Hook Tester Tool

[smirkplug]

Sorry Izorline Gave You The Runaround. Im Not Too Interested In The Results But I Did Try To Help, For $10,000 I Should Have Been In The Line Testing Biz. Instead Of Roofing !!! My Last Try Is Get A Simple, Accurate, Scale, An Old Deep Sea Reel With A Big Strong Handle, Tightly Mount It To A Board Or Metal Rod With Hose Clamps Or Screws, Wind On Some Strong Wire With Strong Snap Or Welded Ring, Attatch The Scale To An Unmovable Object The Attatch The Hook In The Middle At The Various Points You Want To Test, Crank Down The Reel Till It Fails.. Then Waa--laa!!

[David Reid]

Smirkplug, You should be doing alright as a a roofer, roofers make good money. I used to do it myself when I came back here and I had a hefty mortgage on my first house. Heck a man like yourself should be able to buy one of those $10,000 units and donate it to TU members to use and test hooks and keep these hook companies honest. I use to advertise under the name R & R Plumbing as a sideline. People would ring up and say whats the R & R stand for btw and I would tell them Rough & Ready. You would be amazed at how many humourless people there are out there at times. It certainly sorted the punters out quickly. I was amazed at how quickly once I did a job I got repeat work and often months later the same people would put someone else on to me. The trouble with a lot of us is we believe its always greener elsewhere when often it is right under our nose if we learn to look and often use a bit of lateral thinking. Eg. I imagine there was a lot of work in New Orleans and still is fixing and renewing roofs but the chances of being paid these days wouldnt be too bright would they? Thats the good thing about roofing as long as you have a Romalpa clause in your contract you dont get jerked around. You only have to threaten to remove the roof and people normally pay up when they realise you are serious. I only ever had one problem with being paid and that was with a friend who was trying to use me to finance a venture of his down country without asking me. I got my lawyer to send him a letter and once he realised I meant it and was serious he paid up like a lamb. I suspect there would have been some very wet patrons and guests of that hotel otherwise. Heck I wouldnt like to do the same thing with soft baits you would be likely to end up with a load of real smelly fish on your doorstep as payment as a result and possibly a load of hooks that had been tested on this tester for good measure.

With a bit of thought and contributions from others as well yet I am sure between us all We should be able to come up with quite a good tester. That is certainly the one thing I like about this group there is certainly a heap of good people who will throw in their 2c or give you good advice. Thanks Vodkaman for your input. Anyone thought of using a load-cell? Although it might be expensive you could certainly come up with a nice compact unit that would do the trick.

[bassrecord]

Hats off to vodkaman! The intellectual effort you put in your post exceeded my fondest hope but considering this forum was not surprising!

vodkaman said,

As this testing rig is only going to have limited use, I have kept the design as simple and cheap as possible.

Good. $10,000 is out of my range big time.

The design is flexible and easily adapted to other applications. I think the diagrams are self explanatory;

It is for me!

I have given a lot of thought as to what part of the hook should be tested, the point or the bend. In both cases, it is the resistance to bending that is being tested. In my most humble opinion I feel that the most useful and consistent method would be to test the point.

I agree.

As another contributor pointed out that the bend shape can vary dramatically from a round bend to a sharp bend under the point.

This part is true.

Under testing, the round bend would register a much better performance given all other properties equal. This is because the load would be closer to the hook shank. It’s a lever thing (without getting too anal).

If by round bend, you mean the Perfect or Aberdeen or 180 degree half of a circle bend, it is not clear that this type bend would register any better performance at all. In fact all other things being equal, I would very much like to see which bend type did in fact perform better.

The one constant thing for a given sized hook is the shaft to point distance.

Sadly this is NOT always true. Even from the same manufacturer, same size hooks will often have different gapes. This variance is what got me into this testing gig anyway. Going from an Aberdeen to a Sproat or Limerick bend gives up some gape space and then if the hook maker goes to point bend back toward the shaft, it further reduces the gape width. Mustad is doing this with some of their new Signature series hooks and it frustrates me big time!

I agree with the unnecessity of bend testing. I also want to see failure anywhere from eye, to shaft to bend to point. It seems like your water test tool will detect failures anywhere along the fish hook.

The point test failure point should be fairly consistent and is the moment that the hook slips out of the locating hole. Each treble gives three opportunities to verify the results, if they differ wildly then we will have to re-think the whole test method. I do have more ideas for test rigs should this be the case.

