) to greet me. Five minutes later an irate chinese guy entered the bar and started screaming at Bob, he told me 'got to go, he's my customer'! I start work tomorrow, I think, as I have not had confirmation of the post, but decided to take a chance. If it does not work out, I'll hop over to Indonesia and live there for a few months. Mr Bob is off to look for an apartment for me. I told him that it must have a test facility for the fishing lure studies (swimming pool). I heard rumours that the job is going to be shift work. This is ideal, as I will choose to do permanent nights. This will keep me out of the bars and I can get paid for doing some whittling too. If anyone from the company is reading this, I'm only joking! I'm going to have to sign off for now as the loud jingle jangle from the fifty or so screens in this internet cafe is playing havoc with my hearing aid! Hopefully I will be connected again soon. regards to you all. Dave

I think it is a great idea. For the same reason Tally puts the catchers in a separate box, they become special. I would sell the lure along with the picture to back it up. A cheap frame will cost next to nothing.

So the netting stays permanently under the foil? Excuse my stupidity, this is the first time I've really understood this process.

Clemmy. The fact that water is an incompressible fluid has bothered me too, in my pursuit of explanations of the behaviour of the hard bait. So, here are a couple of real life examples of the forces in motion. A sauce pan filled to one inch of the rim and stirred. The water at the edge rises and spills over, the water at the centre sinks down, but the volume is unchanged. The shape of the surface reflects the pressure differences through the vortex. If you throw some sand into the pan, it will gather at the centre of the pan. We have all witnessed debris being drawn into the plug hole vortex after washing the dishes, haven’t we? As for flight, there are two theories of flight. The first being the traditional aerofoil theory that you are referring to. It has applications in lure design, mostly body shapes and has never really been addressed. Another one on the list of articles that need writing. The second theory is that employed by all flying insects. Normal flight is only effective down to about 6 inch wing span, any smaller and the aerodynamic forces are not strong enough to sustain flight. Insects use vortex theory, the same theory that the lip on the lure employs to impart the side movements. The fact is that the pressure on the front of the lip is not what makes the lure swing from side to side, it is the low pressure vortex that forms behind the lip. The vortex forms down one edge of the lip at a time, alternating from side to side. This ‘sucks’ the lip from behind, from side to side. A web search on vortex shedding will explain all. I researched Reynolds numbers when I researched vortices, the only information to be gained from the Reynolds number is the minimum (and maximum) speed that the lure will swim according to the rules. This pans out at about half a crank per second. Experiments proved this fact, the lure kicks in at a certain speed.

