VARIVAS has developed a spray to protect the fibers of your braid from attacks by water and salt. This coating also improves the flow of your braid into the rings. It would be interesting to try, does anyone use it? A feedback?
First I would get my hands on a SDS. That stuff is going to get aerosolized during a vigorous cast as nothing sticks to UHMWPE (the plastic that modern braid is made from). In addition to human health, the SDS lists aquatic life effects, which could be important if you are fishing in smaller streams, lakes or ponds.
UHMWPE Braid fibers are already extremely smooth. The coating that comes with some braids actually increases the coefficient of friction, but tends to keep the braid stiffer and less tangle prone (while it lasts). Braid fibers have high tensile strength along the fiber, but at the expensive of the cross section having very low compressive strength (brittle). Silt, dried salt or other contaminants trapped between the fibers can contribute to fibers breaking, weakening the line and making the surface less smooth. The fiber breakage happens from the weave pulling fibers across each other( this is why the braid near the lure wears out faster when casting heavy weights), and any imbedded abrasives can accelerate this wear. You can rub braid back and forth across a ceramic guide until you are exhausted, and you won't get damage from the friction. The fibers are breaking each other. The guide is not breaking the fibers.
Coatings might help, or help in some circumstances by lubricating the fibers and decreasing friction between them. It might also help if it tends to keep contaminants from becoming embedded. It might also help by keeping any frays from sticking up as much, decreasing friction on worn line.
It can hurt if it is sticky enough to cause the line to pick up more contaminants of some type. The benefit may depend on the type of water you fish.
It takes some chemical engineering wizardry to make a product that will stick well enough to UHMWPE, but not contaminants, and also not decrease the natural coefficient of friction of the material. I would guess that it mostly does the contaminant repelling work and does not stick too well, and you are expected to reapply at regular intervals.
Let us know what you think if you try the stuff.
-J
One other thought - friction under casting is a bit misunderstood by many of us fishermen. Not a physicist myself, but as I understand, line traveling over the guides is sliding friction which is a function of ONLY compressive force of the line on the ring and coefficient of friction of the line to the ring, both of which are extremely low (the compressive force is low during the cast, but goes up during the retrieve). This frictional load is not a function of surface area.
However as the line moves through a fluid, (air is a fluid to the physics crowd), a different type of friction (skin friction) is occurring that is a function of laminar flow (sort of an equivalent to COF), surface area and velocity.
The farther you cast travels, the more line is moving through the air, and the more skin friction is happening for a given velocity. Try seeing how far you can throw just a sinker by hand vs. the same sinker tied to a very long section of braid. Same thing happens if you snap off a lure at the beginning of the cast.
Combine this skin friction with the effect of the line crashing into the guide frames and blank, pulling off the coils wedged together in the spool, the resistance from your cast control, etc, etc, and you should see that any braid on any ceramic guide set is providing such a small percentage of the overall casting resistance that any optimization here is probably so small as to be futile.
-J
Heh. Interesting parallel to another sport I'm into, skiing. Over there the conventional wisdom is that waxing your ski bases (also made from UHMWPE, hence the parallel) is a good idea, until someone did a university thesis about it and found that the effect entirely dissipates within a couple of kilometres. The reason waxing your skis seems so great is because you go from a completely unwaxed ski to a completely waxed ski, and the difference is significant, and then it dissipates slowly at a rate that is difficult for an imprecise device (a human) to detect. The religious base-waxers got very bent out of shape about this.
I suspect this product would be extremely similar. Per jurelometer, it is extremely hard to get things to stick to UHMWPE. But when you first spray it on the line it likely has a noticeable effect so you feel good about using it. I'd love to know how many casts, for example, it actually lasts for.
For what it's worth on the ski study, the researcher found that the base structure had a much larger and lasting effect on performance; that is the coarseness of the pattern produced from grinding the base, which makes a significant difference to how water "adheres" (for want of a better term) to the base, and therefore how much friction you get. I feel like the majority of how a braid "feels" is going to come from the construction of the braid (number and thickness of the strands/carriers) followed by any coating that is truly bonded to the braid.
I'm a skier too! Never thought about wax at all on skis, just did the sheep thing and waxed them. Apparently, the magic is in the hydrophobic aspect of wax - keeping that thin layer of melted water from sticking to the ski base. So water to wax has a better COF than water to UHMWPE - a good reminder that the COF has to calculated between a pair of materials.
