nickcalderone

I'm BACK!! LOL

Hazmail, I have used the Eagle Fishmark 480 extensively. It is "simple" by most of todays standards, but I have found it to be remarkably accurate and the settings are easy to adjust once you learn the menus. It works just fine at full speed (about 40 mph) as well as stationary or slow trolling. I have used it in fresh, salt, and brackish water (I live in coastal Alabama) and have been satisfied with the information that it is able to display...but keep in mind, the information is open to interpretation. After I purchased the units (I bought 2, one for the front, and one for the driver seat) I installed them and spent nearly two days on the water just reading the sonar. NO FISHING! Yes, it was tough. Anyway, I found that saltwater required more fine tuning than freshwater...perhaps the density of the water and salinity content. There is a crystal clear freshwater lake not far from here, so, I spent a full day just idling and trolling out there. I was able to visually see down about 30 feet, so, I could see with my eyes whatever the sonar could see. It was very accurate...for the most part. There were a few false readings, or ghost fish here and there. This happened mainly when I would glide over a tree top that had large branches jutting out. Some echo's would come back as fish arches even though I could SEE with my eyes that they were not. I was most impressed though with the ability of the unit to track a jig, dropped vertically, in 30 to 40 feet of water. I could literally see the line "move" on the side of the screen. This is great when you know exactly what depth the fish are holding. As for depth, countours, structure and bottom composition, I was able to get a fairly sharp perspective of what was below the boat, but it did take some time to learn to interpret what I was seeing. It seemed to false alot more often in salt water, although, that could have been more of an adjustment error on my part though. I think that most all of the units (except Humminbirds sidescan sonar) are basically open to your own interpretation and adjustment on your home water. The more time you spend looking at them, the more that you get a "feel" for what is down there. I wouldn't really say that I use it to find fish as much as would say that I use it to find structure and depth. On a side note, Humminbirds side scan units are absolutely amazing! A local guy here was trying his out on the same lake I fish and found a beechcraft cessna airplane on the bottom in 40 feet of water! I posted the story and the images on here a while back. It was like looking at a photograph! I had the opportunity to check one of these units out on the water in a friends boat...and I have to say, these things are far beyond anything else you have fished with. EVERYTHING is displayed with picture perfect clarity...no interpreting necessary. I was thoroughly impressed. So much so, that when I can afford one, I will purchase one. The menus were easy to navigate, and there was SO MUCH DATA. Kinda intimidating at first, but once you get the hang of it, you are "hooked". Anyway, sorry to ramble....just wanted to add my 2 cents.

Seems like the American way more and more these days...big fish eating the little fish...now, HUGE fish are eating the big fish...whats next?

Have you considered buying a cheap hotplate ($10) from Big Lots or Wal -Mart? This might be a better route for you to try. In my opinion, it is more suited for someone who is just starting out. You will have more control over the exact temperature of the plastic and you will be able to almost immediately correct any issues (i.e. overheating) by simply removing the pan from the heat and stirring. *NOTE TO EVERYONE*Before I get attacked by microwave users, I am not saying that a hotplate is in any way, shape or form superior to microwaves...I am just trying to make a suggestion to help this member out. OK? Also, I am not sure how most people feel about this, but, personally I try not to use old plastic worms to remelt as you never know what is in them or if they will mix well with other old plastics...not to mention that they may not contain any type of heat stabilizer which would cause them to scorch easily. Please be careful and remember to KEEP SAFETY A PRIORITY! Wear protective eyewear and gloves when doing this especially using a microwave...and old plastic...in an outbuilding... You are in the right place and you will find nothing but genuinely kind and helpful people here! GOOD LUCK!

RTV is far superior, in my opinion, than POP...except for price. POP will cost under $10 for a small box...RTV silicone will cost about $30 for a small container. (14oz) RTV will produce a fleixble mold that will not crack or shatter. RTV will also produce a consistent finish on the bait with no need to re-coat the inside with glue. Lastly, RTV will reproduce EVERY MINUTE DETAIL down to the tiniest bump, dimple, ripple or line. Just my humble opinion.