Since I don't fish much with double or treble hooks, I'll yield to the testing done by those that do. As any hook's point reaches failure, any bumping or nudging of the test platform may cause premature failure.

The water load can either be marked by the litre, as one litre = 1Kg. or simply borrow the wife’s bathroom scales, I know you guys like your lbs n’ ozzes (1Kg = 2.2Lb). The actual load value is really of little consequence as we are only performing comparative tests between different types of hook. Results within 5% – 10% of each other should not be considered bad results if we are to avoid law suits, anything higher than this deserves mention.

Actually, I am very interested in replicable load values by manufacturer, model and hook size. To obtain thiose values, I might have to buy a scales and have it calibrated and certified to obtain thiose consistent results. A friend said that my torque wrench idea would be less that 5 to 10% accurate and would need to be calibrated frequently or more probably replaced with a higher quality torque wrench.

I've got a couple lead possibilities to make the hook tester. With all your help and ideas and those on this forum, I'll post results.

John

[Vodkaman]

I suspected that Bassrecords comments regarding the hook to shaft variance might be the case. This need not cause a big problem. If the hook load is multiplied by the point/shaft distance, this will give a number that allows a direct comparison. Slightly more complicated but do-able. This problem is going to exist no matter what method is used for testing.

I was hoping that the hook manufacturers would have agreed some kind of standard pitch, apparently not.

Regarding the round bend discussion. I was not referring to any variations in stiffness or strength due to the shape, merely that if the bend had an odd shape, the load would be applied further out from the shaft compared with a pure round bend. The greater offset would effectively apply more load. All else being equal, the odd shape would fail first. This does not mean that the hook performs less. The fault lies with the test. This is why I prefer the point test. Which brings us neatly to the start of this reply.

[bassrecord]

I see where David Reid wants to find a better hook to catch Kingfish. AKA Yellowtail. A fish hook tester may be useful.

What size and model hooks do you use? Do you use lures or bait? Is corrosion a problem?

John

[bassrecord]

vodkaman your load times point-shaft distance may just give a coefficient number that is a good relative comparison. Maybe that is waht Mustad does with their MBF. Hmmmm. Thanks for explaining it. Sorry for being slow on the uptake

Fish hooks often have odd shapes and twists in the bend. Reversed turns one way and kirby the other I think. I agree that either would not be as strong in your test as a straight bend. As I recall the advertising advantages for offset bend tout that bait on offset or kirbeyed hooks have more hookups per strike than straight bends. Again something I'd like to test although I rarely use bait except when fishing with the grandsons

Thanks again.

John.

[David Reid]

John re your query I am hardly getting a chance at present to go fishing although I would love to say stuff everyone and to go and do so. It is generally the opportunity cost that is the problem.Most of it is choice as fishing tends to soak up money and I am concentrating on saving and investing in my business at present as I have a tosser here who has stolen just about everything I own. I feel like killing the guy but it is not the answer obviously as it would only get me locked up for a number of years. I dont really want to bludge hooks and that wasnt the purpose of what and why I said what I said. I just felt it may be a suitable way to test some hooks if necessary. Kingfish certainly have a way of straightening out and testing hooks like no other fish I have seen. They often hit like a freight train and take off so you often have to reset the drag on the fly. If you dont you can quickly get to the end of the line at around 300/350 M and have a bustoff. When you get one on the line you generally know it. Some fish you hook one and you often reel them in and they dont put up much of a fight. With Kingfish this is never the case even the rats put up stiff resistance and a good fight.

Re size I mostly use Mustad and also VMC and the occassional Gammy at times. Also the ocassional Owner at times but they are miles too dear here. All are good hooks and dont give too many problems. Traditionally we use bait or a live bait like kahawai (a form of native salmon really = Arripis trutta) or yellowtail (jack mackeral = Trachurus declivis, New Zealand Jack Mackerel T. novaezelandiae) but more and more of us are switching to soft plastics and using a good quality hook or jighead is increasingly becoming important. I prefer hooks to jigheads myself. You really learn if you lose a decent fish through poor quality how important hook quality really is.