Clarification. Re-examining these theories with drawings has been enlightening and educational to me and I hope at least some of you get something out of the brain strain (yours and mine). Diagram 1 shows the lure in its normal swimming orientation. In this example, a deep diving shallow lip and a suitable line angle of about 40 deg to the water surface. While the lure is moving, this angle remains constant and represents how deep the lure will swim (a discussion for another day). The diagram shows that when the lip forces below the tow line are equal to the body forces above the tow line, the lure is balanced. If the lure attitude is disturbed by a rock etc, the out of balance forces will quickly rotate the body back to its balanced attitude. This balance is pivoted about the line tie. As a crude example to describe this balance or equilibrium, diagram 2 shows a long stick with a brick tied at one end and an egg at the other. A length of string is loosely tied in a loop around the stick. The stick is threaded through the loop until it balances. The balance point is found to be closer to the brick than the egg, but still, a balance point is found. The brick represents the lip forces, the egg represents the body forces and the string represents the tow line (fishing line). If a side force (push) is applied to the brick, the stick will rotate smoothly around the string. This is how I believe the lure moves, rotating around the tow line. This is of course, a gross over simplification of what is actually happening, but the principle is close enough to reality and easy enough to understand, to make the theory useful. Next we add gravity to the theory. Diagram (3) is identical to diagram (2) only rotated through 90 deg. It describes the same stick loosely nailed to a wall so that it can rotate. The position of the nail is the same as the string loop. The experiment represents a view of the lure looking along the tow line (fishing line). The nail represents the line tie, the brick represents the lip forces and the egg represents the ballast. In true life, the egg represents a combination of various forces, including the buoyancy, ballast, hook, eyelet, hangar wire and lip weights. The ballast position is close enough to this centre of forces so that they can be ignored for the purposes of this exercise. If a side force (push) is applied to the brick, it will be noticed that the stick will stop in a random position, not necessarily vertical. It will also be noticed that virtually no effort is required to move the brick, this is because the brick is nailed at the balance position. Referring back to the original article, this represents the start of the tow line/ballast offset instability. At this point erratic movement of the lure can occur. For convenience I have called this type 2 death roll. This type is generally encountered on deep divers, but can be encountered when experimenting with rear mounted ballast, this is how I identified the instability. Erratic behaviour of the lure will occur with this geometry setup, as there is no force trying to keep the lure vertical. The lure could randomly flip over into death roll. If the egg is moved further away from the pivot nail (diagram (4)), the stick will swing around to vertical, with the egg at the bottom. This represents death roll, the lure swings around the tow line in a wide arc. If the egg is moved towards the pivot nail (diagram (5)), the stick will swing around to vertical, with the brick at the bottom. If the brick is pushed, it will return to the vertical, this represents stable lure action. Remove the egg and nail the stick at the new balance point. Re-attach the egg to the stick at the nail pivot. Once again, if the brick is pushed, the stick rotates freely, stopping randomly, not necessarily vertical. It will also be noticed that, as before, virtually no effort is required to move the brick, this is because the brick is nailed at the balance position. Referring back to the original article, this represents the start of the tow line/ballast instability. At this point erratic movement of the lure can occur. For convenience I have called this type 1 death roll. This type is generally encountered on shallow swimming lures, but can be encountered by experimenting with extremely low mounted ballast, an unrealistic situation. Erratic behaviour of the lure will occur with this geometry setup, as there is no force trying to keep the lure vertical. The lure could randomly flip over into death roll. Diagram 7 shows type 1 death roll, the ballast sitting roughly on the tow line. A shallow lure with a 70 deg lip is represented. The two lines of instability are drawn in. positioning the ballast anywhere between the lines will achieve normal action. Diagram 8 shows type 2 death roll, the ballast sitting on the type 2 instability line. A deep diving lure with a 10 deg lip is represented. Conclusions. If a new lure goes into death roll, the above theory will identify what type of instability you are dealing with and will offer up a solution. Method, while swimming the lure, make a mental note of the angle that the line makes to the water, while the lure swims roughly horizontal. Hold the lure horizontal in your hand and hold the line at its swim angle (as noted previously). If the line points directly (or just slightly above) the centre of the ballast, then type 1 death roll is the cause. Solutions to the problem include raise (or lower) the ballast location, raise (or lower) the line tie eye position, increase (or decrease) the lip size. If the ballast location is some distance from the tow line, this would indicate type 2 death roll. Solutions include; lower the ballast or move the ballast forward, raising the ballast would make the condition worse. Raise the line tie location or reduce the lip size. In both type 1 & 2 cases, the ideal solution is to move the ballast, as moving the eye or changing the lip will change the tow line angle and affect the swim depth of the lure. For prototyping, I would always give the first prototype an extended line tie eye for easy testing of the geometry. If all the above is true, then lowering the ballast on a deep diver should increase the action of the lure by reducing the inertia of the ballast, effectively making the lip forces stronger. This can be visualised in diagram 5, as the egg (ballast) is moved closer to the pivot nail, the effect of the brick (lip forces) becomes stronger, swinging back to the vertical faster. This is contrary to what has been discussed on TU before, including me. I firmly believed that as the ballast was lowered, the action would be damped out. For deep divers, the opposite is true, as the ballast is lowered, the action becomes wider. For shallow lures with steep angled lips, referring to diagram 6, if the egg (ballast) is lowered from this location, the inertia opposes the lip and the action is damped. The above theories fully explain everything that I have experienced while prototyping. But I have only worked on a limited number of lure setups, I have not done any work with deep divers. I invite you to test out the theories with any lures that roll out of control and report back. If you disagree with the above, say so. By arguing the different cases we will (hopefully) get to the truth.