Doesn't it just make ya wanna go out and buy one?

UPDATE! Okay, here is the scoop. The aircraft belonged to a flight instructor, Doug Flint, who lived here in Mobile. In 1982, he flew from Mobile to Texas to pick up his son-in-law. They both flew from Texas to Mississippi to see Doug's daughter who was in the hospital there. Doug left Mississippi alone bound for Mobile but for some reason did not refuel before leaving. I guess with him being a flight instructor, he figured he had enough fuel left to make the trip home? Anyway, he was just a few miles from the airport here in Mobile when, apparently, he ran out of fuel. It was very dark and foggy that night, so visibility was probably near zero. I guess he tried to set the plane down in the lake? Anyway, the lake sits in a very secluded area and apparently no one heard the plane go into the water. The crazy thing is, according to accounts, Doug and his plane were missing for nearly two weeks...he and the plane had just "vanished". It was like he took off from Mississippi and just vanished into thin air. I guess none of the authorities thought to look in the lake? After a couple of weeks, a body washed up on the shoreline. It was later identified as Doug Flint, but it was unclear how he wound up in Big Creek Lake. And still, NO ONE SEARCHED THE LAKE??? I guess back in 1982, they didn't really have the technology? Especially here...we are WAAAAY behind anyway. :lol:So, long story short, a guy goes fishing on Tuesday and decides to try out his new toy...and what do ya know! PRESTO! Mystery solved! After some red tape and lots of financial responsibility debates, the local officials have decided NOT to remove the aircraft from the lake.... The pictures from the Humminbird are on the website of a local news station. I am not sure if I am allowed to post their web address here, so, PM me if you want to take a look at the pics and watch the video footage. I wonder if anyone has tried one of these units in the Bermuda Triangle? Loch Ness? Bimini? Anybody want to search for Atlantis? I will buy the snacks!

No...there was no one inside the plane. I will try to find out the rest of the info as soon as they release it. They have not yet brought the aircraft up from the bottom of the lake...yet. The fact that the Humminbird sonar was able to produce a picture of the aircraft so clearly at 30 feet was absolutely astonishing! Like I said, that aircraft has been there since 1982. I have passed over it dozens of times and never noticed a thing. This guy passes over it ONE TIME with this unit and BOOM! I really want one of these things now! This is a prime example of how much we are missing with regular LCD's. So much is lost in interpretation...but not with the Humminbird. Living here on the coast, I wonder what treasures are sitting right off the shoreline waiting to be discovered.

Get this... A local guy was out on a lake here called "Big Creek Lake". He was using Humminbirds new sidescan sonar unit. Anyway, he came across an aircraft in about 30 feet of water perfectly intact! He called the local Sheriff's department and at first they didn't believe him! They sent a few divers out and sure enough, there is a plane at the bottom of the lake! The pictures that the Humminbird showed were almost like a photograph...I was really impressed. Anyway, come to find out, they think the plane belonged to a man whose plane went missing in 1982 while on a flight to Mississippi. I wonder how many times I passed over that plane with my old LCD and never noticed anything?

Um...not to be "particular", but what do you mean by "the bottom is deeper than the top"? Pressure is relative to depth. The specific bouancy of an object is determined by it's composition. That is why rocks sink. They are more dense than the water itself. Foam floats because it is less dense than water. Plastisol has a somewhat neutral bouancy depending on what additives are in it. Plastisol by itself will simply float. Add a specified amount of salt for example( or other additive) equal to or greater than the density of water, and it will sink. It has nothing to do with the "bottom being deeper than the top". That is why I suggested the experiement in my previous post...to prove that pressure is indeed equal. If you were to try that experiement, you will see that when you pull the foam head from the water, it will have shrunk uniformly! Of course, you would have to sink it to a specified depth greater than the overall density of the foam itself. And the deeper you submerse it, the more it would compress...within the limits of the compound (foam) of course. To throw another curve in here, saltwater is slightly more dense because of the salinity content. That is why you are slightly more bouyant in salt water. Maybe that is why saltwater fish seem easier to catch...all that pressure makes them dense! (hahaha)Density...pressure...sounds like a day at work!