Getting back to braid coatings, I think that the stuff that comes on new braid is mostly held in place by getting in all the gaps in the fiber and weave and then locking in by sticking to itself. The problem with being sticky is that it adds friction and attracts contaminants.
I guess that there could be some chemistry magic that allows an aftermarket coating to attract to itself using a molecular bond instead of the more sticky mechanical bond, but then it is not going to last as long.
For folk that want the effect of a coated line, it looks like manufacturers thermally fusing the fibers together (presumably mostly the outer layer) is the latest trend in braid. Haven't tried it myself, but I would be willing to give up a few yards of casting distance to save some backlash clearing time.
-J
Quote from: jurelometer on April 23, 2024, 02:35:43 AMFor folk that want the effect of a coated line, it looks like manufacturers thermally fusing the fibers together (presumably mostly the outer layer) is the latest trend in braid....
This is why I've long used Fireline from Berkley it was thermally fused since Day One and casts like a dream-a bit stiff and not always the easiest to tie in though there is that.
I decided to try this product, we'll see what happens and the sensations it will give me. Varivas is a company I trust very much.
Ok I apologize for dragging this back off the rails after it had returned to the topic at hand.
But I can't help but ask, re: skiing and wax. Everything I've read makes sense, both about how yes it does initially have an effect and how it wears off fast. Isn't everyone doing the ceramic coating thing on cars now as a supposedly longer lasting alternative to wax? Wouldn't it be worth considering the same product on your ski bottoms for the same reason? Not into skiing myself. Something about the Florida climate made it less appealing to me.
Quote from: JasonGotaProblem on April 24, 2024, 01:52:08 PMOk I apologize for dragging this back off the rails after it had returned to the topic at hand.
But I can't help but ask, re: skiing and wax. Everything I've read makes sense, both about how yes it does initially have an effect and how it wears off fast. Isn't everyone doing the ceramic coating thing on cars now as a supposedly longer lasting alternative to wax? Wouldn't it be worth considering the same product on your ski bottoms for the same reason? Not into skiing myself. Something about the Florida climate made it less appealing to me.
There are waxes that include "ceramics".
In addition to being hydrophobic, the ski base coating has to be able to stick to UHMWPE -that's the hard part. The bases themselves are not smooth. "Structure" (grooves) are scratched into the bases for a variety of reasons, one of which is to create a toothy surface for the wax to mechanically bond to.
Lots of upheaval in the ski wax business as the favorite high performance stuff (containing some kind of fluorocarbon) was recently banned in most countries after it was found to be a cause of PFAs getting into groundwater in resort towns- not to mention sickening ski techs.
Since a very slight improvement in wax performance can make the difference in getting a podium finish in alpine and cross country ski racing, there is no shortage of technical folk looking at this, and timed racing events makes for a good test lab.
No equivalent on the fishing side. When it comes to casting performance, we have nothing like the ski racing industry going on. Just a few casting competitions. And it is hard to measure actual fishing success rate due to all the variables involved. So on the fishing side, marketing BS has a much better ROI than doing the hard work of product innovation, and industry investment is balanced accordingly.
While Varivas does a a reputation for high quality products, that literature for this product is full of 'sciency" claims that if you look closely don't really tell you anything of substance. "average of five test results" - hah!
Looking forward to seeing what MexicanGulf finds out.
-J
I agree ,any lubricate will work but it's not last ,some spray even melt the coating out and color came off .The best is find the line that less fiction to guides
even a simple silicone spray could work in my opinion, I will try the Varivas product. I trust this company and its products
sorry this is the exact video. However, I did a short search, there are many other brands that produce similar products.
I see as the braid was placed onto the spool with baby oil, there was more on the front of the spool than being evenly wound on, one more thin fibro washer under the spool could have evened it up, cheers Don.
[
Quote from: MexicanGulf on April 24, 2024, 08:15:05 PMsorry this is the exact video. However, I did a short search, there are many other brands that produce similar products.
Thanks. Unfortunately, more misinformation in the video so I don't trust this guy. He decribes the product being useful for removing salt. First of all, water is the best solvent for salt, but once you dissolve the salt, you need to get the salty water out before it evaporates. Otherwise the salt is still left behind.
The Varivas product is water based (plus silicone oil), so it will get the line wet and turn some of the the salt crystals into salt water, but not helpful, as you are not going to soak your spool in a bucket of this stuff to carry away salt via dilution. NB: you can do this with a bucket of warm fresh water- much cheaper-too!
