Vodkaman

I was never a Gaga fan, but I am now. That was one of the best ever anthem performances I have seen. I have watched the video a dozen times and still, the perfect timing of the fly-past starts me laughing - good job Lady Gaga. Dave

Aulrich - I don't see the problem of making a second half cut with the bandsaw, assuming that the blank is still flat and not shaped. I prefer a bit of slop in the slot, to leave room for the glue attachment, and adjustment if necessary. If the body is already shaped, then you are going to have all kinds of problems, trying to control the direction and the angle and looking after your fingers all at the same time - not good, bordering on dangerous I would say. I have tried the single cut and then opening with a Dremel cutter, but it is messy, with the cutter binding in the slot. Also, I find that the cutter does not guide well and you lose the angular control. It's flat body and double bandsaw cut for me. Dave

MC37 - I suggest that you start a new thread with your problem and post a pic of the mold and a pic of the pour to show the problem. I am sure a solution will be forthcoming. Dave

A most generous offer Bob. Dave

Bob - I agree. I too was a tad nervous that the new ownership was going to distort and bias the content towards the owners products, but it HAS NOT. In fact, if you did not know who the owners were, you could not tell. TU is at least as good as it ever was. Dave

Kevin - We the majority, including I, love D2T. To love D2T, just like a 40 year marriage, you must know and accept the faults and imperfections. BUT, if a new, perfect topcoat comes along, even if it is slightly more expensive to run, a few will PROBABLY jump ship Dave

Kevin - it is hardness that you are talking about. To resist a sharp tooth and remain unblemished, the topcoat must be extremely hard. But, if the bite of the tooth overcomes the limit of the topcoat, the failure will be total, with the complete collapse of the material around the bite. Also, if you strike a rock or hard object, the topcoat will fail by fracture. There are no half measures with such a brittle material, either the coating survives without a blemish or there is total failure. Scratching is a different thing, hook rash is not going to cause a failure, but the material will be susceptible to hook rash. Also, the fine scratches will make the material weak and a lighter rock shock will shatter the coating. Doubling up on the coating of a brittle top coat would add a little extra resistance, but minimal. If the coat was 3 layers, it would still shatter on the rocks. A less hard topcoat will have more flexibility and the ability to flow and deform. All sharp bites are going to leave a mark, but only the strongest of bites could pierce the material and then the damage would normally just be a pinhole. Double thickness coating would give double the protection. A rock hit may leave a mark, but only a razor sharp rock would have a hope of penetrating the coating. We all do the thumbnail test and smile when it is impossible to leave a mark. But, I would say that the best result would be just the faintest of marks from the thumb. This would indicate that the bait will be good on the rocks and will not shatter under extreme tooth loads. It is my opinion that D2T is too hard and easy to crack/shatter. But D2T does look and feel good and I like it. Etex (I have not used) is designed for covering table tops and so must be able to take the shock loads without cracking. It is this quality that makes it a good lure coating. It won't shatter on the rocks and it won't crack under tooth load. For a comparison; pour a 1/8" (approx) strip of each coating material and allow to fully cure for 72 hours. Now try a bend/flex test to see how stiff the material is and to see if it snaps. Put a few scores across the material to represent hook rash and repeat the flex test. Try a tooth test by striking a blow with a centre punch, does the material fail with a crack, shatter or just dent. Dave

I guess you mean 0.040" (1mm). OK for short lipped shallow cranks. Half the weight and a good edge for creating action. I use 0.078" (2mm) for all mine. Dave

Ben - probly spilt epoxy on it Dave

Good post SlowFISH, I totally agree. Dave

Welcome to TU Kenny - ask away. Dave

Mark - I missed that in my search. But like I said; worthy of a patent. Dave

Well stated SMH. I don't think I will ever be getting involved with patents, unless I saw the opportunity to sell a design. I certainly would not be getting into any litigation. My pockets are all shallow runners Dave

When I was starting out with lure design, I refused to look at other people's work. I wanted to explore my own ideas and did not want to be influenced. Even now, eight years on, I rarely go into the gallery for the same reasons. I am the same at work, designing cars. I will tackle the problem myself, say the B-pillar/roof connection. Once my ideas are laid out, I will have a look at other vehicle ideas, because my boss insists. I can then choose the best ideas. Sometimes my virgin ideas win the day, but usually the bosses go for the tried and tested. I like looking through the vintage lures and am often amazed at the innovation, because there was very little science behind the designs, just years of experience and the occasional accident. There is a lot to learn from these old designs, combining them with modern engineering knowledge. Sometimes you can see the potential for an improvement or a slightly different variation that will work better. I haven't followed up on such ideas, as I am still working my own. But, vintage is definitely worth exploring for NEW ideas. Good points made by Elrat and RCBV. For me patents are a complex, tedious, but interesting subject. Aggravating at times, when you see obvious old ideas with patents attached to them. Yes, the above patent claims more than just the tail, in fact, it just about claims everything. A lot of this is nonsense, for example; the body is wider than it is deep. They cannot possibly enforce this claim, as it is too general AND craw bodies are wider than deep. There is nothing innovative here and the same can be said about the rest of the claims. Most of the claims are describing shapes. You should not be allowed to patent a shape that exists in nature, otherwise you will have to explain to the mom and Dad craws, that they are not allowed to infringe on SK's patent. The only remote patent-able feature is the raised edge and I sneer at that too. Dave