No need to change the design of a steep lipped, shallow swimming lure, other than increasing the ballast. Just allow it time to sink to the depth you want.

Great article Blackjack. Looks like hunting to me. Thanks for making the effort and sharing the information. A complete breakdown of the lure geometry would be nice, but I am not cheeky enough to ask. What is your success rate for manufacturing this lure, if you make ten, how many would you expect to hunt?

Appologies guys. I will prepare some diagrams over the next few days. Don't get me wrong on this article. These are only my findings and are up for heated discussion. I just want to get to the truth.

There are many causes for hunting, I have identified and explored four. Those that I have not explored and have no explanation for (as yet) are body shape and split ballast, but from what has been written on TU, it is obvious that they are out there. 1. Offset eye. This was mentioned by Skeeter if I remember correctly, if not, sorry. The eye is bent left and right to fine tune the straight running of a new lure, but if an extended eye is bent even further, the lure will start to swim in a ‘zig-zag’ pattern. I did not pursue this form of hunting as it is not pretty and would expect a 95% return of sold lures. Referring to my recent post titled ‘death roll’. As the lure geometry approaches the ‘death roll’ configuration, the lure will start to ‘twitch’. Closer still, the ‘twitch’ becomes a ‘zig-zag’, eventually the lure blows out. The problem with this type of hunter is that a sharp tug on the lure would probably cause the lure to death roll. This can be a good feature, although it does not fall into the category of ‘under control’, the short jerk causes the bait to dart off in random directions and then resume its normal swim pattern. As was posted recently, ‘fish don’t swim in straight lines’. The second problem, as discussed by all those that produce hunters, is that the hunting ‘band width’ is very narrow, production runs are not practical, generally every lure would have to be tuned. 2. For shallow running baits, approach death roll case No1. 3. For deep divers, approach death roll case No2. 4. Hunting lip. This solution does not involve death roll or any other instability and so the lure is always going to be a runner. As for whether production runs are possible, I am in the process of mold making as we speak and hope to report back on repeatability in the next couple of weeks.

Many people have commented by post and PM that what I have written was interesting but difficult to understand. Explaining these theories is definitely not my strong point and I hold my hands up and plead guilty. One contributing factor to this sad admission is that all this theory is new to me also and I haven

I would be concerned about annealing the metal, destroying the strength of the hook. It might be worth doing a destructive test comparison between the soldered and un-soldered hooks. Alternately, you could just let that once in a lifetime large mouth test it for you! Try tissue paper, soaked in water and formed around the hook, just exposing the eye. This should keep it cool enough.

Funnily enough, I took one of those brain tests about a year ago, found it on the web while looking for some puzzles to pass the time. It asked me about a dozen daft questions with sillier answers. It then represented my left/right orientation with a dot on a picture of a head. My dot was positioned inside the left ear. I am also left handed, but doubt that that has anything to do with it. Imagine a world run by left brain people, what a boring world that would be, even I would not like to live there. As for random testing against application of engineering theory. there is nothing wrong with either, there are good arguments for each. Neither set of designers should feel the need to defend an argument as there is room for both views. There are several different vocations on the go here and we should respect each of them. 1. There are those that want to make lures purely for fishing. Fancy paint jobs and engineering BS are of no consequence. Catching fish is all that counts. 2. Those who devote hours to the art of the lure. A true labour of love and deserve our respect and admiration. 3. Left brain nerds. The first thing they do when they buy a new reel, is take it apart to see how it works and wander around the lake, harassing all the other anglers, rooting through their bait boxes for ideas. No matter which one you are, you will be totally absorbed by the hobby. I wake up in the morning and it starts. I drag my spoon through my cornflakes and play with the vortices. It occupies my mind constantly throughout the day, until I retire to bed, when it helps to put me to sleep. For me, getting involved with the science has been fascinating and educational. I have even found applications for the theory outside of fishing. I have designed a training unit for long distance swimmers and a new type of helicopter blade. When am I ever going to be able to find the time to develop and test them! As for the scientifically developed lures advertised. I have severe doubts. What makes it scientific? If I measure the lip width with a vernier, does that make it scientific? How about if I measure the weight and the volume to calculate the ballast? Maybe they have a fluid tank for testing, with high speed video cameras for motion analysis. Very convenient but still, no more scientific than testing on the lake.

