Jump to content
Odd Question.... How Many Engineers?
32 replies to this topic
Posted 14 December 2011 - 04:01 PM
That is the beauty of lure building, you can make it as simple or as technical as you want. Personally I like to employ my engineering skills in the process, but I would never look at another mans methods and say that he's wrong.
If you are not technically minded, applying tech would just suck the fun out of the process. To each his own I say.
Posted 14 December 2011 - 07:31 PM
Solving the problem is the challenge, and learning new skills along the way is the bonus.
Just try to avoid paralysis by analysis, and don't be afraid to make a mistake.
Personally, I learn more from my mistakes, since I have to figure out why it didn't work.
Posted 14 December 2011 - 09:45 PM
Dont be fooled, I may seem like I have a smart guys job, but Im really just another fool with a fishing rod.
Posted 15 December 2011 - 02:55 AM
Sorry for the slow response i actually just got done with finals... I'm glad to see that this post actually generated some interest.
I have read your post regarding the strouhal number and enjoyed doing so.
Vortex shedding is going to be a big part of this study as I will actually be doing tests in a wind tunnel rather than water.
First I had to make sure and match the Reynolds numbers between air and water.... It seems that if you have a reel that pulls in 28" of line per turn at 1 turn/second your reeling at approximately 0.7 m/s... But in air with matching reynolds number the lure would have to be moving (or air moving around the lure in this case) at approx 9-10 m/s.
I will most likely be using the strouhal number in this study at some point for the very reason of calculating the frequency.
Clint M - I actually do not use hardly any technical aspects when making my lures. I use the tried and true "eyeball method", now this does cause some inefficiencies in the process and I recognize that. But Im only building for fun and for my personal use. Also because I am a poor college student and cannot afford accurate machines. All I use is a coping saw, belt sander, dremel and drill.
But I am looking into building my own CNC router when I get a chance.... I met an electrical engineer that showed me the one he built. It would make my lure building alot more accurate and efficient to say the least.
I will say I did use some engineering for my lure turner ... It might be the most unique you have seen on this website.
It involves a variable speed drill and neodymium magnets.... (imagination)
Also, what I always tell my fiancé... My engineering degree is just my back up plan for my fishing career.
Edited by Cmiller23, 15 December 2011 - 03:03 AM.
Posted 16 December 2011 - 08:31 AM
I arrived at the same numbers. Don't be thinking that I haven't thought about testing in air.
Other things to look at in your thesis, seeing as you are playing with Reynolds numbers, is minimum speed that the lure requires to work. This is related to the Reynolds number, being the speed that shedding starts.
Part of me would love to go back to college to do a project like this, but when I finished college I vowed never to play with numbers ever again
Posted 01 January 2012 - 08:00 PM
Mechanical engineering major here. Just getting starting making my own stuff.
Posted 02 January 2012 - 02:04 PM
I was a materials science engineer. My specialty was tribology which is the study of friction, wear, and lubrication. Got to do some cool aerospace stuff like work on the liquid oxygen fill-and-drain-valve on the space shuttle, make microlenses, and work on body armor (SAPIs for our troups). Although I was fortunate to do some cool stuff, I changed careers and now teach kids. If asked, "does being an engineer help with builiding baits?". I answer with "sure but not really" (hopefully basic concepts like center of gravity, action/reaction, fall under "general knowledge" and not engineering). Most important is passion. Building baits is more art than science. I've never made a drawing, calculated ballast wt or position, or for that matter even weighed anything(though I did just buy a scale so I can be more scientific in the future, though I probably won't end up using it much, if at all). When I mix epoxy, I just eyeball it. 99% of my baits swim fine (some don't dive as deep as I had intended and some dive deeper than I intended but no big deal). and the 1% that don't were my two attempts at a (3-segment) swimbait.
p.s. Berkely is a marketing and advertising company -case in point, there are no nanofilaments in their nanofil line.
Posted 02 January 2012 - 02:20 PM
I was torn between engineering and fish biology before I went to Purdue. I'm starting grad school this spring looking at mercury contamination in largemouth bass. However, studying limnology as an undergrad drastically helped me understand the physical properties of water from a biological standpoint (looking at fish adaptations for water). The benefit of this? I compare how my lures work to biotic factors, such as fish, primarily because I do not have the engineering knowledge to understand the technical physical properties. Basically, same goal just different road to get there!
The even more fascinating part (to me) is looking at how fish function. Primarily looking at feeding mechanisms (bass (and other Centrarchids) use a method called a bucal suction pump... basically these fish vacuum there prey in. I've found this to be beneficial in selecting hook arrangements and hook sizes to achieve better hook-to-land ratios. Bad thing is, the fish still win on occasion.
As for the tech talk, I love it! I like knowing why my lures work! At least, I like trying to understand why my lures work! I think that any info helps and, whether I know it or not, I use everything to create each new lure.
Edited by A-Mac, 02 January 2012 - 02:21 PM.
Posted 02 January 2012 - 02:55 PM
Well, After reading all the responses one more time I have arrived at a couple on direct conclusions.
1. There are many learned individuals on this site.
2. No matter how much you know, you don't know it all...
3. Too your original question "How many Engineers?" Well, by the definition "the creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property." IHO, we are all engineers in his (or her) own little world, its just some delve deeper into the complexities than others... Well that and some of you are degreed of course.
Posted 02 January 2012 - 04:23 PM
Corey dont get me wrong I see the advantages of your degree. Im not dissing you either. I like your style. You have the best of both worlds. I get incredibly frustrated thinking out the details sometimes and that is all I was getting at. It hinders me when I get too wrapped up in the what ifs.
Posted 03 January 2012 - 07:57 PM
I did quite a bit of theoretical modeling and monte carlo simulations in R for vortex shedding. Somewhere around I have the results that show the vortex force as a function of effective cross section, lure speed, kinematic viscosity, etc. One the interesting things I found was the kinematic viscosity makes a huge influence.
All that aside, a lure swimming through the water is impossible to accurately model due to the extreme multivariate nature. I have been repeatedly baffled by unexpected swimming behavior of prototypes.
Posted 04 January 2012 - 10:28 AM
So does that mean lures move diffently in muddy water?
Posted 04 January 2012 - 06:18 PM
Not so much the mud but temperature.