Need a better flourocarbon option....

[CrashVector]

Only thing I can add here is to tell you the same thing I tell everyone who asks me about using fluorocarbon line: Don't.

[Luke Barnes]

4 hours ago, Mike L said:

First, I sincerely hope your wife will have a complete and total recovery. 
 

Second, you don’t need those “big worms and tungsten weights” or new line to go fishin and be successful.
All you need to do is go when you can. 
 

Best of everything to you and your family 
 

 

 

Mike

Thank you and I have been trying to get better at just fishing and not lure hoarding. That or thinking I won't catch anything on my old stuff and need the newest and latest lures. 

 

But I would like new line for my sake and not the fish. For invisibility under water I ran straight braid for a few years on everything and never had a problem with line visibility. I caught more back then!! Its about manageability and the fact it sinks and doesn't stretch as much is why I am wanting to get new line and it be fluorocarbon. 

[Mike L]

 I hear ya!

Bass being line shy is an overblown conceived major problem.
 

I use flouro for everything except 2 presentations and would never change to straight braid or…

God Forbid, straight mono or leaders of any kind for the waters I fish. 

 

 

 

 

Mike

[CrashVector]

If bass didn't bite bc they can see braided line, then you might want to make go ahead and take the hooks off your lures too.  Don't even mention an A-rig.

 

Fluorocarbon line is NOT less visible than mono.  Nor does it have less stretch.

 

Anyone saying either of those two things doesn't know how physics and chemistry works.

[Oklahoma Mike]

9 minutes ago, CrashVector said:

Fluorocarbon line is NOT less visible than mono. 

 

False.

 

Line visibility is measured by refraction indexes and how closely the line is matched to the water. The closer the refraction of the line is to that of the water, the less visibility. Here are the averages for the components we're discussing:

 

Fresh water: 1.33

Flouro: 1:42

Mono: 1.55

 

As you can see, mono is .22 away and flouro is .09 away from fresh water on the refraction index.

 

So while flouro is not invisible, it absolutely is less visible than mono. That's the science and it's inarguable.

 

How much of an impact that might or might not have on whether a fish will eat that bait is another debate altogether.

 

 

[CrashVector]

9 minutes ago, Oklahoma Mike said:

 

False.

 

Line visibility is measured by refraction indexes and how closely the line is matched to the water. The closer the refraction of the line is to that of the water, the less visibility. Here are the averages for the components we're discussing:

 

Fresh water: 1.33

Flouro: 1:42

Mono: 1.55

 

As you can see, mono is .22 away and flouro is .09 away from fresh water on the refraction index.

 

So while flouro is not invisible, it absolutely is less visible than mono. That's the science and it's inarguable.

 

How much of an impact that might or might not have on whether a fish will eat that bait is another debate altogether.

 

 

Sorry, but you are the incorrect one.

 

The math says otherwise.  The refractive index would be an issue if it was a sheet of fluorocarbon, not a cylindrical line, but then again, a sheet of glass is invisible under water, and it has a MUCH higher refractive index.

 

This has been proven multiple times using optical data and refractive geometry.

 

Having an index closer to water is irrelevant as far as how visible the line is, which has been scientifically proven.

 

 

[Oklahoma Mike]

5 minutes ago, CrashVector said:

Sorry, but you are the incorrect one.

 

The math says otherwise.  The refractive index would be an issue if it was a sheet of fluorocarbon, not a cylindrical line.

 

This has been proven multiple times using optical data and refractive geometry.

 

Having an index closer to water is irrelevant as far as how visible the line is, which has been scientifically proven.

 

Examining this statement should tell you everything you need to know... we are just not going to agree on this one.

[CrashVector]

3 minutes ago, Oklahoma Mike said:

 

Examining this statement should tell you everything you need to know... we are just not going to agree on this one.

 

No we aren't.  It's been proven that fluorocarbon line...which is a cylinder...is no less visible than nylon.

 

https://www.slideserve.com/lesley/mathematical-theory-of-fishing-line-visibility

 

A sheet of something acts very differently than a small diameter cylinder such as fishing line. A sheet of glass is completely invisible underwater despite having a refractive index roughly three times that of water.

 

I work in the medical field. I trust actual science over anecdotal repeated false information.

[Oklahoma Mike]

"I work in the medical field." Nurse tech or sales?

 

I'm sure you must realize that you linked a slide show from some random dude that is literally labeled "Theory" and called it scientific evidence.

 

Shapes absolutely do have an impact on how light is refracted through an object, but shapes do not negate the differences between materials - light absolutely does pass through differing materials in a different manner - i.e., a cylindrical piece of flouro will land in a different spot on the refraction index than a cylindrical piece of mono. That is an absolute fact.

[king fisher]

I did an experiment with line in a swimming pool.  My observations were.  Floro is less visible than mono and braid.  Mono is very close to floro in visibility, but is more visible.  Braid is very visible compared to both Mono and floro.  Dark braid is more visible than light colors, with white being the least visible.

        I'm not saying this is a scientific study, and I only looked at lines in a clear swimming pool with snorkel and mask.  Results in dirty water could be way different.  Especially with the visibility of dark braid compared to light braid.  As far as bass fishing goes, I don't think visibility would be a factor most of the time.  Only my observations in a pool, in no way am I saying anything about visibility in real fishing situations, or if bass even care.

[CrashVector]

1 hour ago, Oklahoma Mike said:

"I work in the medical field." Nurse tech or sales?

 

I'm sure you must realize that you linked a slide show from some random dude that is literally labeled "Theory" and called it scientific evidence.

 

Shapes absolutely do have an impact on how light is refracted through an object, but shapes do not negate the differences between materials - light absolutely does pass through differing materials in a different manner - i.e., a cylindrical piece of flouro will land in a different spot on the refraction index than a cylindrical piece of mono. That is an absolute fact.

N.P. actually.  Trauma.

 

Honestly though...try to keep the weak insults to yourself.

 

Your "facts" aren't facts.  

[J Francho]

I ripped my own eyes out reading this thread.  This thread has zero to do with what's being debated, so it's time to end.  We're done.