Thanks all for the kind words. In many respects, TU feels like a large family, even though we have never met. One day, I’m hoping to put that right. I undertook the search for the hunt as a result of reading Skeeter’s article of a few years ago. All searches on hunting did not reveal a solution, just questions. Out side of TU, there are a few lures that claim to hunt, but the solutions appeared to be body rather than lip. Once you understand the solution, you can look at a bait and tell whether it has a chance of hunting. So you can understand my enthusiasm after finding A solution, especially as I arrived at it from pure theory rather than chance. Scoop10, very valid points. I had considered the returns point. The first hunter that I made was so erratic (but still under control, no blow outs), I had my doubts whether the fish could actually catch it! Your second point is valid also. For this reason, I am developing the new (to me) movement lure first. Again, has anyone out there already done it? I don’t want to get excited about someone else’s discovery. Tally, yes I did say that, didn’t I. Having made progress and being in between jobs, I had decided to explore the possibility of starting a lure business, as many of you have. So, it would be foolish to give away my ‘edge’ by publishing. This is probably why no one has posted in response to the many threads that have brought up the subject. But, believe me, I would love to publish it. Six months ago I was very naïve and green, after reading six months of articles on infringement and many other similar valid views, I am now a darker shade of green. If what Scoop10 states is true, that many lure makers can already make hunters consistently, then maybe it is time to let the ‘cat out of the bag’ and make the hunt option available to all. But you will have to convince me first, a photo would do it. I believe that there is more than one solution. I have caused lures to hunt by simply bending the tow eye to one side, also, as I stated above, body shape in combination with ballast location could also cause hunting, as suggested by Skeeter years ago (respect). Neither of these are the solution that I am talking about though. Things are changing rapidly on the home front. I have accepted a new job in Malaysia and start in four weeks. This will seriously put things on hold for at least three years. I intend to continue with the lure design, but not sure I can sit on this theory. I am relieved that I don’t need to pursue protection any longer, it would be like trying to patent gravity. Getting the fishes approval is one of my biggest problems. I am going to have to prove them in USA as that is were the market is. UK is a dead zone for cranks, at least were I live (very few pike waters). As for Scoop10’s view on new ideas. My ‘change the world’ comment was meant as a ‘tongue in cheek’ joke, sorry (English humour). I believe that there are many new ideas out there waiting to be discovered. It is probably not worth discussing the answer lies hidden in the future. I think my point is that if you are a believer, then you are more likely to find the new idea, than if you are not. Is your cup half full or half empty? Tally’s comments on the trial and error, refer back to one of my original lost posts. I objected to having to guess my way through to a successful lure and wanted a ’leg up’ on the knowledge ladder. Understanding the theory of how the lure works will take away the random guess work and endless unexplained failures for those new to the art. Prototype testing and lots of it, is always going to stay with us, as it does in industry. I design in the car industry. Even though the ‘new’ design is virtually the same as the previous model, it still goes through several iterations of design, fine tuning the structure to the new body shape, to maximise the crash performance. In lure terms, fine tuning to get the desired action. We both appear to be on the same page now, this is a good thing. Once again, a very good original thread has been hijacked, apologies for that. I think someone should start a thread on hunting and lets put it to bed for good. I will not start it, as others got there before me and I would like them to reveal and get the credit. If those ‘in the know’ want to discuss the idea privately, PM me, I will try to respect all your views.

