Kastking Fluorokote

[NYWayfarer]

I highly recommend this line. On 8lb line I have caught Trout as it is invisible to them. Bass and toothy Pickerel have been no problem. Strong, invisible and low cost. This is my kind of line

[Bluebasser86]

1 hour ago, LowRange said:

 

Invisible fishing line?

It's a copolymer line with a fluorocarbon coating, which has similar light refracting properties as water, making it nearly invisible under water. 

[Bluebasser86]

19 minutes ago, LowRange said:

 

How does that make it nearly invisible?

 

Light passes through it nearly the same as the water, so it basically blends into the surrounding water. 

[NYWayfarer]

Like Bluebasser86 said it has all the light reflecting quality of fluorocarbon. It's as invisible as its going to get without magic.

 

I have not been able to catch finicky trout on anything less than 4lb mono line. With the Fluorokote I have been able to go with stronger line and still be able to catch them.

 

Knot strength has been great. I have tied a Palomar knot with no problem.

 

I caught several Pickerel before having to re-tie my line. Normally their teeth shred through stuff.

 

I treated the line with KVD L&L and line memory has not been an issue.

[Glenn]

Lowrange - so you're saying fluorocarbon is just as visible as mono?

[Arobb2012]

21 hours ago, Finesse Wayfarer said:

I highly recommend this line. On 8lb line I have caught Trout as it is invisible to them. Bass and toothy Pickerel have been no problem. Strong, invisible and low cost. This is my kind of line

Thank you for posting about this line. I've had it an my Amazon cart for a few weeks now. I'm going to get the 8lb test also for my spinning gear.

[Glenn]

1 hour ago, LowRange said:

 I would like to know how it becomes less visible underwater.  As far as I know there has never been an explanation of the optics at work here.  I have not observed it be less visible myself and have always been perplexed by the claims of invisibilty.  The statement that it is closer to the refractive or water is not an explantion of how the alledged reduced visibility effect works.

 

How you found anything that says it doesn't?  Please post it if you do.

 

Thanks!

[MassYak85]

1 hour ago, LowRange said:

 I would like to know how it becomes less visible underwater.  As far as I know there has never been an explanation of the optics at work here.  I have not observed it be less visible myself and have always been perplexed by the claims of invisibilty.  The statement that it is closer to the refractive or water is not an explantion of how the alledged reduced visibility effect works.

You are correct that because it is a cylinder the light still gets bent and distorted, but because the fluoropolymers used to make fluorocarbon line have a lower refractive index than the polymers used to make mono, it is "less visible", in the same way that an opaque cylinder would be "less visible" than a transparent one, just on a less dramatic scale. 

[Team9nine]

Fluorocarbon or fluorocarbon coated won't become invisible, but theoretically it could become less visible. Of course, there's the argument about what we see vs. what a bass sees. Regardless, here's the an example of the theory in a nutshell:

 

 

 

[fishwizzard]

I do use a leader with braid, so I must care a little about line visibility, but all I really think matters is "less visible than my bright green braid".  I don't really believe (or care) that floro is "less visible" than mono.  I use floro because it sinks and mono because it floats.  Does Fluorokote float or sink?

 

I am also interested in how Fluorokote holds up to being spooled up and unused for a long time.  I have YZH on some of my brackish/salt reels and after a month or three it takes a good soaking in Line&Lure to get it manageable again and it is miserable trying to cast tiny perch lures on it if I forget.  I would love to find a cheap sinking line that I can leave on my reels and not have to remember to treat before I go out.   

 

[MassYak85]

7 minutes ago, LowRange said:

 

The opaque cylinder would be more visible but I get what you're saying.  Unfortunately refractive index has nothing to do with clarity and now that we mention it, fishing line isn't clear at all.  It is translucent.  Also there is only 5-10 % difference between the refractive indexs of mono line and fluro line.  That's an awfully small difference for one of them to suddenly vanish.

