Jump to content

Vodkaman

TU Member
  • Posts

    7,342
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    214

Vodkaman last won the day on December 7 2021

Vodkaman had the most liked content!

About Vodkaman

  • Birthday 10/03/1956

Profile Information

  • Location
    Indonesia

Recent Profile Visitors

9,754 profile views

Vodkaman's Achievements

Explorer

Explorer (4/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare

Recent Badges

1.7k

Reputation

  1. You can do most of the R+D on the computer using your CAD software. Inputting material densities and ballast positions, you can get your lure to float exactly how you want it to, with the desired buoyancy too. Split body materials can also be modeled, saving probably a hundred hours or more of test pours. Dave
  2. The lightest density that I ever achieved was 0.67g/cm³ and the texture was that of English mustard and had to be injected. So, I would say that your paulownia plan is impossible. Dave
  3. Just hover the cursor over your avatar and the information appears, January 3, 2007. Happy New Year everyone Dave
  4. One thing I have forgotten; if the lure is breaking the water surface, then this complicates things and may make my analysis above irrelevant. Dave
  5. JD_mudbug – Great comments, covered most of what I was going to write. You should follow his suggestions first, as my suggestions are purely based on theory. First a disclosure, I have never built a wake bait. The bait looks like it would swim nice without a lip, with the tow eye just below the chin as shown in the 3rd pic (end view). The lure attitude is determined by a balance of forces above the tow eye and below the tow eye, in other words, the force of the water on the back of the lure balance the force of the water on the lip. What I see happening, is the water forces on the lip force the lure nose down. This moves the lip passed vertical and so the length of the lip is effectively reduced as seen in the swim direction, this reduces the force on the lip. At the same time, the back of the body rises and so the forces acting on the back increase. The result of these forces means that the bait rotates/rocks nose up then nose down, and then the whole process repeats, resulting in the bait rocking up and down rather than producing vortices that will give you the side swimming action that you are looking for. Try shortening the lip, possibly by a lot, but do it gradually. If this does not work then angle the lip more forward, say 10° and adjust lip length again. As long as the lip is not pushed passed vertical then the lure will find a stable balance, and will generate side vortices. Once the lip passes vertical then it cannot reach a balanced state. I know, complicated. Not my fault Dave
  6. Let me expand on the advantages of 3D printing of baits. Once you have a CAD model that works for you, it is little more than a push button exercise to produce more bodies. There are various materials available, but I will not discuss further here, it is up to you to research. The print is slow, but for a small crank bait, 4 or 5 could be printed per run on most budget machines. We are basically talking low volume production. The HUGE advantage is that you can produce lures that are impossible by injection molding and/or casting. Features such as concave lips, lips with sharp edges, external sharp corners. You can produce 3D pectoral fins as discussed in a recent post on sculpin fish, for that extra realism. If your intention is to one day hit the BIG time and get your lure injection molded, you can emulate the injection molding and check that the lure works before spending thousands on expensive tools, there is no money back policy on tools that produce duds. Dave
  7. Several people have posted 'duplicator' machines, I myself have built a couple. Computer NC control is an option, but all the machines that I have seen are manual motor driven. Commercial duplicators are very expensive, in the region of $50K but I built mine for around $200, not brilliant, but I was very happy with the results. Try a TU search. 3D printing Is a viable option. I have designs, but I have not printed one off myself as yet. To do the job properly, you will need to master a CAD software to a reasonable standard. You will also need to get involved with densities, COV (center of volume) and COG (center of gravity), to have any chance of creating a lure that floats how you want it to do without a lot of tedious trial and error. I hope to source a 3D printer locally one day as I have so many projects ready for printing, not just fishing. There are local printing services that I have used, but they are just too expensive. Dave
  8. The process to convert to STP, STL IGS or any other conversion format is basically a 'save as' function involving 5 or 6 clicks. Either his CAD program has the feature (most likely) or it does not. Either the process takes seconds or is impossible. Simple lure body shapes take only a few hours to create. But, a body with gill forms, caudal fin, dorsal fin, pectoral fins, eye sockets or domes, mouth shape, and anything else, don't even ask for scales, can take upwards of 50 hours CAD work. Half of that is figuring out how to do it. Once you figure it out, and do the work fairly regularly, you could get the time down to 20 hours. If I put that kind of effort into a model, I am not going to give it away for free. When asked, I could take one of two directions with my response: 1 - "You're joking, right!" 2 - "Sorry, my CAD system can't do it, or is very difficult." Obviously a nice guy (like me) and gave you option No2 Dave
  9. The lack of response to this thread probably means two things; 1 - no one has tried it. 2 - no one thinks it is a good idea. My thoughts are that adding MBs to a 5 minute mix and then trying to apply it to a body, is a disaster waiting to happen. This is why Mark is suggesting a test piece trial first before potentially destroying a body. Regardless, I wish you good luck Dave
  10. Good decision to ask for help, and I hope you get it from experienced designers and builders. Unfortunately, I can only tackle this enigma from a purely theoretical place. Dave
  11. Firstly, great work with your experimenting. There is so much information here, it is going to take several reads to soak it all up. The 'closer to rod tip' thing makes sense. You are dealing with an action that moves side-to-side, so as the lure comes closer, the offset angle from the centerline increases. Resin-MB mixes are literally just creating a pure wood alternative. The problem is that the wood alternative that you are creating is very dense, probably around 0.75g/cm³. The lightest material I was able to make with resin-MBs was 0.64g/cm³. So, if you can make a glider with heavy woods then you can make the same glider with resin-MBs. You will have to ask glider experts about that. That is all I have for now, but will likely return with more confusion Dave
  12. I'm only an 'apprentice', so I am just going to follow you Mark, as you 'explore' the issue. You could try a Facebook search for the answer Dave
  13. As I understand things, Createx is a T-shirt type paint and must be heat treated to fix it. Blowing to touch dry is simply not enough. You MUST fix with a hair dryer. Dave
  14. In the gallery, NOT here! Dave
×
×
  • Create New...
Top