Why would you get banned for any of those comments? There's a difference between crapping on someones work, and asking if there's not a way to improve it.

Example...this is crapping on someones work.

"What's next, are you going to start counting how many wraps on each guide of a steelhead rod, or count the scales on a fish ?"

Example....this is asking if there's a way to improve things

"I think there is a possibility that a FISH could see different kinds of mono at different diameters in the same water conditions."

If you read the entire paper I wrote to start the thread, or some of my other comments, you'd noticed that I wondered why some lines appear to do well in on the water, yet test mediocre in the lab. There are probably poorly defined characteristics of lines that contribute to their "catchability". Asking what those characteristics are, trying to define them, and measure them, are parts of the scientific process.

If you think what I did in the kitchen over the course of a couple of rained out days was excessive and mundane, than I assume you have no science background past high school. Real labwork is grossly boring, and far far more time consuming. Neither of which negates its value in making our lives longer, and easier.

Now, how do you propose testing 'catchability'?

Actually, what I consider 'real fieldwork' is the fun part....

Hi Vince, thanks for the P.M.

Nice job on the mono test, some interesting facts presented for sure.

Catchability can go on undefined as far as I'm concerned...

I'm still stuck way back here trying to get on the right water, at the right time, without getting trampled to death !

Have a Great day.
Tad

"Catchability can go on undefined as far as I'm concerned"


Why? If we can define and measure 'catchability', than I'd want someone to put extra of it in all that dam stuff I buy.

Who wouldn't be interested if the label read,

98% more catchability than those other brands






I miswrote. Should have been "real labwork". If its fishing, then dam right the fieldwork is better.

Ok technicians, get your lines in the water.

Thanks FnP for having to mention cross sectional area...dang it. So I went ahead and did the math and I was wrong, it did change the rankings of the top lines.


Heres the rankings for people interested in cross sectional strength, as in pounds per sq inch. These are only the top 5 out of the 17 lines I tested.

I calculated the differences in line breaking strength based on cross sectional area (avg break strength)/(3.14*(d/2)^2) then divided by 10,000 in order to reduce to manageable numbers. I got tired this morning or I'd looked up how to note write it properly, as in 9.99 x 10^4.

#1 Stren xtra strong (90% retained fatigued strength)
#2 Stren magnathin (79% retained fatigued strength)
#3 Pline Floroclear (99% retained fatigued strength)
#4 Sufix Elite (84% retained fatigued strength)
#5 P Line extra strong (98% retained fatigued strength)

With the exception of the Stren Magnathin, 4 of the 5 lines were also top 5 using my previous calculations.

If anybody sees any problems with my math, please help me. I'm an ER RN, not an engineer.

I think I'm going to use a sander, clamped upside down, hang line over it with weight hanging on one end. Use time to measure differences in abrasion resistance.

After those tests I'm probably done. I can't imagine anybody would want to know anything more about fishing lines.

Thanks, VHawk

VHawk,

I think a saw an episode of Mythbusters using a sander clamped upside down......Great stuff, keep it up.

What grit size will you use - fine, medium, coarse, or maybe so wet emory paper? You're going to have to figure out a way to have the same tension/angle on the line when putting the line to the paper. Speed of the sander is going to be critical, too.

I appreciate your time and effort on this project.

thanks Vince, this is cool stuff and to think that my bass fishen steelhead partner, has been usin polmer knots and stren line for years.

I think YOU need to tell us which line catches the most fish ... but be specific; most salmon, most tuna, most tarpon.... this will take years...i'll help...{WE"LL} help

VHawk, nice report. Maybe Bob could post it in the Tips section so we don't have to go digging through the Archives when we want to buy some new line. My only comment is that I've done some testing of lighter line, and I've found an improved clinch knot with only 4 turns works better than a palomar. I think the best knot may vary depending on the diameter and type of line you are using, so it's good to try several.

"and I've found an improved clinch knot with only 4 turns works better than a palomar."

The Magazine test was done with an Improved Clinch knot, I believe with the same number of turns and was 100%. This of course was done on 20 lb. test and not the lighter stuff. But, as the article indicated, the knot data was inconclusive so they wouldn't share the results.

The strength doesn't matter to me as much as how the line lays on the reel and how it casts.

Try P-Line XXtra,it lays down the best. I have tried many lines over the years and settled on P-Line XXtra for that very reason. And in addition to it's superior tensile srenght, it looks good and catches fish. Try some when you get a chance.

This is great. I am now going to have to switch lines. I use to love the Maxi UG but have had good success with Ande when I am being cheap. I will have to check out the Stren. For trout fishing I always use the Stren HI Vis in 2lb test. Fun stuff to land trout with. My only question is did you use the single Palomar knot or a Double or Triple. 85% is a great knot failure rating and wonder if it would be better with a Double or Triple. I use the double myself.

Original Stren scores best for abrasion resitance. The other Stren lines are a mixed bag, same as other brands are. When using light line the extra abrasion resitance could make a difference in snaggy water. Always good to keep an open mind for trying something different, if information and research suggests better results. Good look with your research.