Leader connections / Behavior of sinking vs. floating lines

Walter & Group...

A very few of you have been brave enough to attempt to answer our question on the FUNDAMENTALS of leader design.

You Master candidates might well be asked that very question on your oral exam !

I'm been waiting for more responses before sending the ones we have so far.    Don't make this more complicated than it is. Use the basic knowledge you already have and I think you'll come up with a good common sense list. 

Gordy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

David Lambert sends us this information on leader connections/knots .  My brief comments in italics.  G. :-

Gordy and group

 

Thought the group might find this of interest.

Field & Stream fishing editor John Merwin tested break strengths for nylon and fluoro lines and knots in the May 2010 issue.  Merwin spent ?several? thousand on a Chatillon/Ametek calibrated force gauge for his tests.

 

Line and knot winners were:

 

• Break strength winner for 10-lb mono -- P-line X-tra Strong, 22.8 lbs, .015 dia.   Ten lines were tested and all broke above 10 lbs.  Ande scored worst at .012 diameter with 11 lb break.  Stren Original, Silver Thread and Trilene Big Game all tested 13+lb break.  Maxima came in at .0145 dia. and 14 lb. break.

 

• Line-to-line knots winners (note: see tippet to leader below) -- On mono-to-flouro, a 5-turn blood knot, 83% of strength.  A 4-turn Uniknot broke at 61%.

I wonder how the improved clinch knot would have compared ?     G.

 

• Mono-to-fly/lure winners:  Tied -- Trilene knot, 6-turn regular clinch knot, and 5-turn improved clinch, each broke at 96% of stated strength.  The 5-tun ?regular? clinch broke at 81%.

 

• Flouro to lure/fly winner:  4-turn non-slip mono loop, 83% break strength. Palomar, 82 %. 5-turn improved clinch 75% using flouro.

 

• Superline to flouro?  The ?J? knot, hands down.

David... do you have a reference for the "J" knot ?     G.

 

• On 6x tippet and size 18 fly:  3-way tie. 1. The 3 turn 16-20 knot (aka: Pitzen Knot) (97%).  2. 6-turn improved clinch knot, 96%.  3.  Orvis/Becker Knot: 94%.

 

• 6x tippet to leader:  Triple Surgeon?s and blood knot broke in the low 80s; the winner was the Seaguar knot: ?Exceptionally strong (97%),? and ?substantially easier to tie.?

 

I don't know the 16-20 knot, but here?s a link to the Seaguar knot video: http://www.seaguar.com/seaguar-community/seaguar-knot.htm. 

David....   The 16-20 knot is the same thing as the Pitzen knot.  I have no idea where the numbers 16 and 20 came from.  G. 

Lots more good info in this Field & Stream knot article.

This study was confined to strength comparisons.   In getting into true advantages and disadvantages, one would have to consider thinks like knot bulk, whether the material pulled straight from the knot, weed catching tag end protrusions, etc.

Gordy

David

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                                                BEHAVIOR OF SINKING VS. FLOATING LINES

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>

From Bill Kiester :

Gordy and Al,

 

Question, tinged with editorial comment.  When comparing the feel of a type 6 WF7 to a floating WF7 is it really a question of energy transfer?  Or, is it a question of energy retention (which I guess is really less transfer, {Al's terms comment})?  The wind resistance of a fly line is dependent to a great extent on surface area and cross sectional diameter relative to the mass.  This is very apparent to the caster with sinking lines versus floating lines. 

 

Bill ... I assume that you are comparing a sinking type 6  WF 7 S line to a floating WF 7 F line.

 

My take is that it is a question of a combination of energy retension and transfer based upon the mass profile of the line which is most important.

 

If we simply look at the wind resistance of the two lines in terms of their differences in diameter, I doubt there is sufficient change in the diameter between the two to yield great difference in wind resistance.  The significant difference comes in to play when we add the differences in mass to the equation.     G.

 

Once energized the sinking line retains more energy than a floating line because air resistance is not bleeding away energy as rapidly as it does with a floating line of the same weight.  I think that we, as casters,  judge the sinking line with floating line standards acquired over hundreds of thousands of casts.  We are not prepared for the amount of residual kinetic energy stored in a sinking line.  We interpret this energy as weight. 

 

 

 

The ratio of mass to diameter is not only present in sinking versus floating lines, but with lines of different line weights.  There is a big difference between a 9 weight line and a Sage 000 line.  A 000 floats in the air and 9 weight cuts right though it. 

 

Agree. Here you have widely disparate cross sectional diameters.  MUCH greater than the difference in cross section diameters between the WF7F line and the WF7S - Type 6 lines.  When comparing a 9 wt. floating line with a 000 floating line you also have a significant difference in mass per length.

 

If the ratio of mass to diameter is the overriding factor could we really perceive a difference between a sinking and floating line on the moon?

 

I think we would.  This even though gravity is reported to be a great deal less on the Moon. 

 

And yet:   If we had a ping-pong ball and a lead ball of identical diameters and then dropped each at the same moment from a 100' height on Earth, the lead ball would land earlier than the ping-pong ball because atmospheric resistance would be overcome more efficiently in the cast of the dropped lead ball.

 

I suspect that if we did the same experiment in a situation with no atmosphere, that both balls would land at the same time.  The impact to the ground would be much greater in the case of the lead ball because of its much greater mass being responsible for greater sudden dissipation of energy.

 

Perhaps we need NASA to conduct some fly casting experiments on the Moon !  Until we do, these would be akin to Einstein's "Gedenken experiments".

 

Not really the same thing as looking at mass profile in terms of a launched unrolling loop, however.

 

 

We'll all be interested in looking at Al Buhr's comments to your questions.     

 

We study and make comments about the behavior of various fly lines and then place leaders in a different catagory as we consider their behavior.  I like to think of the leader as an extension of the fly line subject to much the same physical principles when cast.    G.

 

 

 

Bill Keister