Braid fishing line lubricant.

[Benni3]

Aristotle was about what is real,,,and over the years I have found out that mixing chemicals no matter how good they say it is,,,,   probably shorting the life of most stuff you've trying to protect,,,,,

[Flat Top]

I ask a simple question and I get biased answers. That was the whole point of this discussion.

Some folks on here use line conditioners and some dont. Those that do have EXPERIENCE with them and those that dont come up with all sorts of reasons for its use...or not. Maybe those that have tried the product are sold on the benefits and were not swayed by marketing hype...maybe they were. Those that have not tried the product may have been swayed by negative reports, or bias from those that for one reason or another dont think the product is worthwhile....and thats OK too! Tens of thousands of professional and non-professional fisherman use line conditioners world wide, so there must be something to that....they could not all be sold on marketing hype.

I am sold on food grade silicone line conditioner. It has worked for me and I have about ten years of EXPERIENCE using it. Am I biased because of that...I guess I am. One thing: I am not irresponsible. hostile, and have no dog in this hunt.

Many, many years ago I used to watch my grandpa wax his braided Dacron fishing line...liquid beeswax melted into the line with a candle flame and hand rubbed into the line. I thought that was a lot of trouble to go through when he could just go out and buy new line. He would use that line for years and it always performed for him. I guess he was just biased.   

[wfjord]

I think Jurelometer, without coming right out and saying it, is trying to explain the difference between inductive and deductive thinking. Scientific method is based on the latter -- as opposed to anecdotal evidence.

Interesting. Actually I was just pounding away ungracefully on the illogic of exclusively wanting anecdotal evidence, but I think that you might have a better structure here.  Correct me if I get this wrong (it has been more than a few years), but I thought that (pure) inductive reasoning was based on observation without understanding, and deductive reasoning was based on understanding without observation.  Anecdotal evidence feeds inductive reasoning, but has limited utility, as it is generally not well controlled observation.

Ideally you want to do both inductive and deductive - they both have value and they feed each other, but you can go a long way with just one if it is done properly.  And I thought that both were part of the scientific method.

Relying on a single or small set of lightly controlled observations is not doing inductive reasoning properly.  But it often doesn't matter to many folk. We humans are wired to favor inductive reasoning at any level of accuracy.

Deductive reasoning is often more abstract, so many folk undervalue or even disregard it.  Hostility is not entirely uncommon.

And so here we are...

-J

One can make it more complicated, but I think in its simplest basic definition, inductive reasoning attempts to reach a general conclusion based on limited amounts of data or anecdotal evidence, whereas deductive reasoning reaches specific conclusions based on large amounts of data.

[Flat Top]

I think Jurelometer, without coming right out and saying it, is trying to explain the difference between inductive and deductive thinking. Scientific method is based on the latter -- as opposed to anecdotal evidence.

Interesting. Actually I was just pounding away ungracefully on the illogic of exclusively wanting anecdotal evidence, but I think that you might have a better structure here.  Correct me if I get this wrong (it has been more than a few years), but I thought that (pure) inductive reasoning was based on observation without understanding, and deductive reasoning was based on understanding without observation.  Anecdotal evidence feeds inductive reasoning, but has limited utility, as it is generally not well controlled observation.

Ideally you want to do both inductive and deductive - they both have value and they feed each other, but you can go a long way with just one if it is done properly.  And I thought that both were part of the scientific method.

Relying on a single or small set of lightly controlled observations is not doing inductive reasoning properly.  But it often doesn't matter to many folk. We humans are wired to favor inductive reasoning at any level of accuracy.

Deductive reasoning is often more abstract, so many folk undervalue or even disregard it.  Hostility is not entirely uncommon.

And so here we are...

-J

One can make it more complicated, but I think the simplest basic definition of inductive reasoning is reaching a general conclusion based on limited amounts of data or anecdotal evidence, whereas deductive reasoning reaches specific conclusions based on large amounts of data.

Precisely!!!

[Benni3]

Ok what if a fish of a lifetime hits your line and it breaks,,,,or it just smells like poop and he goes past it,,,,,

[MarkT]

I fish in saltwater. Line gets wet, water evaporates leaving salt behind which causes the line to stick to itself. I'll spray the spool with freshwater which helps a lot. Wet line does cast better! Better to spray the line several times through the day than spray silicone on it which attracts dirt/dust, salt too? You want coated line? Use powerpro or other coated lines.

Have you tried coating the guides rather than the line?

[Flat Top]

I fish in saltwater. Line gets wet, water evaporates leaving salt behind which causes the line to stick to itself. I'll spray the spool with freshwater which helps a lot. Wet line does cast better! Better to spray the line several times through the day than spray silicone on it which attracts dirt/dust, salt too? You want coated line? Use powerpro or other coated lines.

Have you tried coating the guides rather than the line?

If you spray the silicone on the line and fish it wet it will attract salt, dirt/dust. The silicone spray must be allowed to "dry" on the line to resist that. I come back from a fishing trip and allow the line to thoroughly dry then apply the silicone spray and allow that to dry before my next outing. I spray the guides as well.

I lived in Florida for eleven years and did a lot of salt water fishing and used the same technique that you use, but that was before I started using the silicone spray.

Now that I am living here we get some cold winters and the silicone spray does a petty good job of keeping the lines and guides ice/frost free when winter fishing.

[the rockfish ninja]

How about just changing out your braid when it gets old & frayed.
...it's not that expensive.