 

 

 

Oh woops, my bad, meant to say more visible. And as far as refractive index the ideal line would match that of water, fluoropolymers used in fluorcarbon lines come very close but don't exactly match it, and like you said the polymers used in mono line are not that far off at all so the difference is minimal, and I'd guess in some cases, non-existent. Like your video above shows, no matter what line I'm using, on a nice sunny day I've never NOT been able to see my line if I look closely, even with lighter lb fluoro. The only visibility difference I really care about is that of braid vs mono/fluoro. 

[Glenn]

Great!  Everyone agrees it's not invisible.  WooHoo!!

 

So.....

 

 

[fishwizzard]

9 minutes ago, MassYak85 said:

no matter what line I'm using, on a nice sunny day I've never NOT been able to see my line if I look closely, even with lighter lb fluoro. The only visibility difference I really care about is that of braid vs mono/fluoro. 

 

I exactly agree on the second part, but the first part makes me think I need to get my eyes checked, as I can't see most any line under water.  Or maybe I need nicer sunglasses.......

[MassYak85]

Just now, Bunnielab said:

 

I exactly agree on the second part, but the first part makes me think I need to get my eyes checked, as I can't see most any line under water.  Or maybe I need nicer sunglasses.......

I mean it's not obvious my any means, but if the sun is high over head and the water is crystal clear, I can usually see the light glinting off to some degree if I stare at it. 

[Bluebasser86]

2 hours ago, LowRange said:

Excelent proof of concept.  When the clear object is immursed in a clear liquid of a matching refractive index the object becomes less visible.  Neat video.  For some reason it doesn't work with fishing line.  I've done the test in the video at home ( not my vid) below with every brand of fluro I have tried and the results are the same.  It looks just like the mono.  I can only assume it is because neither are close enough to the refractive index of water and not clear enough for it to work.

 

 

How often do you fish tap water clear lakes with artificial lights directly above them? I've fished some really clear waters like Bull Shoals, Table Rock, and Beaver Lake. I've seen first hand a noticeable difference in visibility between a clear mono, and fluorocarbon fishing lines. Here's a picture example of simple underwater visibility test of different types/colors of fishing lines.

 

I'm not a scientist, I don't know why things work like they do. What I do know is my eyes can see the 20# green line, and the 50# clear mono without a doubt, while I can barely see the 80# fluorocarbon and I can't see at all the 40# fluorocarbon. This is the line as I believe a fish would see it underwater. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it's good enough for me and lots of others to have confidence in it.

Great thing about this sport, there's lots of options and just because a lot of others do one thing, doesn't mean you have to. I don't use fluorocarbon nearly as much as I feel a lot of folks do, because I mainly fish stained to dirty water, but in clear water situations, I switch to fluorocarbon because I feel it's harder to see in those situations.

[NYWayfarer]

 

I do use a leader with braid, so I must care a little about line visibility, but all I really think matters is "less visible than my bright green braid".  I don't really believe (or care) that floro is "less visible" than mono.  I use floro because it sinks and mono because it floats.  Does Fluorokote float or sink?

 

I am also interested in how Fluorokote holds up to being spooled up and unused for a long time.  I have YZH on some of my brackish/salt reels and after a month or three it takes a good soaking in Line&Lure to get it manageable again and it is miserable trying to cast tiny perch lures on it if I forget.  I would love to find a cheap sinking line that I can leave on my reels and not have to remember to treat before I go out.   

 

 

Fluorokote sinks.

 

I did treat mine with KVD line and lure and have no issues with line memory. Being part copolymer I would think even untreated the memory would be less than mono.

[sully420]

 

 I would like to know how it becomes less visible underwater.  As far as I know there has never been an explanation of the optics at work here.  I have not observed it be less visible myself and have always been perplexed by the claims of invisibilty.  The statement that it is closer to the refractive or water is not an explantion of how the alledged reduced visibility effect works.

Put it in the water and look you can tell floro is less visible than mono.

