All You Need To Know - Stick and Waggler Floats

[Mark Wintle]

Jeff,

You'd lose a bet on dense plastic being more sensitive than say peacock quill as an antenna.

See this and try it!
The Alternative Scientist - FishingMagic Online Fishing Magazine.

It is the overall buoyancy of the float that matters not just the tip therefore only the thickness of the tip matters. The material of a stem or tip does affect the BALANCE of a float which is why a wire stemmed float might be more stable than a cane stem. Prove Archimedes wrong and the world of science will take notice!

 

[Graham Whatmore]

I have always been fascinated by the collection of floats that some anglers accumalate during their fishing years. How some proudly display their beautiful (heavy) box with beautifullly coloured floats all lined up and daring the angler to dare use one and risk spoiling it or worse, losing it. My mate John Jones used to have such a box yet still used the same old chubber, wagglers or particular sticks and the rest remained "for show only" yet still felt obliged to buy one when he went into a tackle shop because it was there in front of him on the counter.

How many anglers have loads of wagglers of all descriptions but tend to use just one or two every time they go fishing? I bet most of you reading this are a bit like that, in fact I would bet money on it.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

See this and try it!
The Alternative Scientist - FishingMagic Online Fishing Magazine.

You can't possibly believe that load of old rubbish writen by a disgraced professor after being found on the banks of the Royalty one day reading a copy of Spanker's World folded within a copy of "In Search of Big Fish". That's why we haven't heard anythign from him in the last 5 years, the shame was too great.

If you like Mark, I'll have the offending article removed as I wouldn't like to upset the realms of science. I just wonder at times why fishing is becomming so disjointed and then you look at this, a simple statement that may be a little misguided, is taken out of all proportion just to prove some fundamental piece of science and in doing so destroy an attempt to explain some overall basics to newcomers. It's no wonder the likes of Kevin give up at times.

Quote as much as you like, but to me, fine tips of carbon, plastic and wire APPEAR to be more sensitive than those of cane or quill. At the end of the day, it's one's self confidence in something that will put fish on the bank and not someone else applying strict rules of science. The differences, for what they might now be worth, are caculated in micrograms of force, possibly, but thank for ripping the piece apart Mark. I look forward to your next chastisement.

And yes I do now feel sore!

 

[Sean Meeghan]

Poor Jeff! None of the very minor quibbles have detracted anything from an excellent article.

 

[preston96]

I have always been fascinated by the collection of floats that some anglers accumalate during their fishing years. How some proudly display their beautiful (heavy) box with beautifullly coloured floats all lined up and daring the angler to dare use one and risk spoiling it or worse, losing it. My mate John Jones used to have such a box yet still used the same old chubber, wagglers or particular sticks and the rest remained "for show only" yet still felt obliged to buy one when he went into a tackle shop because it was there in front of him on the counter.

How many anglers have loads of wagglers of all descriptions but tend to use just one or two every time they go fishing? I bet most of you reading this are a bit like that, in fact I would bet money on it.

I'm no "class" float angler,i don't spend enough time at it to be so, i can hold my own and bluff my way but one thing i have learnt over the years is exactly what you say Graham.....we tend to have a few favourites.....in fact i have two tubes with my present floats in....one marked "sticks and avons", the other marked "wagglers".....these can see me OK in 99% of my fishing situations....there are usually between a dozen and 18 in each tube.

I have a box at home to call on in "special" cases.....in there there are sliders, huge antennae, and other "specialist" floats, just in case

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

From Mark's article - “Make a float out a length of half-inch balsa dowel. Two inches is enough. Put an antenna into each end about two inches long. Make one out of a steel nail with the head cut off and the other out of a piece of cane that is the exact same diameter as the nail. …… You will find that when the float is shotted so that about one inch of antenna is showing that an additional number 6 shot will submerge the same amount of antenna no matter which way up the float is attached to the line.”

Well let’s try this and first of all get rid of the material that will be counter balanced by all the rest of the shot first, the length of half inch balsa dowel. In proportion to the tip this may have a factor of 50 to 1 (and this is where your Achimedes theory falls apart, perhaps) and would need perhaps two swan shot just to sink that. Let’s just try with the tips.

I don’t have any peacock quill, the lightest and most buoyant of all, in the diameter required, but we have got cane, sarcandas reed, some fluorescent plastic tips and some nails. To each of which I have superglued a short length of 1 lbs nylon monofilament. I place each one in a vase of water –

The sarcandas reed floats
The cane floats
The plastic sinks slowly to the bottom
The nail sinks like a brick

Based on the above, the latter two must be out of contention for a start, but the plastic one when added to a peacock quill as an insert would be highly sensitive requiring (I would guess) less pulling effort by the fish since it has less than neutral buoyancy anyway.

