Jump to content

Vodkaman

TU Member
  • Content Count

    6,605
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    113

Vodkaman last won the day on May 20

Vodkaman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,070 Excellent

2 Followers

About Vodkaman

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 10/03/1956

Profile Information

  • Location
    Indonesia

Recent Profile Visitors

6,253 profile views
  1. Hillbilly voodoo – Good comments. In my early days of lure design and building, I too had a ‘wall of shame’, lures that just did not work. Once I understood more about what the water was doing, I was able to take the lures off the wall. Duplicating a successful hand carved lure is a problem. I am actually considering writing a post about ‘reverse engineering’, the fancy word for ‘copying’. The root of the problem is that it is very difficult to accurately duplicate the exact 3D shape, it will look close, but any slight errors will change things. You can get all the features close enough by eye; shape, lip size and position, ballast location, hook positions, tow eye position and so on. But, the one thing that you have not duplicated is the buoyancy of the lure. If you get say the width wrong by 0.5mm too big then the volume of the body increases by as much as 5%. Add to this all the other body shape dimensions that were very slightly off, and you end up with a significant error, and a lure that floats or sinks faster. Also, add to this any differences in the wood density. If the buoyancy is wrong it does not mean you have to alter the body shape, you can simply adjust the ballast to achieve the required buoyancy. To determine the buoyancy; you could float the lure and make a note of how much sticks out of the water, or you could measure more accurately by performing the ‘Archimedes dunk test’ which I posted under the same name. Yes, sounds complicated, but once you have done it a couple of times it really is easy. Each feature of the lure generally has two adjusters. As stated in the previous paragraph; body shape and ballast are matching adjusters, and ballast is easier to adjust than body shape. Another adjuster pair is lip length and tow eye location, decide which adjuster is easier to adjust. KennyP – thanks for the nice comments, and good luck with your project. CNC – this stuff is not for everyone, it is just another way of looking at things. People know what I write about, if not interested then simply move on. Experience is a powerful tool, but it takes many years to attain. On the other hand, knowledge is a lot easier and faster to attain. Put the two together. Dave
  2. Dave: I would like to have your ballast calculator. Seems great¡¡¡¡. Not sure if I have to include my email....just in case: diegovillarreal2000@gmail.com

     

    Thank you¡¡¡

    Abrazo. Diego. 

     

    1. Vodkaman
    2. calden

      calden

      Received¡¡ after rescuing it from my spam box¡¡¡. Works fine. Thank you. Diego.

  3. CNC - my point exactly. Perhaps I did not write it clearly enough, not my strong point. We have just as much chance of coming up with something unique, a new idea, a solution to an enigma as anyone else regardless of smarts. Dave
  4. I would appreciate it if all those that requested copies of the ballast calculator brought feedback and suggestions of improvements to the table, either by PM or posted here. Many thanks for the encouraging response. Dave
  5. We all use different top coats. I like D2T so about an hour is more than enough. If you have a basic workshop, it is very easy to set up a simple turner. Do some reading, buy a slow motor and get stuck in. It is strangely rewarding to see your work turning Dave
  6. I watch a video with a coated lure by my side, clamped in a pair of Spencer-Wells artery clamping forceps. I up-end the lure every 5 minutes and get pretty good results. It is very little effort having gone to the trouble of building the lure in the first place. It is just a part of the process. Dave
  7. I suspect that you are scraping the sides of the cup when making the final pour. This is bad practice as you pick up unmixed resin. It is better to mix a little extra so that you do not have to scrape. I do understand your problems with only 2.5 minutes for mixing. I prefer a longer cure resin and mix the MBs in after mixing parts A & B. But not possible with such a short time. Dave
  8. Here are three examples of the application, aiming for neutral buoyancy. In each case the ballast adjustment is shown in the green box. It looks like the ballast adjustment values don’t add up, but this is because the material removed for the ballast hole(s) is taken into consideration. I measured and weighed a block of the body material: 1.5cm x 1.5cm x 4xm = 9cm³ Weight = 2.39g. EX1 – a completed lure with 10g ballast installed. volume (Archimedes) = 21.2 cm³. weight = 18.79g. EX2 – a completed lure with no ballast installed. volume (Archimedes) = 21.2 cm³. weight = 8.79g. EX3 – a completed lure with 16g ballast installed. volume (Archimedes) = 21.2 cm³. weight = 24.79g.
  9. I have done a lot of work on ballast calculators in the past. I have never offered them up for use by TU members because I considered them complicated and clumsy. This one however, I consider to be very slick and versatile. You can enter data from a first prototype and it will calculate how much ballast you need to add or subtract to achieve the buoyancy that you desire, be it slow sink, neutral or float. Boxes 1 and 2 are merely to collect data on the body material in order to obtain the material density. Boxes 3 and 4 are measured from a completed lure with hardware, hooks and topcoat. Box 5 is your desired buoyancy, 100% = neutral buoyancy. Box 6 is the density of the ballast. This can be changed if not using lead. The calculation takes into account the body material removed or added to make room for the ballast. PM your email to me if you would like to try this spreadsheet. Dave
  10. If you have a blank body and a fully assembled body with all hardware attached, and a gram scale, then it is possible to calculate the weight of micro-balloons required to add to the resin mix in order to achieve neutral density. a gram scale with 0.01g increment would be nice, but 0.1g would definitely get you close. The solution is complicated and so I have written a spreadsheet to make it simple. You will need to read up the post on Archimedes dunk test but it is really not difficult, as others who have tried it will tell you. If you or anyone would like to try the spreadsheet then PM me your email address and I will send it. Dave
  11. I agree heat or vacuum forming is the way to go. Dave
  12. There was another recent post on the same subject. Basically, you need to model your lure body in CAD in order to communicate with the printer. There is no way around this. Learning CAD is daunting, but is not that difficult if you are prepared to put in the hours. I will add; if you go to the trouble of teaching yourself CAD, you will have to use it regularly even if you do not have a project on the go. In between projects, I like to get in at least an hour or two per week. Fail to take this advice and you will have to learn from scratch every time you start a new project. CAD is NOT like riding a bicycle. Dave
  13. Vodkaman

    1 lb ball

    Barrel twist is the best solution, giving more trapped glue and more 'teeth' to hold. As for testing; I hung a bucket with 20Ltr of water (44Lb) for 24 hours. It held and that was good enough to satisfy me. Dave
×
×
  • Create New...
Top