I normally use hooks from 4/0 up to 8/0 and I know others use 10/0 at times for the bigger fish. I tend to use smaller rather than bigger hooks as that way my strike rate is better unlike some people who prefer the bigger hooks. Probably I have proportionally more bustoffs as a result (but thats probably my poor fishing ability maybe). Yes corrosion is a problem as its always a marine enviroment. I certainly wouldnt mind finding a decent SS hook. Proportionally for the same size they are stronger.

As far as testing anything like this I have a friend who is semi retired fishes as much as he can and more or less targets Kingfish the whole time now using soft plastics. He has been using soft plastics for Kingfish for around 15 to 16 months now (it may be a bit longer) but he sent me up an email recently saying he had just caught number 43 which for Kingfish is a very high figure. He is a really excellent fisherman and mostly is a Catch and Release fisherman which I thoroughly applaud as he is not stripping the resource that way. At Easter when I spoke to him and he was around No 38 he told me he had only kept 7 or 8 and most of those were given to groups of people for presents for feasts family celebrations etc. At present I am working on developing totally biodegradeable baits which I intend to manufacture here in addition to the plastisol ones and I feel for sustainability in the longrun are important. In many ways we really do live in Paradise here and I would hate to get 10 or 20 years down the track and looking back see the damage and impact upon the enviroment I had caused if I was to just pursue the plastisol path. It is a longterm goal but eventually I will get there.

If anyone does come across a really suitable hook I am certainly interested in trying and testing them and my friend is certainly the right guy at the same time. (certainly a lot better fisherman than myself). John, Vodkaman and others like I said keep going in the end if we do nothing else it helps keep the hook manufacturers honest. You have certainly put a lot of work into that Vodkaman and I applaud your effort (I have yet to read it thoroughly mind you).

[Vodkaman]

The more I think about this subject, the more negative I become. The shape of the bend is really starting to give me doubts regarding reliability of data. A technique that I regularly employ in engineering research is, if I am not sure of an effect a particular element has on the overall, for example, a particular lip shape. In my mind I totally exaggerate the size or shape or whatever the property is that I am interested in. usually the effect then becomes obvious.

In this case it is the effect of the shape of the hook bend. If the hook bend sharpens or tightens up before the hook point, does it affect the bending performance? Although in my mind this question has been gnawing away at my brain, I have chosen to ignore it, but I no longer can.

It is my opinion that the tightening of the bend will increase the resistance to bending over that part of the hook and the rest of the bend will take the entire load. This means that the hook and tight part of the bend maintains its shape, which is good from a fishhook point of view, but the rest of the hook bend will fail (straighten) more rapidly. If the hook was to snap, my guess is that it would snap at the start of the tight bend. The question is, does it all even out or is one design inherently stronger.

Using the exaggeration idea, imagine that the bend was a very large shape, looping back to the original hook point. This would bend very easily, so this analogy leads me to think that things do not even out and we have a testing problem. Each hook shape is presumably for a reason, higher hook up percentage or strength or easier to get the worm on etc. So to decry one shaped hook for one particular property, in our case, resistance to bending, when the hook was primarily designed for threading worms would be an injustice to the hook designer.

If all you are interested in is bending strength, then I guess that our test is valid. It would be extremely interesting to get a hook designers input on this thread around about now, before we get too deep. (This guy really waffles on!!!)

[bassrecord]

David said,

Re size I mostly use Mustad and also VMC and the occassional Gammy at times. Also the ocassional Owner at times but they are miles too dear here. .....I normally use hooks from 4/0 up to 8/0 and I know others use 10/0 at times for the bigger fish.

What hook model number do you guys use? Can you get jig hooks up to size 10/0? Are any jig hooks strong enough to hold your Kingfish? Does your plastics lures imitate the live bait you use for your Kingfish?

Since I get many ideas for my freshwater lures from you salt water guys and plastics bass fisherman, I'm always interested in learning what is new.

Ah. SS vs. High Carbon steel. The dilema many of us face! I hope the hook tester will give us more insight when comparing the two hook materials and evaluating the cost differences and trade offs.

Go fish!

John

[bassrecord]

This is a second reply. If it is duplicated, please forgive the error.

Vodkaman, if I understand your post, you are starting to have heartburn testing bend back point hooks. If a hook point is inserted in your drill hole, it may cause a fracture in the point area. In my tool the hook point would be inserted into a "V" notch the depth of the hook bend or gape. When force is applied "something" would have to give or move about gape length. The point may fail before the bend fails, or not. Maybe both fail at the same time. But that is what I want to test. I want to test from the eye to the point and all places in between.

