On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:29:09 +0300, Jarmo Hurri
wrote:


Ken And speaking of the RPL, where did the notion come from that silk
Ken lines were the exclusive province of slow rods ? I put one of the
Ken modern silk lines from Phoenix in 5DT on the RPL and I think the
Ken lower profile silk line works very well on a relatively fast rod
Ken like the RPL, especially in the wind.

I assume that with lower profile you mean smaller diameter, right?
I've heard and read this about silk lines before, but I've never
understood it. ROFF is probably the best place to ask dumb question,
so please help me out.

Let's take two floating 5wt DT lines, one ordinary (plastic or
whatever), one silk. We know that their weight is the same for the
first 30'; let's cut the lines at 30', and let's denote the weight of
this 30' of line by the symbol m (don't worry, I'm not getting geared
up for a debate about adherence to the AFTM standards :-)).

So we have two pieces of line, each with weight m. Now let's assume
that these lines _float equally well_. This means that their densities
must be the same, right? So let's denote this (common) density by d.

Density is defined as the ratio of mass and volume, which we denote by
symbol V. That is d = m/V. Let's denote the volume of the ordinary
line (the 30' piece) by V1 and the volume of the silk line by V2. With
the assumptions that we had - both lines are 5wt and float equally
well - the volumes must be the same, since their masses and densities
are the same, and V1 = m/d = V2.

If the lines have the same volumes, their average diameters must be
equal. In fact, if they are both DT lines with similar tapers, then
they must have exactly the same profiles.

So, in my small mind it seems that in order for a 5wt silk line to
have a smaller diameter (lower profile) than an ordinary line, one of
the following must be true:

1. The silk line does not float as well as the ordinary line (because
it has a higher density).

2. The volume of the silk line is greater in water than in the
air. How would this be possible? Well, it just occurred to me that
air bubbles might attach themselves to the surface of the silk
line, thereby increasing its volume in water. Theoretically, that
is.

Or maybe it's really something completely different. You tell me.

The silk line absorbs water at a different rate than the plastic line
-in fact, the plastic line should not absorb it at all from a practical
standpoint of the average person's fishing time, but it's still at a
different rate than the silk. Hence, treating of silk lines, which
doesn't "seal" them as "plastic" does, and so, they will reach a "sink"
stage faster than plastic, but more important to the discussion at hand,
be of a different weight (and for the truly picky out there, a different
diameter as well, based on factors not germane here, IMO) than that from
which they started. So, what you've got, basically, is a line that is
fluid in weight because of, well, fluid. However, they are of a lesser
diameter at a given weight, starting out, of course, so they do have
advantages. Frankly, I just like them, and wouldn't even attempt to
truly defend their "necessity," only their appeal to me, and then, again
for myself, only on cane.

As to diameter, the original letter system was based on diameter, and
because there was (basically) only one material, silk, and since silk
pretty much all weighs the same at a given diameter, at least for our
purpose of discussion here, it worked.

(As a sidenote, the "letter" system went from A to I, with the A being
largest at .060", and I the smallest at .020", IIRC - but I'm sure it's
on the 'net somewhere for the curious.)

Then, came "plastic" lines and diameters were no longer usable as
accurate indicators of weight. So in the late 60s, the AFTMA came up
with, surprise, a weight standard that had nothing to do with diameter.
They used a reasonable amount of line for average fishers, settled on 30
feet, did some math with the silk lines to keep some order between the
letter-diameters and the number-weights, and ta-da! The AFTMA weight
standard was born.

Well, that was fine for a time, as things were fairly easy to compare
for those using equipment during the transition phase and with limited
choices available, anyway. But now, everybody has to be all
cutting-edge, high-tech, and keep up with the Krehs, so we are faced
with nonsense like "heavy 5s, light 6s," etc., and in the midst of it
all, silk (new and vintage) and older rods becomes (moderately) popular
again. So, now, one must convert one way or the other, i.e., a new rod
marked with a weight standard, but original silk standards are
diameters, or the rod is older and marked with a diameter, and convert
to a weight standard. Clear as mud? Well, OK, so it's probably some of
my description, true enough, but it is also the fact that what would
(and should) be a "quick mental conversion" situation has been made into
a friggin' 3-field math problem by fishers asking for w-a-a-a-a-a-y more
than they need and manufacturers only too happy to oblige.

The bottom line (pardon the pun): Silk has its place and plastic has its
place, and personal preference plays a large part in an informed
decision, but just like with the "5.5" nonsense, close will be more than
adequate for all but a VERY limited few fishers - if you have a rod
marked "5," a line marked "5" or starting with "HE.." will be fine or if
you have a rod marked "HEX," a line marked "5" will probably do you
just dandy. Granted, the letter-to-number conversions aren't EXACT,
again, close is gonna work for the GREAT majority.

HTH,
R
"...gee, honey, your waistline isn't a medium, it's merely in the larger
end of the small+ range..." SLAP!