Untested, but could black paint be injected into the resin while still fluid using a hypodermic needle. This would give a true 3D effect. Redg8r suggested something similar for introducing veins in plastic, back in 2003 (search 'hypodermic').

The idea of a spinner or spoon that swam at a preset depth was what drew me to this hobby in the first place. I ended up on hard baits because of the neighbours complaining about the panel beating! My first attempt was to design a spoon that swam the top three feet. Unfortunately, it was too successful and cruised the surface. If I was to explore the possibility now, I would incorporate a floating lip, hard bait style. The distribution of the water forces on the lip, above and below the tow eye, would determine the swim depth. The floating lip, rather than moving the lure from side to side, would probably flutter, adding to the attraction qualities of the lure. Has this been done before? I would be very surprised if it hasn't.

Goldenshinner, great question. When I started this hobby half a year ago, I asked the same question myself. With no response that satisfied me, I set myself a set of aims or ambitions. I find it easier to stick to these aims if I tell everyone about them. This was a mistake, as I realise now that many TU members have devoted their lives to this recreation. I announced to the world that I am an engineer who has never fished a crank and bragged that I was going to solve all the crank enigmas, write formulae for everything and change the industry. This naive approach upset a lot of members, in fact, the administration had to shut down one thread because it got so heated. If any of those members are still simmering, please accept my belated apologies. Fortunately, the system crash a few months ago wiped out this embarrassing history, so don’t bother searching for it. So, what did I calculate? After dragging a few sticks through the water, I realised that their was more to this crank thing than meets the eye. The first thing to do was to establish what was going on from an engineering view, what was happening to make the lure move like it does. My aeronautical background led me to investigate turbulence. After a few web searches on turbulence, this exposed vortices as an entire subject on its own and provided a full explanation of how the lipped lure works. Try web searches on ‘vortex’, ‘vortex shedding’, ‘Kármán vortex street’, after just a couple of hours reading, you will have a very good understanding of the function of the lip. If you want to get a little deeper, search ‘Reynolds number’ and ‘Strouhal number’. There is a ton of research being done by university students for their degree thesis, a lot of this work is available for free. I found this research was too basic to understand the lure application completely, but by making lots of prototypes and studying what happens, it is possible to fill in the gaps. The first calculation that I was able to perform was to calculate how many waggles per second the lure would perform for a particular lip width and retrieval speed, interesting but totally useless! These are a few of the BIG questions that most new members ask. Where is the best location of the tow eye? where do you put the ballast? What lip shape is best? How big should the lip be? How do I avoid the dreaded ‘death roll’? All of these questions should be calculable and it was my aim to at least find simple equations that, although not totally accurate, would give a good starting point. I’m sure many of you formed the impression that I sit in a small room in the attic, performing double integral and partial differential calculus calculations, surrounded by a bank of computers, the floor littered with screwed up sheets of discarded papers, scribbled with theorems and graphs. Wrong. I am a numerical phobic, the day I finished college in 1978, I vowed never to dig anything deeper than a square root. I quickly realised that vortex geometry was one of the most complex areas of mathematical study and well beyond my capability. A university computer will take four days to calculate the flow behind a simple flat plate, so what chance do I have? NONE! Does this mean that all we have is trial and error? Definitely not. In our daily lives, we are surrounded by ‘stuff’ that we have a basic understanding of, but never need to calculate. A good example would be car engine mechanics. The mathematics for the internal combustion engine or gear box functions would be horrendous, but a basic understanding is all that is needed to fix it. If all you want to do is duplicate your favourite lure, then you don’t need to understand any of the above. But, if you want to come up with a new design, a knowledge of how it works is all that is required. Many feel that it’s all been done and there is nothing left to discover, all the lip and body shapes have been developed and all that is left is to copy the best and present it better. This is so wrong. It is my opinion that the last hundred years of crank design has barely scratched the surface of lure design. With a basic understanding of how it works, totally new lures can be designed. So what did I achieve in my half a year? I have solved the ‘hunting’ enigma, how it works and how to reproduce it. I discovered a new movement (similar waggle but at half the frequency). These two discoveries alone will give me enough new lure designs to fill a shop. I have a trolling lure design (not built or tested) that will exceed 10mph, why anyone would troll that fast is beyond me, but TU asked the question. I have explored casting problems and developed a simple hinged lip which improves casting distance by approximately 20%. I have developed a simple hinging method for multi segment lures. The top two will be brought to the TU table once the copy infringement issues have been addressed (sorry). The point of this ‘back slapping’ paragraph is to show you that there are endless discoveries to be made in the sea of crank design and, contrary to my opinion six months ago, you don’t need a calculator. Lapala is right, as he was six months ago. Ideas still need to be tested and tweaked. I have a huge collection of failures in a shopping bag. As my knowledge increases, I re-visit them occasionally, to see if I was on to anything, you never know.