My idea for Big bass is that if the hook point penetrates soft or intermediate tissue, the bend is tested more. If the hook point lodges in gristle, teeth, bone or other hard material then the hook point may be tested more.

But after more thought, I now believe that hook pont failure may include bending, fracturing or even separation. If a hook point breaks then my bass will get away so I'll add broken points as failures; 4. Hook points that break, bend or fracture while the hook is tested is a failure.

You express your angst very eloquently - I share your concern. In my younger days, most hooks came with bends that were Round, Limerick, Sproat, etc. types without any bend back. Then along came circle hooks. Today we have way too much bend back hooks IMHO because it reduces the effective gape width.

Look at how much bend back there is in the Mustad 7698.

http://www.fishermansoutfitter.com/m-23-Mustad.aspx?gclid=CPqBu_zP2owCFQJMYgodiEr_dg

Look at the Mustad Aberdeen Jig hook here. It has no bend back.

http://www.basspro.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/SearchResults?searchOption=products&hvarSearchString=mustad&storeId=10151&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&CMID=TOP_SEARCH_GO&x=10&y=10

Vodkaman wondered if one bend design was better than another. We may find out with a hook tester.

He said,

Each hook shape is presumably for a reason, higher hook up percentage or strength or easier to get the worm on etc. So to decry one shaped hook for one particular property, in our case, resistance to bending, when the hook was primarily designed for threading worms would be an injustice to the hook designer.

Here we differ. I do not care what the hook designer was attempting to do or what his goal(s) were, I just want to know how his hook performs for my purposes.

He also said,

If all you are interested in is bending strength, then I guess that our test is valid.

I was hoping that a hook tester would test more than bending strength. I expect hook eyes to fail, shafts to bend, points to fracture - all of these may be more often than bends straightening.

Also I'm not convinced that today's machine-made hooks are "better" that hooks made 40-50 years ago. I hope to test that theory.

For my purposes, I'll probably only be testing round, Aberdeen or Perfect bends, It would be possible to test other bend designs on identical hooks except for bend shape.

Good luck!

John

[David Reid]

John & Vm, Have hardly hard a chance to look at this this week and am about 2 pages or so behind you both, havnt even read the dialogue yet merely glanced at it. Without thinking about it or giving it a lot of thought I suspect the best way to hold the hook and put pressure on it may be to secure it through the hook eye maybe with something like a shakle with a pin through the eye and then with a cone/funnel shape section over the hook point allowing slight movement (sideways or whatever so the stress goes on the weakest section of the hook rather than a predetermined location) applying the pressure. If the cone is also open at its smallest/tightest restriction this will allow the finest point to poke through and the hook to be self setting if you follow me. To accommodate quite a range of hooks it may need various size shakles and cones. Anyway just my 2c and something for you both to think about maybe in the meantime. Alternatively you could use 2 shakles the smaller one securing the eye and the appropriate shakle pin of the 2nd shakle allowing the bend to roll around the contour of the pin as the pressure is applied allowing the hook to straighten and/or break at the appropriate location.

[bassrecord]

A friend, Gary Cumro of GAC Design Inc. a custom hook maker is making a hook tester for me. It should be ready in a few weeks. We used the questions, comments and thought provoking ideas generated in this thread and are very appreciative, humble and thankful for your support.

As more information is available, I'll post here. Thaks again!

John

[Vodkaman]

I can't wait to see what you came up with. Thank's for the effort.

[bassrecord]

You're welcome and thank you for your fantastic effort and cogent thought!

As a service to members of this forum, I will destructive test hooks sent to me and I'll return them when postage is prepaid. I will personally be testing size 4 to 4/0 hooks but will accomodate hook testing for this group size 18 up to 8/0. I am offering to accept hooks for testing, will run the test(s), perform standard statistical calculations and re-mail the broken hooks to the sender along with the test results and analysis at no charge.

My personal testing will go something like this:

I have a box of 100 pieces of hook A, size 1/0, I have a box of 100 pieces of hook B size 1/0. Test the following Null Hypothesis:

Hook A is NOT WEAKER than Hook B if

a. no more than three hooks fail more than 10% less than mean AND

b. The mean break of A is NOT statistically different from the mean break of hook B

1. 10 pieces of hook A will be tested. Each piece results will be entered into an Excel spreadsheet. Simple average breakpoint will be computed.

