Hook Tester Tool
43 replies to this topic
Posted 09 June 2007 - 01:12 AM
Ive Seen A Line / Knot Testing Machine At A Trade Show, That You Could Use For Hooks, Izorline Had It. If You Contact Them I Bet They Would Send You A Photo Or Schematic Of It. Be Very Careful So You Don't Fling A Hook At Yourself. Also For Lures You May Want To Check The Strength Of Splitrings You Use As They Usually Fail Prior To The Hook. Please Post Your Findings And Good Luck.
Posted 11 June 2007 - 03:48 PM
smirkplug said, "Ive Seen A Line / Knot Testing Machine At A Trade Show, That You Could Use For Hooks, Izorline Had It."
Yep, I emailed them and they sent the following:
"Our line testor is made by Chatillion. It costs about $10,000. Izorlline"
Google turned up: http://www.chatillon.com/index.html
Thanks for your info!
Posted 11 June 2007 - 07:50 PM
As this testing rig is only going to have limited use, I have kept the design as simple and cheap as possible. The design is flexible and easily adapted to other applications. I think the diagrams are self explanatory; there are no critical dimensions so I will let them tell the story.
The only part requiring some explanation is the ‘metal plate’. Inside the upper hole is a small 1mm dia hole in which the hook point locates. In order to drill this hole, the plate may have to be bent over. This is not a problem and the plate can be flattened again after drilling. To enable the locating hole to be drilled means that the plate material will probably have to be at least 1.5mm thick, but aluminium plate will be plenty strong enough for the purpose. Alternatively, a thinner material can be hammered over to make a hook on which to locate the hook point. The original design was to enable both point and bend testing with the same plate.
As mentioned earlier, SAFETY GLASSES.
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. As another contributor pointed out that the bend shape can vary dramatically from a round bend to a sharp bend under the point. 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). The one constant thing for a given sized hook is the shaft to point distance.
Additionally, if the bend was tested, I feel that determining the point of failure consistently from hook to hook could be a problem due to the barb snagging on the plate. True, the barb could be crimped, but this invasive operation could affect the result and the snag issue will not have completely been removed. In reality, the same properties are tested, the results of a round bend test will be double the point test, as the shank/point distance is double the shank/bend distance (there I go again).
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.
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.
I wish that I could build it for you but unfortunately I am snookered at the moment as regarding a workshop. Good luck and report back.
Posted 11 June 2007 - 07:52 PM
First of all I would like to congratulate all those members who have contributed to this fascinating post. Not a subject that I would normally have been attracted to, but the depth of knowledge and research shared has really grabbed my attention to the extent that I have invested more hours in thinking time and actual work than I care to admit, as I suspect have the other contributors. I am well and truly hooked, pardon the pun. For anyone searching for information on hooks or testing in general, this post will be a ‘must read’ in future.
Anyone who delves into any subject to the nth degree could be accused of being anal. But just by being an active member of this very specialized club could all be accused of the same crime. This is what we do. Anything that one would wish to know about lure design etc can be found within these pages. If it is not written, ask the question and the information will be forthcoming by the bucket load.
I take umbrage at being accused of wasting my time, not upset, just mildly irritated. This is not the first post that I have been involved with were someone feels the need to belittle the efforts of like minded TUists. Clamboni, I am surprised at your comment as all your previous posts have been very interesting and instructive, always worth reading. Maybe I am just being a bit touchy having just spent about twenty hours thinking about the subject and doing a little drawing. Respect anyway.
Posted 11 June 2007 - 10:24 PM
Vodkaman, Good effort I will look at it later and add my 2c worth. Re Safety Glasses Excellent Advice. Like they say Hindsight is Perfect. You have obviously been a parent or are a parent. Havnt time to read it at present but will get to it. John and others when you have found some really good hooks send them down to me for infield testing. Our Kingfish are notorious for straightening hooks out and breaking them as well and grow to over 100 lbs here where we hold most of the world records for them. In the States you have even changed the name and call them Yellowtail so you can have your own records. On the West Coast and California generally they are lucky to reach 60 lbs generally although you do get them at 80 lb. Its probably all those darn Japanese and darn Hawaians catching all the big ones I suppose. (sorry folks I am not being racist just commenting on people that catch fish which have my name on them but someone else pulls out of the water). Unfortunately that happens when you have large populations. Such is life unfortunately. These are certainly the ultimate testing machine and even the undersized rats give some hooks a hammering. When you hook one of these and if they dont bust you off on foul or piles or whatever you often have a 20 minute and sometimes over half an hour battle to ensure you land it. I am sure you have similar fish in the States. From that point of view John you are on the right track and anything that helps an angler land a prize fish is possibly a good thing (although that means I can no longer catch that fish). Most of the well known brand names of hooks such as Mustad, Owner, VMC, Gammakatzu etc and even Eagle Claw who have upped their act do a good job and put out reasonable hooks but anything that can encourage them to improve their act put out better more reliable hooks and keep them honest is a good thing in my opinion.
Posted 11 June 2007 - 10:30 PM
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!!
Posted 11 June 2007 - 11:49 PM
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.
Posted 11 June 2007 - 11:58 PM
Hats off to vodkaman! The intellectual effort you put in your post exceeded my fondest hope but considering this forum was not surprising!
Good. $10,000 is out of my range big time.
It is for me!
This part is true.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted 12 June 2007 - 12:11 AM
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.
Posted 12 June 2007 - 12:48 AM
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?
Posted 12 June 2007 - 01:13 AM
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
Posted 12 June 2007 - 07:42 PM
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).
Posted 13 June 2007 - 12:54 AM
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!!!)
Posted 13 June 2007 - 05:11 PM
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.
Posted 13 June 2007 - 11:06 PM
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.
Look at the Mustad Aberdeen Jig hook here. It has no bend back.
Vodkaman wondered if one bend design was better than another. We may find out with a hook tester.
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,
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.
Posted 14 June 2007 - 04:05 PM
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.
Posted 04 October 2007 - 11:51 AM
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!
Posted 04 October 2007 - 07:16 PM
I can't wait to see what you came up with. Thank's for the effort.
Posted 04 October 2007 - 10:49 PM
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.
Posted 10 January 2008 - 07:01 PM
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 ‘good to go’. “Thank you for your prayers and concern. There is a God and His Son was with me in this ordeal. My family helped so much and I cherish them for their support.”
Gary is finalizing the tester. So if any of you want me to test hooks for you, let me know. I expect to have the hook test publically available to demonstrate at the Oregon FFF Northwest Fly Tying Expo in March.