Jump to content
Mathematical modeling and pure science of lure design
53 replies to this topic
Posted 04 May 2007 - 02:13 AM
Well if it makes you guys feel any better I posed this same question on TU many years ago and ultimately it ended up with no answers. If we were all working with perfectly predictable materials and methods such as injectable molds with tolerances out to .0001 and hard plastics I think it would make things considerably easier. But...when one considers the amount of variables within a single piece of wood, wood types, etc, the picture gets considerly less clear. Really much of this work has been done already and all one has to do is look at the works of others. I am not talking about a direct copy of another lure necessarily but if you want a bait to dive shallow, deep, etc., there is literally thousands of examples to help guide you through the process.
Posted 04 May 2007 - 11:53 AM
I am 100% with what Jed said.
Unless ur building is 100% consistent (okay 98.99%) with your CAD designed & modeled lure it doesn't makes sense to mathematically derive what you want to built. Mathematical model can help u understand how a lure works and explain it empirically but that is not the only way. And as i mentioned in page 1, how do you determine how the fish will like it based on mathematics? Does a 20 cycle per minute lure work better than a 15 cycle lure? I can built a lure; test it in water and calculate the cycles with stop motion photography faster than I can draw a 3D model & run all the calculation and set all the preset parameters in a fluid flow analysis. Plus with 3D modeling you'll have to built the prototype model too. eventually
Handmade lures can be looked at as functional art and should at least be a notch above production lures. Else how would you justify not going the easy way out & buy production lures and/or buy & tweak. You might say I can mold my lures too but catch 22 will be the accuracy translated from your CAD model too. Most of the available CAD/CAM and prototyping machines are way beyond the means of an average hobby lure maker. Even with CNC, it remains if the machine has the tolerance to cut what you draw. A lot of times, production is a trade off between ease of production & what is envisioned. Multi part & multi mold is just introducing increasing errors in your production.
PS: Anyone done a detail lure with CNC? I did try once and the time spent on drawing the 3d wire mesh - 16hrs; actually cutting on the CNC machine for both sides on a 21/4" lure actually took 8 hrs with 5 change of tool bits. Turns out to be a dud too. Worth the time spent? (I didn't mention the hours spent learning the 3D modeling software & translation of model to CNC g-code either) YA maybe I can market the lure as Computationally Optimized, would you buy it?
Posted 04 May 2007 - 04:03 PM
LP, you probably just explained where all those Berkley hours of research work went: Hand carving CAD designs to specification!
Good insights into what is possible and what is practical LP and Jed!
Posted 04 May 2007 - 06:41 PM
I've read this thread with great interest, and I guess it's time to throw in my two cents worth.
I think we are all mostly aiming for the same thing: Creating a better lure to catch fish. Now better means different things to different people. To some it is better lure performance, to others it is better because of the thrill/challenge of fooling a fish on your own creation, and so on.
I think the WAY we approach making a lure is largely based on left/right brain thinking, and shaped by experience.
A very creative person might come up with a very original notion, and persevere because he doesn't know that it "shouldn't" work well according to conventional science. Thus true breakthroughs can happen, and I think, the origin of the "why didn't I think of that?" moment.
Now I personally am in the medical field, and my nature and experience favors a more scientific approach to luremaking, much like I imagine it does for VodkaMan. The "artsy" method of individually trying things for a lure, I.e. trial and error does work, but is not as efficient in many cases, and scientific understanding can shorten a learning curve of making a lure do what you are designing it to do. Of course we can often learn more by our mistakes, those that "should" behave one way, but don't.
Which one is best? I truly believe that A) it depends on the person and We ALL use both approaches, only with varying degrees.
That's part of what makes TU great! One might have ideas on paint schemes, while another might be a wiz at lip design. The Whole of TU is therefore greater than the sum of it's parts..
Hope I didn't offend any,
P.S. Vodkaman, I still havent been able to recieve that file... Any chance you could try one last time by sending it to another member and having them try to forward it to me? (thanx again!)
Posted 04 May 2007 - 08:42 PM
Well, I read the thread and resisted chiming at first. Revisited and agree with the quotes above and many others. That is not to say that Vman, or anyone else is "wrong." In fact, I think they are right in a different way.
Clemmy said it best. I'm trial and error, but others could look at an unknown bait and know as much about what it will do in the water by visual inspection and simply picking it up.
I think when working in wood, the theories are quite useful, but the ultimate test is in the trial and error. But who can argue if a guy can make a hunting lure with predictability.
I have made a few, but not with an amount of predictability.