I then added a no. 8 shot to the sarcandas reed and it cocked slightly, and when I added the same to the cane, it sank fully. The effects, I believe, are that little effort by the fish would be required to pull the cane stem under (equal to is it 0.06 gram making it slightly more sensitive than the sarcandas reed which would require more effort (= 3or more x no8 shot) to pull it under.

Q.E.D.

In short, Archimedes was not an angler and never fished with peacock quills or plastic stemmed insert floats so what the hell would he know? I fall short of calling him a complete idiot as he did, after all, develop the ‘Screw’ without which Sunday mornings would be so boring until the papers arrived. Good old Archimedes.

In other words Mark, I don’t reckon too much to your ‘scientific’ theory either.
:wh


I know, I should be finding better things to do on a Saturday morning, but it's miserable out.

 

[Fred Bonney]

Put it away 'til sunday then Jeff

 

[puttestuts]

Hi Jeff

I'm not going to get into the "science discussion", just to say thank you, I found your article very helpful.

 

[Xplorer1]

Woody, I don't know where to start! Let's continue to be scientific. A brick sinks. Attach it to a piece of wood of sufficient size and the composite article floats. By eliminating the wood from your test "floats" you've eliminated the buoyant component. Archimedes is not wrong, he's dead right. A floating body displaces its own weight of water. The distribution of weight within the floating body affects only its equilibrium (stability), not its buoyancy. The diameter of the tip of a float (which in turn dictates how much water it displaces as it's pulled under) is the ONLY factor affecting the float's sensitivity.

Rig a loaded insert waggler the right way up and then upside down. Do you think it'll take more shot to sink it one way than the other?! For a given shot load, when it's the right way up a greater length will stick up out of the water, and that's what gives the improved sensitivity.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

The diameter of the tip of a float (which in turn dictates how much water it displaces as it's pulled under) is the ONLY factor affecting the float's sensitivity.

Rig a loaded insert waggler the right way up and then upside down. Do you think it'll take more shot to sink it one way than the other?!

Can't be otherwise all three pieces in my test would have floated and sunk under the same weightings, answer that!

Or what do you mean by sensitivity? I mean, it's easier for a fish to pull under and therefore more noticeable for the angler to see such a change.

In your upside down example, it's still the bulk (body) of the float that is the more buoyant part so that's not a fair test.

Surely we're talking about the resistance a fish feels when it tries to pull under the remaining stem of the float. In your upside down example the fish would feel just the same resistance but only a small blob of the float would have been showing on the surface as opposed to a longer finer stem, the insert.

But we're not talking apples for apples there, it's about an insert that adds more buoyancy to the float as opposed to an insert that adds no buoyancy to the float even though they're the same thickness. Try my test and see.

 

[Mark Wintle]

Whatever you do, Woody, don't try float design. I truly despair. You can't even follow simple instructions that would prove Archimedes and how his theory affects float tips.

 

[calvin]

Somebody explained this very well in a magazine a few years ago. They said that it didn't matter what the shape or material of the tip was, the deciding factor was how much buoyancy remained in the float. If there was the equivalent of 1BB shot of buoyancy left in the float after shotting it, it would take 1BB to sink it regardless of tip shape or what it was made of.

He'll correct me if I'm wrong but I think it was Graham who runs this site who wrote the article. By the way, he probably won't remember me but we fished together on a local mere once or twice a good few years ago.

 

[preston96]

He'll correct me if I'm wrong but I think it was Graham who runs this site who wrote the article. By the way, he probably won't remember me but we fished together on a local mere once or twice a good few years ago.

Did he invite you to the local for a beer and just happen to have forgotten his wallet? :wh

 

[calvin]

You know him as well Paul!

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Whatever you do, Woody, don't try float design. I truly despair. You can't even follow simple instructions that would prove Archimedes and how his theory affects float tips.

Then be kind enough to explain my test. Why did the plastic one, the same diameter as the reed one, sink and the reed floated and how, if they are both still exposed above the surface, they only require the same force (or weight) in your words to pull them under. Come on Einstein!


Oh and I did used to make my own floats, thank you. Inserts of all kinds.

If there was the equivalent of 1BB shot of buoyancy left in the float after shotting it, it would take 1BB to sink it regardless of tip shape or what it was made of.

Exactly what I am saying, only we're talking just 1 or two no 8s and not a BB.

 

[Mark Wintle]

Archimedes theory is simple.

