Parker, that's one of the most coherent things I've heard out of Joe in long time...

He's telling KidSquawk to stick it, thinks Vince ought to do the test, is still going to use whatever he damn well pleases, no matter what the tests say, and is offerin' up some hooks, if'n siwashes or jig hooks will make it into the game.

The best ones are around the campfire when Williams is there...that Williams really brings out the...*best*...in Joe.

Fish on...

Todd

Thanks!

Only a lawyer could dicipher that

Has nothing to do with Vision, and sorry if my post seemed odd.....it was driven by frustration over people not realizing that information is only as good as the source. What qualifications does Vhawk have that make him a reliable hook tester? Some, if any at all. That's what pizzed me off. He didn't even know where to begin with the testing process and you guys are praising him as if he was Keith Archer testing a new egg cure. C'mon, folks, Vhawk is about as qualified to test hooks as I am qualified to test cancer patients. No matter what his results yield, they will be useless because he doesn't even know what hook components are (tine, throat, shank, etc.), metals used, tempering, annodizing, chemical sharpening, eye formation, plating, how the barb is cut, etc. I know more about this than he will ever know and you don't see me jumping in to volunteer........been there and done that.......it was very difficult to do starting from scratch and I'm a Mensa genius. Yes, I am, folks.

Besides, I'm trying to tell Vhawk that he needs to test himself before he starts trying to test tackle. Go study for the MCATs and be on your way to becoming a MD before you waste any more time trying to become Dr. Fisherman.

BTW, I am no longer with Vision. I use Vision hooks only because I have a stockpile. I am a Gammy/Owner man and I purchase quite a bit of them as of late. Daiichi is my favorite for fly and gear, but they cost big $$$ so I opt for 2nd best. Capiche?

Sorry, Vhawk, but you've got to put your time into the medical field and do your field testing on your time off. I am getting ready to drop out of the fishing social cirlce for a while after one hell of a summer because I am studing for an electrical 07 administrator test. I received a wake up call recently when a board member told me to put my time into school and/or studying for future degrees/certifications. That particular memeber showed me thier pay stub and my mouth dropped. He is in the same field as me, just hold the certification. Trying to pass along the same helpful hints, excuse me if I offended anybody, just my weird way of trying to help.

Peace
Justin
Kid Sauk tested, single mothers approved

Go get em Kid.

Even if the results were done by an engineer in a lab the results would only be accurate for the die lots and temper lots tested. It would be an error to assume all hooks of a given brand mirrored the test results, as shi% happens durring manufacturing at the factory, usually in the tempering process. Some hooks may cool too slow and subsequently become soft, while others may cool to fast and become brittle. Good quality control can minimize the bad ones that make it to the market place, but bad hooks happen. Your best bet is to know what you like and test a few out of the ones you buy with a pair of plyers. It ain't brain surgery.

Access to SEM would be mandatory for hook point testing. Anyone got one of those laying around ?? Just setting up +/- 3 sigma data control charts would be somewhat mind bending for those without the training, if they could come up with a conclusive set of values to measure in the first place.

Dr Phil? Is that you?

Oh no you don't. Don't even go there, no way in hell do I support Dr. Phil or any of his male Oprah-like teachings.

Sol and B-Run are speaking a familiar language... A little outerspace reference and we'd be reading from exactly the same book.

Kid,

Neither pomposity nor the pretense of genius make your arguments persuasive. I don't recall ever having an argument with someone who considers themselves intelligent, who ended an argument with an 'I have a big weiner' type statement.



I don't recall anyone convincing me not to research and test something I was interested in because I wasn't already proficient in that given area. In fact if people followed your advice and didn't question things that were outside their normal fields of study we'd be missing out on huge chunks of knowledge.

Kid, your arguments remind me of some of the reasons given why women shouldn't be allowed to vote, or go to college. Something about it not being their place to question stuff they don't already know about.

And now some back to the question of testing and specific points of contention...

Why would a scanning electron microscope (SEM) be MANDATORY for a reliable test of hook point durability? Wouldn't a test that measures penetration into a standardized medium before and after the hook point is subjected to a standard blunt force indirectly measure the durability of hook points? Or some simple "scratch" test also indirectly measure hook point durability?
There has to be dozens of different ways to indirectly measure hook sharpness and durability.