[sully420]

If you are choosing between floro and mono based on visibility i think one is missing the point. I choose based in line strech and buoyancy. I believe floro is less visible but i also think its a negligible difference as far as getting  bites 

[NYWayfarer]

 

I believe floro is less visible but i also think its a negligible difference as far as getting  bites 

 

You could be right when talking about Bass fishing. I notice the difference in bites when fishing for Trout though.

[Jeff H]

 

 

I've done that lots of times and it looks the same.  I've filled up glasses of water in the kitchen and have yet to see the effect.  Maybe it only works under certain lighting conditions?

I also couldn't see much, if any, difference the few times I've tried. I guess my eyes are just roached.

[5fishlimit]

13 hours ago, LowRange said:

I've done that lots of times and it looks the same.  I've filled up glasses of water in the kitchen and have yet to see the effect.  Maybe it only works under certain lighting conditions?

 

 

Using a glass of water is a poor example of what the water in a lake and/or river would look like.  Using a swimming pool several feet below the surface would be a better since you are mainly getting the light penetration through just the water surface, and not penetrating from the glass (which also causing it's own refraction of the light waves before even getting to the line itself.

[JesseG8r]

On 5/7/2017 at 6:11 PM, LowRange said:

 I would like to know how it becomes less visible underwater.  As far as I know there has never been an explanation of the optics at work here.  I have not observed it be less visible myself and have always been perplexed by the claims of invisibilty.  The statement that it is closer to the refractive or water is not an explantion of how the alledged reduced visibility effect works.

LowRange, light (made of photons) travels through space a constant speed. When photons pass through a medium, such as air, water, glass, or fishing line, however, the photons are absorbed by the molecules within the medium and re-emitted. The amount of time it takes the molecule to absorb and re-emit the photon, and the probability that any given photon will interact with any given molecule dictates the "speed" with which the photons travel through the medium. I put the word "speed" in quotes, because the photons are not actually slowing down (Einstein understood out that the speed of light is constant). The time that we measure when a photon passes through a medium is actually the time that elapses from when the photon is absorbed, and the photon is re-emitted by the molecules it interacts with. When one medium of an irregular shape is immersed in another medium, such as cylindrical fishing line being immersed in water, and the speed that the photons can travel through the fishing line is different that the speed at which they can travel through the water, you will see the prismatic effect you're talking about where the light passing through the line bends. The bigger the difference in speed, the more the light bends, and the more visible the fishing line will be. In the case of fluorocarbon, the speed that photons travel through it is very similar to the speed at which photons travel through water. This makes the light bend very little  as it passes from the water into the fluoro and back into the water, and makes the line much less visible than similar diameter monofilament. Fluorokote is a monofilament core with a fluorocarbon coating. Since the coating has similar refractive properties to water, the refraction you see is when it is immersed in water is actually at the border between the monofilament core and the fluorocarbon coating. Since the monofilament core is much thinner than a 100% monofilament fishing line of similar test, it is not as visible.

 

 

[WRB]

Now all we need to know is how the basses brain processes light waves...we don't have a clue!

What we do know is bass are rarely line sensitive fish, unlike trout that have microscopic vision for tiny details, it appears bass react more to movement, color contrast and silhouettes. Bass will strike 80 braid tied directly to lures, yet shy away from line that affects a lures action or prevents live baits natural movements.

Tom

 

[Mbirdsley]

I didn’t see the point in starting a new thread when this one was hear allready. Found it while researching before I bought the flourocote. 
 

 Couldn’t find any 20lbs stren flouro so I started searching eBay and Picked up 20lbs 300 yards of kastking flouro kote for $9.50 free shipping off of eBay.  I want it just for tying leaders onto my 30lbs braid rod.  Worth a shot for under ten bucks.  maybe I will try as main line.  
 

any one else since 2017 using it for main line? 

[NYWayfarer]

I still use it. I have some spinning reels spooled with 8lb line and some baitcasters spooled with 12lb line. It's still strong and low cost.

 

Leaving out the invisible part as this thread schooled me on that.