Register now on! Login


Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users

« 1 (2)

Re: TroutHunter Fluorocarbon Tippet???

2009/12/17 20:43
From Souderton PA
Posts: 0

afishinado wrote:

pcray1231 wrote:
I've also done the same test they have with the visibility thing. Seaguar and Flouroflex vs. Powerflex and SuperStrong in a fish tank. Didn't see a dang bit of difference, all of the above clearly visible. Doesn't matter what direction the light is coming from. Same result as they got. Been meaning to try a swimming pool, maybe it makes a difference if not looking through glass? But never got around to it. Until proven otherwise, I'm calling the whole invisibility thing a load of marketing crap.

Dang scientists tell us the "refractive index" is very close to water so it should be less Actually the visibility factor is also up in the air for me, at least from my observations.

The refractive index is close to water, but not equal to water, so there is some lensing of light passing through. From what I have read, that effect in a cylinder leads to total internal reflection, so you wind up with a very sharp band of light in the center of a darker core, a highly visible structure. Add to this the fact that the fluorocarbon picks up less camouflage particles (dirt), and you have a load of marketing BS.

Posted on: 2012/9/18 22:13
Don't Feed The Trolls:

Re: TroutHunter Fluorocarbon Tippet???

2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 2370
Scientists don't tell you that. Marketers tell you that. :)

The physics is complicated. Frequent Tyer alluded to the problem of internal reflection, which is valid. That depends a lot on angle of incidence on whether it reflects or passes through. But in most settings, light is coming from everywhere, so some will be reflected up and down the line like a fiber optic cable, making all lines more visible.

Another question revolves around transparancy. If light, either refracted or being internally reflected, gets absorbed before exiting the line, it doesn't matter in the slightest how much it is bent at interfaces. Perhaps this even results in less visibility for all lines, camo (think brown maxima) working better than attempted transparancy.

But aside from all that, lets assume the light does pass through it. There's two interfaces, not one. Light bends at both. So the angles of bending are bigger through mono than flouro. So what? It might even hurt. Light entering the line is coming in at every angle. Any difference in refractive index has the effect of dispersing that light. A higher difference in refractive index means it's dispersed more. Hence, less refracted light meets your eye. The mono then would appear slightly darker colored than the flouro. Not more or less visible, but darker vs. brighter, and if there's any difference it's the mono that would be darker.

Do the fish even care about visibility? I'm not convinced of that either. Their underwater vision is very good at close range. I'm guessing they all look like freakin ropes anyways.

Posted on: 2012/9/19 8:48

Re: TroutHunter Fluorocarbon Tippet???

2006/9/13 10:18
From LV
Posts: 631
It's probably all an optical contusion that only affects humans, the fish probably see both types of lines.

Posted on: 2012/9/19 20:50
George Orwell warned, "The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it."

« 1 (2)

You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]

Site Content
Stay Connected facebook instagram RSS Feed

USGS Water Levels
The New Keystone Fly Fishing Book
Where do you most want to fly fish outside the region?
Western US 39% (31)
Alaska 10% (8)
New Zealand 32% (26)
Florida Keys 3% (3)
South America 6% (5)
Elsewhere 7% (6)
The poll closed at 2018/3/17 12:44

Copyright 2018 by | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by