Replacement for sage 590 RPL

sundog wrote:
snip
The RPL was a fine rod I just did not like the feel, others I fished with
tried it and thought it was great, it was just not my style.

I have a 590-4 RPL and it's not my style either, but there are times
when it sees almost constant use while the 490-4 LL, the Winstons and
the 'boo sit idle. It is my favorite trout rod in a wind, or a gale,
or a friggin' late afternoon western typhoon. Try casting a hopper
into a gale with a slow rod and then fire up the RPL. Big difference.

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

--
Ken Fortenberry

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.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

Jarmo Hurri wrote:
equations snipped
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). ...

I think this is it. A silk line won't float at all unless you
dress it, usually with red Mucilin.

--
Ken Fortenberry

equations snipped 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). ...

Ken I think this is it. A silk line won't float at all unless you
Ken dress it, usually with red Mucilin.

And does it even then float worse than an ordinary plastic line?

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

Jarmo Hurri wrote:

Ken ... A silk line won't float at all unless you
Ken dress it, usually with red Mucilin.

And does it even then float worse than an ordinary plastic line?

It floats about the same for awhile, but it won't float all day
like a plastic line will.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken ... A silk line won't float at all unless you dress it, usually
Ken with red Mucilin.
And does it even then float worse than an ordinary plastic line?

Ken It floats about the same for awhile, but it won't float all day
Ken like a plastic line will.

I guess that as scientists, we need experiments: this is just all too
imprecise. :-)

But if it were to float just the same, then the density explanation
would not hold. I think that the task of the dressing is just to keep
the line from soaking water, that is, to keep its density the same all
the time.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .

Jarmo Hurri wrote:
Ken ... A silk line won't float at all unless you dress it, usually
Ken with red Mucilin.

And does it even then float worse than an ordinary plastic line?


Ken It floats about the same for awhile, but it won't float all day
Ken like a plastic line will.

I guess that as scientists, we need experiments: this is just all too
imprecise. :-)

But if it were to float just the same, then the density explanation
would not hold. I think that the task of the dressing is just to keep
the line from soaking water, that is, to keep its density the same all
the time.

I'll leave the physics to others. All I know is I fish with it as
long as it floats and then I go drink Budweiser. I had the conceit
at one point that after the line started to sink I would strip it
off the reel, turn it around and fish the other end of the double
taper until it too started to sink, but that's when I felt I had
to fish all day. I rarely fish more than 3-4 hours at a time anymore
and the silk line will float just fine for that long.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Jarmo Hurri wrote:

Ken ... A silk line won't float at all unless you dress it, usually
Ken with red Mucilin.
And does it even then float worse than an ordinary plastic line?

Ken It floats about the same for awhile, but it won't float all day
Ken like a plastic line will.

I guess that as scientists, we need experiments: this is just all too
imprecise. :-)

But if it were to float just the same, then the density explanation
would not hold. I think that the task of the dressing is just to keep
the line from soaking water, that is, to keep its density the same all
the time.


Let an amateur scientist poke his nose in here for a minute. There are
two components of flotation, one is density, the other is surface
tension. If you treat the silk line, you do 2 things for it, 1) you
reduce it's tendency to get wet and pass through the surface film, and
2) you delay the time when water starts to enter the line and add
weight. We see the same effect with flies that we add floatant to.
The fly is still too heave to float, but until it's pushed through the
surface film it floats beautifully.

Sinking agents work like soap, making the surface like water, and
eliminating the surface tension. Floatants are the opposite, resisting
the water and using the surface tension.

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

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!

rdean However, they are of a lesser diameter at a given weight,
rdean starting out, of course, so they do have advantages.

Do you mean "lesser diameter than plastic lines at a given line
weight"? If so, then why "of course"?

--
Jarmo Hurri

Commercial email countermeasures included in header email
address. Remove all garbage from header email address when replying,
or just use .