Vodkaman

Thanks Mark

You will be able to tune the buoyancy by adjusting the %depth of the epoxy to wood. It would even be possible to calculate the percentage on paper, to at least give yourself a reasonable starting point. Dave

There is a lure in that block just waiting to be set free. The even ballasting throughout the length has to be a favourable asset. Maybe a small jointed swim-bait or a glider. Of course, working the material is not going to be easy. Dave

Willie Rip is very knowledgeable in this department. Check out his YouTube page. Also, here is a link to a BSF forum that I have just signed up to, great information here. I am planning to dabble with BSF when my hip recovers a little and I get some mobility back. Dave

BSF is the future. Look into it, not just for fishing. Dave

I too agree with Mark but for different reasons; the density and other characteristics of the final lure material will be different to the original wood. You would get the wood prototype working, and then likely discover that the cast final product does not swim the same. Always prototype with the final materials and hardware, including the top coat for the final prototypes. Dave

I use it for all my lure building. Particularly for calculating the ballast weight for a specific float or sink rate. It is particularly useful if I am building a neutral buoyancy lure. Very good for duplicating commercial lures without having to dissect; simply match the density and the float attitude. Top coat effects; by always measuring the density and weight before and after applying top coat, you soon develop a 'feel' for the weight of the epoxy applied for a specific lure size, critical for suspenders. Controlling and matching the density of the sections of multi section lures for a superior swim attitude and free moving hinge. Planning in advance the effect of the proposed hardware for a multi section lure. I could probably think of more applications, but these are what spring to mind. Density control is not everyone's thing, there is nothing wrong with a bucket for float testing. Dave

The test is very easy, but you do need a digital scale: Archimedes Dunk Test - to find density 1 - Weigh the lure in grams and write the weight down. 2 - Take a cup big enough to submerge the lure. Fill with water. 3 - Place on scale and tare (set to zero). 4 - Using tweezers or thin line, suspend the lure in the cup of water. write down the weight. 5 -Density = weight number (1) divided by weight number (4). Dave

The wobble on the drop is caused by vortices as the water passes over the body. There is a minimum velocity requirement before these vortices form. This minimum speed is dependent in the size and shape of the lure. I suggest that you experiment with ballast to find the sink rate that works. If you have a Gachi, you could perform an Archimedes test to determine the final overall density of the lure, this would give you a good starting point. Once you find the density that works for your lure, all you have to do is match it for a guaranteed result. Dave

Surgeon had a terrific man-cave, all kinds of fancy tools. I could hear the 'whirring' of rotary tools while I was waiting for my turn. It was kind of exciting

Thanks Travis. Yes, having hobbies will certainly help me back with some incentive. The op went well and I start physio today. https://web.facebook.com/REALfarmacyCOM/videos/1744580008958381/

Crashed my bicycle a few days ago, and smashed my hip joint pretty bad. It just highlights the importance of a quality hard top coat. Alas, this soft bait goes under the saw tomorrow for a hip replacement - wish me luck Dave

I can order on the internet, but most companies will not deal with Indonesia because of the returns. EVERYTHING is opened and examined and a charge is levied depending on the product. This charge is usually in excess of the cost of the original product. Plus it is so much hassle, I will not support these vultures. Dave

I have experimented with agar agar as it is readily available here in Indonesia, but with no success. I have been unable to defeat the 'tearing' characteristic. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find gelatin with this being an Islamic society. The arabic gum has also been elusive. Dave

I plan on trying plastic pins next; it is cheap, readily available and with a specific gravity of around 1.2 it is very light compared to brass or steel. Yes, I can hear you all groan. There are two issues of failure; strength and wear. As far as strength goes, less than 0.25" is exposed to the forces and so I am fully confident. Wear is a valid concern. This depends on the expected life (in use). Still, I don't anticipate a problem. Dave

This, in my mind, is the whole point of TU; the sharing of knowledge, either painfully acquired with experience or simply read over the years. Dave

Mark - You've made me blush Dave

Ravenlures - I like the eye-pin type as it gives more room for hardware as I make 4 section baits. I experimented with a double pin a hinge. As well as providing even more space for the hardware, it also gave an amazing action. It is a fiddly affair, so not a good choice for your first attempt. I hope to get back to more testing one day. Dave

Here is a video of an experiment I did on this very subject:

I agree with AZ Fisher's analysis, concentrate on the hinge freedom and level sinking. The problem with wanting a higher sink rate is the extra inertia that the ballast creates. Inertia kills action. The sink rate is going to be a compromise with action. A problem that I see for the future, is repeatability. How do you document the sink rate in order to repeat it. The solution is to measure the specific gravity (SG) of the complete lure (including hardware) because it is density that defines the sink rate. You may find the method tedious at first, but with a little practice it will become second nature. It also means that you can ballast your lure precisely and be confident of the sink rate without ever leaving your workshop. Here is a link to the post that outlines the method. It was written for those going for neutral density. If you measure the SG of your lure with a known sink rate or rate you are happy with, then all you have to do is build to match that number. If you decide that this is too techy, I will understand. As for video, I would love to view. The best method is to upload to YouTube and then simply post a link in your TU post.

Mark - yes, round and square very close in action. I like square because easier to keep symmetry during build. I have just modeled up a new workshop for the limited space that I have available and should start building soon. I have a few projects to build first but hope to get back to lures soon and obviously a test tank will be required. I might even tackle a new duplicator project. Where do I need to post the video? Dave

This is a video that I made after this post. I have posted the video before, but I believe it is relevant to this post. Dave

I would certainly be interested in any information/progress. Dave

I understand, just stating what is possible. There will be several other posts on image reduction. Probably a Google search will reveal more options. As for changing TU, it is a file storage problem, it costs a lot of $$$. Dave

I use Photoshop as a photographer. This image was 5.28Mb. I did a little cropping to tidy up, then reduced the pixels to 1000x670 then saved at quality-1. Final size 49kb.