Fresh water is: 0.43 psi per foot. So, for every 10 feet of depth, you will average 4.3 psi increase in pressure. The pressure is indeed equal on all sides.(interesting test: take a styrofoam head and tie a heavy weight to it with plenty of line. Drop it overboard in, say, 80 feet of water. Pull it back up, and let us know what your results are!) What I would think would affect the position of the worm would be it's specific density. This would correlate to the specific bouancy of the actual plastic including ANY additives. (thats what Del was talking about)

I agree with all of you! I have the most confidence in a simple white spinnerbait...but this test wasn't about that. I just thought since I had most of my family out there, I had the opportunity to try my little test out. Like I said, it really doesn't prove anything, it was just interesting to see how it played out. I didn't want to get too detailed about all of the factors and conditions since I was already hi-jacking the thread as it is. I will say this though, Savannah (who caught the most fish) basically stayed in one spot along with my dad and sister. I watched her and noticed she was reeling the bait in faster than I would. Her first fish came around 3 P.M. and then nothing until around 5 P.M. when the sun started going down. That is also when my dad hooked his. Mine both came around 4 P.M. and were actually in shallow water parallel to the bank. Savannah was casting to the middle of the lake. Myself and my nephew walked the bank at the time when I caught my two fish. I am not sure what the water temp was, but the air temp was about 65 degrees F. and it was slightly windy. The water was stained. Again, I am sorry for hi-jacking the thread.

Just wanted to add my two cents here. I will try not to hi-jack this thread too much, but I have an observation to share with you. I read your original post, and put that theory to the test over the weekend. Sunday afternoon, I went to my sisters house which sits on a private lake. She, her husband, my neice, my nephew, may father and myself, were all fishing. They know what a fishing nut I am and that I pour my own baits etc. Anyway, I told them that I wanted to try an experiement and they agreed to help me. So, I rigged each person with the EXACT SAME style of worm,(4" stick wacky rigged) but each worm was in a different COLOR. Three of the worms were laminates and three were solids. Now, I told them to fish the worms any way they wanted (i.e. slow, fast, hopping off of the bottom etc.) We were all fishing from the bank about 6 to 8 feet apart. Everyone was using clear monofilament line except for me, and my nephew Caleb. I was using flourocarbon and he was using moss green mono. I kept track of each persons fish and the data is as follows: My sister was using a cream/green laminate and didn't catch anything. My brother-in-law was using a purple/silver laminate and didn't catch anything. My nephew was using a red/rootbeer laminate and didn't catch anything although he did hook something, but it came unhooked before we could see it. My father was using a green pumpkin color and he caught 1...but it was almost 4 lbs. I was using a translucent purple color and caught 2. Both were also small. (under 2lbs.) My neice was using a solid black 4" and she caught 5 total. They were all relatively small (under 2 lbs.) but she did manage to catch the most fish! I know this doesn't really prove anything, I just thought you might like to know the results of my little test. To be honest, I was shocked that Savannah's simple black stik caught the most fish. I thought for sure the flashy laminates would produce. I have had good luck on the cream/green laminate color in that lake before. I'm sure the results would be different if we went fishing again this coming weekend. It's just interesting to see how it played out. Sorry to Hi-Jack the thread.

Yeah...I make sure to save the beer for after the molds are made!

This might sound strange, but you may want to try the "bombs away" method. It works with RTV silicone, so I would assume it would work with POP. (although I have not tried it with POP) Anyway, after you mix your POP batter, place your mold cavity on the floor directly below the edge of your table or workbench. The distance should be around 2 to 3 feet. Then, tip the pour spout of the POP container SLOWLY so that a VERY THIN....VERY THIN...VERY THIN...(did I mention VERY THIN?) stream of POP flows down into the mold container. This will eliminate 90% of the air bubbles...it takes some patience, but it works. Like I said, I use this method with RTV silicone, so I don't see why it would not work with POP. Good luck!