An inertia pull question

[no-one in particular]

A) Normal set of float and weights/shot set say 3/4 of the way down and then your hook on the end.

B) Float set and all your weights/shot at the bottom, your hook length attach via a loop in the main line say half way between your weights and float and the hook hangs below your weight/shot say by 6 inches.

Calling the amount of pull required to pull the float under X, would the amount of X be greater, smaller or the same for A or B.

I call this a paternoster set up and given the inertia of the weights in B and the buoyancy of the float in A and B, well I just cannot figure it out.

 

[Bobnewboy]

So long as the float is dotted down the same, and nothing is touching bottom in both cases, the effort required to dip the float must surely be the same?

 

[binka]

I'm not sticking my neck out but back when I pole fished regularly it was generally accepted that the lower the bulk of shot then the more positive the bite.

How this relates to inertia I don't know but there must be a link?

 

[peterjg]

A) the float will pull under with less resistance

B) the float will pull under with less travel at the hook

Some Old Horses

Can Always Hear

Their Owners Approach

Sine = Opposite over Hypotenuse

Cosine = adjacent over Hypotenuse

Tangent = Opposite over Adjacent

Sorry totally irrelevant, I was getting carried away .....

 

[john step]

Back in the dark ages there was a lot of heated argument about this in Angling Times between Richard Walker and others. I can't remember much of the arguments but I seem to recall Walker stating it did not matter where the shot was put.
Personally I feel that the nearer the shot to the hook the the less chance for the fish to take the bait before feeling resistance.

 

[no-one in particular]

Thouught I would try and picture it, sorry about the graphics, the weight/shot is in red; I thought when the hook is pulled on B the weight wouldnt move initially because of its inertia but I cannot figure if it would take more or less pull than A, everything being equal that is. I tend to think its equal minus the resistance of the weight moving in the water in A.

 

[Bobnewboy]

Is there anything in B to stop the hook falling immediately below the weights?

 

[bracket]

I always understood that the float/lead permutation was to achive two things: sufficient lead to cast the float to where the fish are. To take the bait to the required depth. With pole fishing, only the latter requirement applies. My belief is that when fishing on the deck, the closer the lead is to the hook, the more positive the bite. I tend to bypass the inertia issue by waiting until "they gob it". Pete

 

[tigger]

A gives very little line for the fish to play with the bait without registering a bit on the float.
B, the paternoster does give a fish more time to suck on the bait etc without giving an indication on the float......jmo.


Regarding the inhertia needed to pull the float under, B's gott'a take more, again jmo.

 

[no-one in particular]

Is there anything in B to stop the hook falling immediately below the weights?

No, it would all just be dangling in a straight line.

 

[no-one in particular]

A gives very little line for the fish to play with the bait without registering a bit on the float.
B, the paternoster does give a fish more time to suck on the bait etc without giving an indication on the float......jmo.


Regarding the inhertia needed to pull the float under, B's gott'a take more, again jmo.

I fish this with the weight on the bottom so the bait lays on the bottom as well. I like it as the fish do not feel any resistance while it mouths or plays with the bait initially and it beats surface drift, I think it works better with shy wary fish. The downside is lift bites are not registered on the float. I don't normally fish it dangling although sometimes I do if I am using it and want to try to fish up in the water. My question is hypothetical, its not important really but I was just curious as to which is more resistant to a biting fish A or B.; I couldn't really work it out; you know, one of those annoying little bugs.

I think it could be B because the fish has to feel the full buoyancy of the float without the weight to assist it but then the fish has to move the weight and the float in A, couldn't make my mind up.

 

[no-one in particular]

While I am at it here's another float thought. If a float had a disc say about 1 inch in diameter set so that it was just a fraction above the water line when cocked (or maybe at variable distances above the waterline); would it self hook a fish as it took the bait; as it hit the water would the sudden resistance hook the fish; a sort of bolt float. Actually not my own idea but I spoke to an Italian once who said he used floats like this which he made himself. He said he could see the float better and bites as well because as the disc hit the water it created ripples. I always thought this is not a bad idea but I have never seen one.

 

[Alan Tyler]

The bolt float was tried decades ago in order to try to solve the problem of "Phantom" bites when hemping.
It didn't work, which is why you never/very seldom see one; probably because the "bites" are not caused by a fish with the hook in its mouth.
With the rise of the pellet waggler, the concept seems to have revived; not my scene, so I can't comment on its effectiveness this time round.

 

[Bobnewboy]

No, it would all just be dangling in a straight line.

Ok...In the end all that is holding the rig up in the water is the buoyancy of the float plus whatever small amount of buoyancy that may be added by the bait (usually overcome with a small shot). All the rest of the rig and mainline is pulling the rig down in the water due to gravity. So there is a balanced system at the terminal tackle.

So in my mind, so long as the float, shot, hook and bait is the same, the resistance felt by the fish is exactly the same for case A or B.

I think the most interesting part in all this is the shape of the float body, as that affords different hydrodynamic resistance to the fish pulling at the hook. That is, the difference in resistance offered by say an insert waggler (low and reducing) when compared to a float with a disc as mentioned elsewhere, or even a pike/perch float.

For more sensitive bite detection a float with a narrow and/or reducing diameter body as it is pulled under should be best. For a more robust bite and damping out of nibbles and liners, a float whose section is large and/or increases as it is pulled under would be best, with a flat disc being the logical extreme of that case. I think this is why pike/perch floats work best with a wide body and a short taper towards the line eye.

Whaddya think?

Cheers, Bob

 

[no-one in particular]

Whaddya think?

Cheers, Bob

Whaddya think?


I think your right, its the inertia thing that seems to confuse me; as the fish pulls A, it is pulling the weight and the float downwards, when its pulling B its not pulling the weight down, just the float; the weight in B will stay stationary because of the inertia of it, it will take a second to catch up with the down pull of the bait. But I think your right, the buoyancy of the float would be the same in A and B and therefore no difference to a fish.
Thanks-Mark

 

[sam vimes]

I always thought this is not a bad idea but I have never seen one.

There have been numerous baggin' wagglers and pellet wagglers made with discs, plates or inverted cups built into the base of the float. The reason given for it is usually to prevent the float from diving too far beneath the surface on the cast. However, it is also supposed to give an additional bolt effect on the take. Whether the method actually requires it, or whether it works, is a moot point.

I've got old Fox Match pellet wagglers with removable inverted cups and the current Drennan Pellet Waggler floats have optional "dive discs". I also seem to recall seeing variations on the theme, from the likes of Preston Innovations, in the past.

P.S. I go for no difference as far as the fish is concerned, provided that the float is equally dotted down in both instances.