Posted 04 May 2007 - 10:22 PM
AFTER ALL MY HOURS OF DAYDREAMING OF FISHING DURING THE SAME MATH CLASS I HAVE COME UP WITH SOME OVERLOOKED FACTS THAT NOT MANY FISHERMEN SEEM TO CONSIDER. WITHOUT PUTTING MY 'LIGHTLY' PATENTED 'NEW PLUG' UP FOR GRABS I WILL SUGGEST A FEW SENSICAL QUESTIONS OUT THERE. HOW MANY FISH DO YOU CATCH ON THE BACK HOOK ? NOT MANY ? WELL, THE GREATEST HINDERENCE TO GOOD SWIMMING ACTION IS ADDING A BACK HOOK TO ANY PLUG. TRY TAKING THE BACK HOOK AND SPLITRING OFF ANY STOREBOUGHT CRANKBAIT THEN WATCH THE ACTION IMPROVE!!! IVE DONE A FEW HOURS OF UNDERWATER VIDEOS OF MY OWN CREATIONS, AND TRIED AND TRUE STOREBOUGHT MASS PRODUCED PLUGS.
Posted 05 May 2007 - 01:37 AM
WOW!!!What a topic!!!Very interesting!!First of all!english is not my first language so It would be dificult for me to say all that I have to say about that treat!!!Lure making is a hobbie for me!and for the majority of the tu member!Trial and error is a must in lure making!!And I must say that I like that part!!!!lol!It's like at the casino! when you win you are so glad!!that is one of the greatest moment of your life!!For a lure maker!!!The first lure that works and that can catch fish!!!!!what a accomplisment!!!!SO!!!let keep thing's like they are!!there is a lot of knowledge in here to help every one so why should whe complicate that wounderful thing!!!!lure making whit some math!and trigonometrie,geometrie and all those other things!!!??I allready have to deal whit that in my day job!+ and - .001!I dont think that it realy matter in lure making!!!Have some fun and catch fish!That is what I think about that,BUT that is my opinion!
Posted 05 May 2007 - 07:35 AM
Funnily enough, I took one of those brain tests about a year ago, found it on the web while looking for some puzzles to pass the time. It asked me about a dozen daft questions with sillier answers. It then represented my left/right orientation with a dot on a picture of a head. My dot was positioned inside the left ear. I am also left handed, but doubt that that has anything to do with it.
Imagine a world run by left brain people, what a boring world that would be, even I would not like to live there.
As for random testing against application of engineering theory. there is nothing wrong with either, there are good arguments for each. Neither set of designers should feel the need to defend an argument as there is room for both views. There are several different vocations on the go here and we should respect each of them.
1. There are those that want to make lures purely for fishing. Fancy paint jobs and engineering BS are of no consequence. Catching fish is all that counts.
2. Those who devote hours to the art of the lure. A true labour of love and deserve our respect and admiration.
3. Left brain nerds. The first thing they do when they buy a new reel, is take it apart to see how it works and wander around the lake, harassing all the other anglers, rooting through their bait boxes for ideas.
No matter which one you are, you will be totally absorbed by the hobby. I wake up in the morning and it starts. I drag my spoon through my cornflakes and play with the vortices. It occupies my mind constantly throughout the day, until I retire to bed, when it helps to put me to sleep.
For me, getting involved with the science has been fascinating and educational. I have even found applications for the theory outside of fishing. I have designed a training unit for long distance swimmers and a new type of helicopter blade. When am I ever going to be able to find the time to develop and test them!
As for the scientifically developed lures advertised. I have severe doubts. What makes it scientific? If I measure the lip width with a vernier, does that make it scientific? How about if I measure the weight and the volume to calculate the ballast? Maybe they have a fluid tank for testing, with high speed video cameras for motion analysis. Very convenient but still, no more scientific than testing on the lake.
Posted 05 May 2007 - 11:00 PM
When I decided to make baits myself there were two reasons.One for the love of learning new things and to have baits that no one else has.Not to be the odd man out but if when searching for info on lure crafts all I found were a bunch of schematics and tutorials on CAD and design,I probably would have found something else to do with my time.I could probably have someone take all my drawings and proofs,compile a cad drawing and breif techniques page and some one can make a bait that will be good first shot.But then I would be defeating my whole purpose for my venture into the addicting world of lure design.I guess I like things learned the hard way,thats why not everyone can do this.
Posted 06 May 2007 - 02:49 AM
Hey fishpork!!!!that's it!!!That is the way i see lure making!!!BUT!!!!every one as is opinion!!!So.....cheers Dan
Posted 06 May 2007 - 09:15 AM
Well that's the great thing about TU, that there is room for every luremaking process. Some people are destination oriented, others are there for the journey, all of which can be accomplished in myriad and wonderful ways. I'm sure no one utilizes the same process as I; we all have learned different ways to make lures work to whatever individual criteria and standard we each have, but we share bits and pieces all along the way with a wonderful cumulative effect we can call a knowledge base. I can't thank Jerry enough for his continued hard work that has gone into the platform with which we accomplish this! It keeps all of us moving toward ever-better lures.