Chuy - Stick with it, the E-mag is a great project. I am sure you will figure out the best solutions in the end. I guess the big problem is catering for all the reader formats; some, like me, using desk tops, some using older tech, probably most using new tech tablets. I have a tablet; Samsung Galaxy something or other. BUT, I only use it as a phone, GPS and viewer for my GoPro, NEVER as a computer. I sit at my desktop all day, so don't need the tiny screen of a tablet. I like the PDF solution, but I am sure there are other solutions. I agree, having to send out to individuals is not the route to go. A website that links all the issues for reading or downloading seems like an efficient route, requiring very little web power. We will continue to voice our problems and issues, but don't take this as negative to get you down. We like your idea and want it. Dave

Using the formula W=VA: W = power = 1000Watts per pot = 2000W V = Voltage = 110 A = current re-arranging the formula : A = W / V : A = 2000 / 110 : A = 18.182 Amps. This means that the setup of 2 x 1KW pots should run on a 20A system, but it is close. If the wiring is only rated for 20 Amps, then prolonged use is going to heat the wiring circuits. If you are going to be running a 1KW microwave on the same circuit at the same time, then obviously the limits of the circuit are going to be exceeded. Also, does the 1000W rating only refer to the pot heater elements, in which case, the stirrer motor current must be taken into consideration. Another consideration; is the heater for the injector also separate, if so, this adds more current to the equation. The list quoted in post No15 would indicate that the maximum power used is going to be greater than 2KW, as the pot heaters are referred to as 1KW each, see item No3 in the list. I would be consulting an electrician for peace of mind. DAve

SK as far as I know, haven't chased up on this patent, at least nothing showed up on my search. The need for a patent has to be anticipated and applied for before the product is released, this is why patents are stepped process. If you later realize that you don't need the patent, then you can let it lapse after the first stage, saving a lot of money. Big companies like SK will patent everything, just in case, the cost of patents not being a big deal. They even pay for the follow-up full patent. For this reason, we often see features that have been around and in use on lures for decades, all of a sudden being patented. Raised trailing edges create vortices, which create action. The principle is no different to the paddle tail. The same principle has been patented on other lures with raised tail edges. I find this extremely annoying as a designer, because a lot of the tools in my design box, which I consider obvious and standard, I cannot use because of patents. This is not SK's fault, or any of the other big companies flashing patent money about. It is the fault of the patent assessors, they simply do not know enough about this specialized subject of lure design, in my opinion. I hope you are not getting the impression that I am 'against' Bob's mold and 'for' SK's patent, I certainly am NOT. I think the patent is entirely unjustified. The idea is good, but far from original. An example of good, original design, worthy of a patent, would be the Chatterbait, which was never patented (as far as I know). I am currently working on a hard bait that produces a new type or shape of action, that I discovered quite by accident a few years ago. I call it the DoubleWaggle. However, I morally could not patent the features that generate the novel action, because the features that I have combined to make the novel action, in themselves are just not original. I am ‘all for’ original, innovative, patented design, but this raised edge tail is old technology. What I find really annoying, is when patents are granted for features, that the designer doesn’t understand and even gets the vortex flow diagrams all wrong, and still, the patent is granted. Such nonsense, clearly demonstrating a lack of knowledge on the part of the designer AND the patent assessor. Dave

Good information Travis. You can dry the salt in an open door oven, but it is easy to over do this process and turn the salt brown. Dave

Bass100 - I am glad you gave it a shot anyway. My scale is 0.1 gram, so gets you very close. My next scale purchase will be 0.01 gram which should do the job on the small cranks. I worked out from my experiments, that the difference between a float and sink is 1/200th the weight of the lure. Dave

Bass100 - here is a simple technique, no calculator required, to find the weight that the lure (with hooks and rings) needs to be to suspend. All you need is an accurate gram scale and a plastic cup filled with enough water to sink the lure without touching the sides. 1 - place the cup of water on the scale and zero (tare button). 2 - using tweezers or long nose pliers, suspend the lure in the water so that it is just submerged. 3 - read off the weight in grams. This is the weight the suspended lure needs to be. 4 - compare with the actual weight and you will know how much to add or subtract. DAve

Probably one of the biggest savings, is not having to clean out the injector after every pour operation. The local injector heater is a clever idea. Dave

Another life ruined Dave

You have to put yourself in the position of Strike King. If your copy sales are affecting SK sales profits, then you are likely to get a cease and desist letter, you then have to make a decision; get a lawyer or cease and desist. To get on to SK's radar, you are going to have to move a LOT of product. Lawyering patents takes a lot of time, effort and money and is not something SK will jump into lightly, unless it is fiscally necessary. BTS are more likely to grab SK's attention because of the cumulative affect of selling the copy mold to hundreds of pourers and the copy product they are selling. SK will be well aware of BTS and will be monitoring the situation. SK obviously do not consider BTS a threat and have decided to let it slide. So, unless you are selling 100,000 pieces a month, then you have very little to worry about. Another possibility is that SK and BTS may have struck a loyalties deal, were SK receive a commission on the mold sales, but this is doubtful. These are just my opinions and speculations. Dave

Cool vid Skimpy - passing on the knowledge. Dave

There is no such thing as a 20% or any other % rule. This is the patent document that I am looking at. Dave