In the examples you give the reed has a density of say 0.5 therefore a piece with volume of 1 cc weighs 0.5 grams and will take an extra force of 0.5 grams to sink it. Simple - it floats. The piece of plastic has a density of say 1.5 therefore a piece with a volume of 1 cc weighs 1.5 grams which is more than water, therefore it sinks. We cannot make a float that has an overall density greater than 1 unless we want a slow sinking leger weight. This is why you cannot take the tip in isolation.

But, and this is what my experimental float proves, it is possible to have a float where the antenna is made of a material that has a density greater than 1. The French pole anglers did this in the 60s/70s with floats for bloodworm fishing with very fine wire (steel) stems. This wire is finer than the finest nylon stems hence it is very very sensitive which is why these floats are very difficult to shot up as even the very smallest of shot such as no. 13 will register a noticeable movement.

In the case of my test float the balsa provides the buoyancy, and as you say a possible overall shot load of say 8BB or 2 SSG. If changes are made to the materials used in the float then the shot load will change even if the overall volume and shape remains exactly the same. Substitute the nail with a piece of cane and you might have to add another couple of BB.

The steel nail is much denser than water (could look it up but we know it's several times denser) yet we can successfully shot the float to have an inch of steel above the water despite it being much denser than water. The float is not very stable - it's top heavy - and might not cast very well but regardless of which way up it is put on the line, provided the diameter of the tip is identical (to the cane or reed insert at the other end of the float) a shot of the same size will alter its trim by exactly the same amount.

This is useful to know because if we want to make a float more visible yet more sensitive we now know that we need to reduce the cross section area in some way and two means to do this are by using a hollow tube or a cross shape similar to a dart flight. It also helps in that by having a lightweight tip it retains sensitivity yet does not unbalance a waggler float.

 

[Xplorer1]

Spot on, Mark. So Woody, if you now take your inverted loaded insert waggler and draw out the brass insert until it's the same diameter as the tip, you'll have a float with the same length of tip showing for a given shot load and the same sensitivity (responsiveness to a pull from below) whichever way up you fish it.

 

[preston96]

Archimedes theory is simple.

In the examples you give the reed has a density of say 0.5 therefore a piece with volume of 1 cc weighs 0.5 grams and will take an extra force of 0.5 grams to sink it. Simple - it floats. The piece of plastic has a density of say 1.5 therefore a piece with a volume of 1 cc weighs 1.5 grams which is more than water, therefore it sinks. We cannot make a float that has an overall density greater than 1 unless we want a slow sinking leger weight. This is why you cannot take the tip in isolation.

But, and this is what my experimental float proves, it is possible to have a float where the antenna is made of a material that has a density greater than 1. The French pole anglers did this in the 60s/70s with floats for bloodworm fishing with very fine wire (steel) stems. This wire is finer than the finest nylon stems hence it is very very sensitive which is why these floats are very difficult to shot up as even the very smallest of shot such as no. 13 will register a noticeable movement.

In the case of my test float the balsa provides the buoyancy, and as you say a possible overall shot load of say 8BB or 2 SSG. If changes are made to the materials used in the float then the shot load will change even if the overall volume and shape remains exactly the same. Substitute the nail with a piece of cane and you might have to add another couple of BB.

The steel nail is much denser than water (could look it up but we know it's several times denser) yet we can successfully shot the float to have an inch of steel above the water despite it being much denser than water. The float is not very stable - it's top heavy - and might not cast very well but regardless of which way up it is put on the line, provided the diameter of the tip is identical (to the cane or reed insert at the other end of the float) a shot of the same size will alter its trim by exactly the same amount.

This is useful to know because if we want to make a float more visible yet more sensitive we now know that we need to reduce the cross section area in some way and two means to do this are by using a hollow tube or a cross shape similar to a dart flight. It also helps in that by having a lightweight tip it retains sensitivity yet does not unbalance a waggler float.

I had a feeling you were gonna say that Mark....:wh

 

[Mark Wintle]

It's why I like fishing whacking great floats nowadays that take 10BB, lovely and buoyant, and an extra no. 4 hardly makes any difference.

Jeff's gone quiet; stunned into silence while he ponders how a Greek scientist's workings from thousands of years ago could stand the test of time so well...

 

[George387]

Taking all the arithmatic, algebra, geometry, archimedes theory and the theory of relativity into consideration, I still think Jeff did a cracking job with his feature and to be truthful who really cares a float is a tool to aid in catching fish no matter what way you look at it.
Well Done Jeff for your work & insight in letting other know about floats.