.... 

[Flat Top]

How about just changing out your braid when it gets old & frayed.
...it's not that expensive.

.... 

You can do that.I used my braid on two reels steadily for about four years, and with the silicone spray it never got old, frayed or showed any signs of wear, but it was faded...yellow turned to white. I tried a pull test to see if it would break and it did...at 38+ lbs....it was 40 lb braid. Not wanting to push my luck I back spooled the braid so the bottom of the spool became the top of the spool and I was ready to go with fresh line again. I do that because I only use the first 50 to 75 yards of braid on the spool and the rest is like new....four more years.

[jurelometer]

I think Jurelometer, without coming right out and saying it, is trying to explain the difference between inductive and deductive thinking. Scientific method is based on the latter -- as opposed to anecdotal evidence.

Interesting. Actually I was just pounding away ungracefully on the illogic of exclusively wanting anecdotal evidence, but I think that you might have a better structure here.  Correct me if I get this wrong (it has been more than a few years), but I thought that (pure) inductive reasoning was based on observation without understanding, and deductive reasoning was based on understanding without observation.  Anecdotal evidence feeds inductive reasoning, but has limited utility, as it is generally not well controlled observation.

Ideally you want to do both inductive and deductive - they both have value and they feed each other, but you can go a long way with just one if it is done properly.  And I thought that both were part of the scientific method.

Relying on a single or small set of lightly controlled observations is not doing inductive reasoning properly.  But it often doesn't matter to many folk. We humans are wired to favor inductive reasoning at any level of accuracy.

Deductive reasoning is often more abstract, so many folk undervalue or even disregard it.  Hostility is not entirely uncommon.

And so here we are...

-J

One can make it more complicated, but I think in its simplest basic definition, inductive reasoning attempts to reach a general conclusion based on limited amounts of data or anecdotal evidence, whereas deductive reasoning reaches specific conclusions based on large amounts of data.

Hmm,

I had to go back and look, and I did see your definition.  But I saw other definitions as well, with most being varying flavors of mine (mostly less absolute, TBF). I think I am going to stick to my guns here.  You can do high quality inductive reasoning on large data sets with good controls (e.g., any decent  medical trial), or poor quality deductive reasoning with a small amount of data.

But I do agree that deductive reasoning is the more comprehensive of the two tool kits by far. But sometimes the right tool is in the smaller toolbox.

A couple examples:

1. Kaprekar's Constants:  An interesting mathematical "parlor game" that illustrates iteration and convergence.  There is no known explanation for their existence.  They simply are.  They had to be found and verified strictly by observation. A very specific conclusion, albeit a small data set.

2. Newton's theories on light waves and refraction.  Here Newton ping-ponged back and forth between the two models, but like most novel theories he started out on the inductive - an observation that the rainbow of  light off a prism was always rectangular in shape.  And in the end he circled back to an observational experiment to prove it- but in between, the theory itself and the experiment construction was the result of deductive reasoning.

Actually a more interesting debate for me than line conditioner , but linking it back to the subject at hand:

We make progress when we combine both models.  I cobbled together some more observational data (mostly who is making/not making line conditioner, the ingredients used, relative market acceptance, the lack of controlled/measured testing, etc.).  When we put that together with the inductive and deductive reasoning in this thread, the best chance that I see for this stuff being effective is if it slows fiber fracture (AKA fuzzies). The reasoning is in the posts above, plus a few more items that I never got around to posting. 

If someone wants to find out with a bit more certainty (and is not bothered by the potential environmental impact), I would suggest trying both starting treatment when the braid is new, and  on a different spool when the braid has been used for awhile and is starting to fuzz up. Plus ideally,  add a third control spool where the braid has not been sprayed. Try to rotate spool usage evenly.  See if there is a difference in the progression of braid fuzzing.  Not perfect, but better than anything I have seen.  Pease report back if you do it!

Fuzzing being the culprit makes sense from so many angles.  Whether the treatments help or help enough to be worth it is the question.

I do think it is a bit biased to suggest that people try the product while simultaneously discouraging them from discussing all the available reasoning to decide if it is likely to be worthwhile. The evidence is still the evidence, it doesn't choose sides.

At this point, the collective evidence leads me to expect (but not with full confidence) that any benefit is at most  minimal, or restricted to specific circumstances. I don't have any braid performance problem that seems likely to be resolved by this kind of treatment, so I am not interested in trying it.  I respect that others like the OP  might strongly believe otherwise.

-J

[wfjord]

Like I said, one can make it more complicated, but is that needed here? I'm not so sure. In any event, short of someone doing extensive scientific testing on the issue at hand, which is unlikely and, in all probability unnecessary. I haven't had any casting problems with braid that needed a chemical fix, i.e., seen any solid evidence that makes me feel like I need to spray my lines with food grade silicone or any other substance. I personally don't care if someone else does so as long as no one tries to push it on me and claim their way is right because that's the way they've done it for years because a family patriarch did it. Everyone has their own idiosyncrasies regarding their fishing and their gear and that's fine and expected. I can't argue with that. I have my own, which includes keeping my gear clean.

[wfjord]

Regarding fuzzing -- You can certainly spray fuzzing with something that will make the fuzz lay down and become not apparent. But it's not repairing the line or preserving original line strength. I don't know of any additive that can do that.  It just makes the fuzz not as visible. Any line flaws that might exist are still there.