2. 10 pieces of hook B will be tested. Each piece results will be entered into an Excel spreadsheet. Simple average breakpoint will be computed.

3. If 3 or more pieces of hook A or hook B broke more than 10% of the simplle mean, 11 more pieces would be tested and a full statistical analysis (including outliers) will be run on the 21 piece sample size.

So if B breaks on average before A, I will accept the NULL hypothesis = A is the best hook. I

f A breaks befire B, I'll reject the Null hypothesis and say that hook B is better than hook A.

Testing a single piece of hook A vs. hook B will not be anything other than an intelluctual curoisity. If hook A AND hook B BOTH exhibit MORE that 10% mean variance OR statistical significance CANNOT be established between hook A nd hook B, then an additional box of hook A and hook B will be purchased and the test repeated. If the 2nd test is inclusive, then BOTH hook A and Hook B will be determined to be OUT OF CONTROL and rejected for use.

I invite any comments on this approach and welcome your thoughs.

John

[bassrecord]

I'm sorry for this late post. I've let Gary down but I expect him to have the prototype hook tester ready within the next few weeks.

I'm back home after 9 weeks treatment for an infection from a form of meningococcal disease in my legs. After 8 days in ICU and 10 in the hospital, I was moved to skilled nursing home in Portland for 40 more days. With drips, oxygen, catheter, insulin shots and blood sugar tests 4 times a day, physical therapy, wound treatment, and heavy anti-bacterial medicine, and 2-3 weeks of home health care I'm finally on the mend and

[Vodkaman]

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

[Spike-A-Pike]

John,

I read this thread when I first joined TU and had almost forgotten it. It sounds like you have been through the ringer. I am curious about the insulin shots… was that part of the treatment plan for meningococcal disease or are you a Type 1 diabetic? Diabetics always seem to get a double hit; one for the infection or illness, and a second one for the way the diabetes interact with the illness. If you are a Type 1 diabetic, I can’t recommend getting an insulin pump strongly enough. A real quality of life issue.

I digress, glad your back and feeling better. Any chance you might attend the TU Meet the end of April? I would enjoy watching the hook tester in action. We could bill it like a monster truck event and have the big show on Sunday. I can almost hear the radio ads playing in Clinton, MO now….

[bassrecord]

Thanks for the insulin pump info. Oregon leads the nation in these type dieseases. I was not aware I had it, just thought I had too much endema (swelling) in my thighs, legs and ankles. When I got to the hospital, my vital signs were all out of whack so they stopped all the hypertension (high blood pressure) and all other meds I was taking so they could stabilize me.

I was not type I diabetic but borderline Type II corrected by Gliptizide, a generic for Gluctrol. When they took me off that they substituted insulin shots and it took me over a month to get off insulin shots and back on Gliptizide which nicely controls my blood sugar.

I can't get to Missouri in April. If you want me to test some of your hooks before then, contact me.

Thanks for your interest in hook testing.

John

[Spike-A-Pike]

John;

I have a daughter who is a LPN now and after a year of long distance tutoring, I find the subject of medical treatment to be fascinating. It’s weird how some diseases present; and it seems like you have to feel worse at times to start feeling better. About six months after I was diagnosed as a type 1, I accidentally put myself into a diabetic comma and woke up in a dark ICU treatment room wired to monitors and IVs. So, as I wake up and start taking this all in, a finger tip hit a sensor pad and I noticed it created a spike on the monitor and a corresponding beep. After a few minutes of testing, I got some pretty cool spike/beep patterns and I decided to play the drum solo from In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida on them. About 20 seconds into my solo, 3 or 4 nurses with a crash card came busting into the room. Oooops!

Sorry to hear you won’t be able to attend the TU meet in April. I’m hoping to bring Vodkaman and Hazmail back from a night out with a really bad lamp shades on his heads, singing bar songs. We have discussed the idea of tank testing lures in a hotel pool. That could get a little sticky. At a minimum, I am hoping to post a few photos of the event and let the fellow members prepare for the TU Meet, 2009.

I don’t have any hooks to submit for testing at this time, I look at treble hooks as a replaceable resource that can fail or be cut as needed to release big muskys.

Happy to hear you’ve recovered, that health wise, everything is returning to normal, and stay out trouble. See you on campus.