B-run,

I'm not a statistician, but I'll relearn what I think I'll need. A control chart, standard deviations, alpha and beta errors, and all the horsecrap from my stats classes are still lying dormant in my brain. Relearning stuff isn't a useless endeavor. My grandfather taught himself geometry and trig from college texts he bought at garage sales. I still think that is some cool sheet for an old guy to have done. So I'm not embarrased to admit I hope I'm half as curious about the world around me as he was, and as disciplined to follow through.


Sol,

How do I measure results from hooks I've bent with pliers? That's pretty subjective information.

And how much variability is there between die and temper lots of a given brand of hooks? Is the variability greater between lots than it is between different hook manufacturers?

I do agree however that there should be a simple way to measure pull strength that is doable at home, and is reproducible. It's not rocket science. And If a test is reproducible it shouldn't matter who does the testing, as long as the same procedures are followed. It is one of the hallmarks of a good experiment.

HalibutSteve,

Thanks for your info. I'll be asking about a process to measure pull strength at home when I call around later this week. I appreciate your help.

Thanks to everyone else who's offered advice and productive criticism.

VHawk

Just trust me Vhawk, after thousands of salmon and steelhead to the boat there's no question that Owner Cutting Points are the hook of choice.....

But do as you please and go through the steps of testing to tell me the same answer and results....

Keith

I hold the same prejudice in favor of Owner hooks.

Now all that's left is to find a way to measure pull strength. I'm on the look out of someone involved in materials testing to give me some useful input, or offer of help.

Do you know why cutting points are superior? Here's the math:

P=F/A

P=pressure (Pressure required for penitration)
F=Force (Force exerted on hookpoint by angler/rod/line)
A=area (Cross sectional area of point making contact with fish)

As "A" aproaches zero, "P" aproaches infinity, and there is not a substance known to man that can withstand infinate pressure without being penitrated, much less fleash and bone. With a cutting point the point of the hook is honed to a knife edge, making the "A" variable much closer to zero than is possible to achieve with a conical point hook.

Food for thought.

Ah yes grasshoppa! That why my wiener penetrate anything!

This has been a good read. If I bend out or break a hook it is usually my fault. Tips that bend or damage easily are annoying to say the least. I prefer a hook that has a durable tip and that breaks when I pull too hard on it, than one that bends and has a soft point.... I look forward to seeing what you come up with. G-luck.

Your wiener will penitrate anything because it's cross-sectional area approches zero?

Bummer, dude.

Hey now, it might be short but it sure is skinny!

Jebus Sol, in my past life I could swear we sat across the table from each other in an endless series of brain numbing meetings where some Poindexter rambled on about the width of a gap, or the angle of a slope while we sat there and wondered what that hot chick from QA looked like naked.

Standard replies when queried on subjects you have little or no interest in in a staff metting

1> Gentlemen , the way I see it, the less of these problems we have, the better off we will be.
2> I concur, however, we should move forward slowly until we have gathered more data
3> Lets work across departments on this one, for example, if you were walking in the woods, and you saw a really weird bird, and it freaked you out.. does that mean your the first person in the world thats ever seen this bird ?? lets not re-invent the wheel.

I watched a show on dawrfs the other night, and I can tell you that you that although the rest of your body may be minature you do have normal size lungs and liver.

Close, Sol.

A hook almost never hits a fish perpendicular to the axis of the hook point. The cutting edge of the Owners uses the force not in the direction of penetration to cut the fish and help the hook get to the point where the fish is pulling against the bend.

Here is a picture to help explain.



F is the overall hooksetting force. It can only be in the direction of the line connected to it as the line has no stiffness.

Fp is the penetrating force to which Sol refers.
FN is the force perpendicular to the penetrating force.

Since force has a magnitude and direction, FN > zero if F is not in the same direction as FP. A cutting hooks uses FN to cut into the fish. For a conical hook, FN just translates into resistance to hook penetration in the form of friction.

Any questions?