AAARHHH!! No wonder I couldn't find it. thank's hazmail.

I bought a set of forstner bits for the dremel, they go up to 6mm dia. Very useful for balsa work.

This discussion about copying and infringement issues continues on all the forums. Many feel that because the use of fishing lures has been around for a few years, that every design possibility has been done and all that is left is to copy the best. This is so not true. Personally, I get zero satisfaction out of duplicating someone elses efforts. I spend all my time trying (and succeeding) to come up with new ideas for hard baits. I even thought of an idea for a plastic bait while composing this reply.

I have not done any lead work, so if I write something stupid, forgive me. It seems to me that, if the process worked when you first tried the moulding operation and failed a few days later, then the only thing that has changed in that time is the wire surface. This could be corrosion or contamination. This can be easily tested by cleaning a few with 600 grit emery. If this works, you should be able to find some proprietry cleaning solvent or acid to dip the wire into. If you go to a plummers outlet, you should be able to buy 'flux', this does the same job, it cleans the surface and 'wets' the surface of the wire to the molten lead. Without the flux, the corrosion/contamination repels the lead surface, leaving a small gap. I have read that many of you use wax to clean the lead. This sounds like the same function as flux. It may be worth dipping the wire into wax before loading the mould. This may be a very bad idea, as the wax will vapourise explosively in an enclosed space and eject the molten lead like an exploding bullet. But, if the moulds are very hot before pouring, then their should be no problem as the wax will have already boiled off.

I totally sympathise. This knot application is a nightmare, the only time that it will be tested is with a huge fish. My solution is to drill a 1mm dia hole through the drum core face (check the inside for a suitable location). Thread the line through and out. I then tie the line to a piece of coc,ktail stick with a small nick cut to stop the line from slipping off. The result is very simple to tie and very secure. No stubby ends to inhibit the cast.

Kill the action yes. As for floater/sinker, my opinion is that it will only have a small effect. The epoxy is slightly heavier than water. The effective sinking effect will be the difference between the weight of the devcon and the weight of the same volume of water. As for the reason why the action is killed, I think it is mainly down to distributing extra weight throughout the lure, rather than having the ballast centrally located. I would be interested to read other opinions.

Dean, I really like it. I believe that if you haven't got anything good to say, then don't say anything.

I agree in principle, but would be afraid that someone could unjustly be criticised. Things sometimes go wrong when you are dealing with so many areas, such as credit card payments, paypal, the postal service AND a few computers. Any of these functions can go wrong causing a glitch in the service. A posted negative opinion could quite easily seriously damage a sellers reputation unjustly. Correcting the injustice with an 'everything is OK now', would probably not fix the damage completely, the bad rep' would tend to stick. I'm sure an acceptable solution can be found, but it has to be thought through, it's not just about the buyer. Excuse me for just thinking aloud.