Posted 06 May 2007 - 04:13 PM
Again that was only my insight and opinion,And dean. that was beautiful.Amen,Im gonna print it and put it on the wall in my shop.Well spoken!
Posted 07 May 2007 - 11:43 PM
I love that quote, Vodkaman. I think it describes a lot of us on this board. It should be posted as part of the header on the home page of this website as a graphic reminder for those poor, naive, unfortunates who wander in here innoncently hoping to build a bait or two.
I think this will all evntually evolve into a new 12 Step Program...
"Hi, I'm fatfingers and I'm a bait builder."
Response from the smoke-filled room full of people with paint-stainded fingers: "Hi, fatfingers."
Posted 08 May 2007 - 08:58 AM
Heres the equation for good lures
Lots of work + Lots of time + Lots of testing + Tons of frusteration + Lots of practice + Understanding the fish + Doing the impossible = A possibility of a good lure
And theres probably more that I havent listed
Posted 08 May 2007 - 11:38 PM
I love threads that make you think and open new doors. I have always wanted to learn more about hydrodynamics, I will look into some info on the vortexs. Funny, once you start building lures you do look at everything and think....wonder if I can make it catch a fish? Good luck with your new job. Check in once in awhile to make sure and keep us all on our toes.
Posted 09 May 2007 - 12:21 AM
One more thought on paper engineering of a lure, is the constance of the material. Plastic will react more consitantly than wood. Wood Every board in a log same size and all will differ in density and Weight depending on distance from the center of the log.
Posted 09 May 2007 - 08:19 PM
Yup, not to mention the moisture content can differ from center to outer. And if you hit a hidden knot or have one buried in the lure you have a level of unpredicatability.
They say proper planning prevents p*^ poor performance. All of my plans work perfectly until they are attempted. From there it is tweaking to get it right. If I'm lucky, first try. Normal second try. More than two tries, forget it for now and move on to the next idea.
Posted 11 May 2007 - 09:46 AM
wow! i was buired in work and was away from the computer for too long! you guys went crazy on this subject....thank you. i also believe we solve our problems differently. the good and bad news of my own research into this matter: good news.i have a friend in the auto R&D industry that claims there are programs out there that will actualy generate such a desired program. but the bad news is they are not available and I would not be able to use them. - ....some could actualy scan a starter lure generate the formula that represents aerodynamic resistance, and then go from there . he claims im making this more difficult than it needs to be. it is actualy very simple. my best corse is to start with a simple model(lure) and use only one changing variable. say for example we plot lip length against woble on a graph. as the length changes this will produce a nice curve that will be easily graphable to precict max, min, slopes . then we produce another test for lip width. graph these all out. and so on and so forth. it should produce trends to predict were the ideal sizes would be for a particular lure design. I agree that these specs should be posted on packaging. as in all reality a lure has an operating speed that it functions best in. fishing is definitely becoming more of a science than an art. we can fight it as i did with gps, high grade fish finders, underwater cameras etc,.. but in the long run there is more to gain by acepting that the future is here.yes i believe we are on the verge of seeing new classes in lure types evolving. sure patented new designs are great. if they work well.and the money is there, then others will also come out with alterations and updated versions of the same.and thats good because that means your design is a good!
but back to the main subject. modeling. I think that we would benifit from such a resource.
Posted 11 May 2007 - 09:51 AM
say is it possible to post vector based files attached to this thread? if so i would like to post a starter resource for lips that im working on.it is a pdf file.
Posted 11 May 2007 - 10:37 AM
The future is here, of a fashion, and has been for quite some time for all practical purposes, in the guise of mass production of plastic lures. Modeling, within its useable parameters, would enable anyone to easily create a lure that acts exactly like any other lure that is produced by those same finite specifications. Ideally, with tight enough production tolerances, our friend Tally would no longer have to sift through similar looking lures to find the best ones; they would all be equally bad ! Rick Clunn would no doubt concur, because of his philosophy of highly pressured waters, which is in a nutshell, is that bass learn sound wave signatures of popular lures, and become lure shy of certain lures, which is something that most of us with a lifetime of fishing experience have seen happen many many times. Hot lures don't remain hot, although they may remain predictably productive for the rest of their lure-lives.
If mathmatical lure modeling trickles down within the grasp of every fisherman who might desire to build a lure, that wouldn't bother me at all, as it would simply help those just beginning, to build lures that work, instead of having to struggle with that nasty learning curve that some lurebuilders must endure in which to create their masterpieces. This will not threaten the custom lure builder, who will not be any more threatened by modeling than mass production, which created the custom lure niche and which thrives today because of it.