Apparently this product comes in two flavors- regular and "pro" the pro is about 50% more expensive ::)
Hah!
And here is an interesting paper on measuring the use of silicone oil as as standalone lubricant on UHMWPE ski bases. It urns out that only an infinitesimal amount actually sticks to the base (a 600 nanometer layer = 0.0006 millimeter thick. so most of that silicone oil and water that is costing you about 10 USD$ per ounce is just sitting around waiting to be flung off or evaporate.
Also interesting (but unrelated): the silicone oil only helped on skis with wet snow- on cold/dry snow it actually caused a higher COF than bare UHMWPE. A very readable paper:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9294275/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9294275/)
So I'm swinging for the fences here. Isn't PE plastic hydrophobic to begin with? I thought most of what made wax worthwhile was the effect of smoothing out the surface by filling in micro scratches and crevices.
So the skis come with scratches added... so the wax adheres better? I'm just trying to understand.
Quote from: JasonGotaProblem on April 25, 2024, 12:08:24 AMSo I'm swinging for the fences here. Isn't PE plastic hydrophobic to begin with? I thought most of what made wax worthwhile was the effect of smoothing out the surface by filling in micro scratches and crevices.
So the skis come with scratches added... so the wax adheres better? I'm just trying to understand.
As I noted before, I just waxed my skis because that was what we were supposed to do, so I don't have too much insight to offer here.
For one thing, if the snow is wet, skis with smooth bases will stick to the snow like a suction cup. Hit a patch of super wet spring snow with worn-smooth bases. and your skis will act like you slammed on the brakes. Unfortunately, your body will continue forward at the same speed. Don't ask me how I know this. The theory for colder snow is that the base structure helps create friction at the point of contact with hard snow crystals. This friction melts a tiny bit of snow, and the rest of the ski sort of hydroplanes on this thin layer of water.
The race techs know what scratch depths and patterns work best for which conditions. As to why, there are theories.
Not all PE types have the same properties, and the question is not just if a surface is hydrophobic, but how hydrophobic.
That article that I linked above talks about a bunch of this, plus it shows how they measure how hydrophobic a surface is.
Attached is a photo of typical alpine race ski structure with a coat of wax on top.
Feel free to jump in on this Boon. I am at my limit on ski wax here.
-J
The trick to optimising ski performance is getting the right amount of water on the bottom of the ski. Too much water and, as you touched on, you get a suction-like effect that severely limits glide. When I was skiing a LOT and only getting a couple of years from a pair of skis, we would put an extremely aggressive base grind on the skis in spring, but you can only do this for a couple of seasons before the base gets too thin. Conversely if you're skiing on very cold "dry" powder snow you actually need to encourage water to hang around on the bases, or they get "sticky" because un-melted snow is a surprisingly grippy surface.
Wax is an interesting one. There are hundreds of compounds, hardnesses, blah blah you name it, all with varying levels of effectiveness (and toxicity to local wildlife). For racers it is extremely important, because they care about 10ths of seconds, and their skis only need to do one race before getting tuned up. Even if the wax is completely gone by half way down the course, it has served its purpose if it made them 1% faster through that half. Accordingly top ski teams put a huge amount of time and effort into waxing, which I believe is part of the reason "regular" skiers look at it and think it's important.
There are all sorts of loopy versions of how ski wax works, with one of the more common ones being that heating the ski bases while ironing on the wax causes "pores" to open in the base and entrap wax, which is kinda patently ridiculous. If an enormous complex hydrocarbon could fit inside any pores in the base then water would slip right on in there and your bases would get waterlogged. The theory I think makes the most sense is that at a microscopic level the wax fills imperfections in the ski base/structure, slightly reducing COF, but also that when done properly (brushing/buffing after waxing) generally makes the base smoother and/or lets the structure function as intended.
Significant digression here, but I think the parallel to line conditioning products remains: I would imagine they are actually moderately effective, perhaps for a few casts, and therefore for competitive casters, or maybe someone requiring the utmost performance for throwing lures, they are useful. I would be fascinated to see how long the lubrication effect remains for.
I remember that many friends who use loop to loop, bimini, top shot, etc. connections use a specific wax to increase the smoothness of their connections. It should be this one in the photo I attach. For this reason I thought that the product of a large Japanese company like Varivas, which enjoys an immaculate reputation in all continents of the globe, could be a truly interesting solution. As far as I know, there is something silicone-based inside the Varivas spray.