Jump to content

Fishnut

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,057

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Fishnut

    Do I need a Fish Hawk

    in Questions About Trout & Salmon Trolling?

    Posted

    Each fish species has a preferred temperature.  say your targeting King salmon. there preferred temperature is 54 degrees. so this information will eliminate a lot of unproductive water. like anything above 58 degrees. and anything colder that 42 degrees.  so if you concentrate your lures in this temperature zone your eliminating a hell of a lot of water making the hunt for fish easer. I'm not saying that you wont find fish out of their comfort zone but if your looking for fish,  Start in their comfort zone.    

    • Like 1

    Rubber Bands and In-Line Planer Boards

    in Tackle and Techniques

    Posted

    On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 7:56 AM, Fishmaster 196 said:

    You are using inlines correct?  I have offshore boards with the or 18 release on the front but I'm sure the 19 strand will still slip through and kink even with the upgraded release.  So if I'm understanding correctly the wire backer is sitting just outside the release jaws and only the rubber band is being pinched?  Thanks. 

    Sent from my SM-G930V using Lake Ontario United mobile app
     

    they will slip and chew up your pads. that's why I let all of mine out and clamp on the backer. I rarely run weighted steel off a plainer, I use it as a chute rod or tail gunner.

    Weighted steel. Yay or nay

    in Open Lake Discussion

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Legacy said:

    Im not buying into it. It may offer some "versatility" but I certainly dont see it as a "replacement" for copper. I see this setup ONLY being used without worries as a chute rod or at least in the way it is promoted. The idea that you can run this off boards (big or small without worries) blows my mind. The thought of attaching anything to 19 strand wire makes my head explode. Sounds like you will be buying lots of product to replace the stuff you break off. The idea of a copper replacement is a fantastic sales pitch and it certainly grabs some attention but it sounds like an attempt to reinvent the wheel. I know the attraction to the idea is the need for less rods but...

    My understanding of the "steel theory" that is pushed is all you need to achieve the same dive curve as 45# copper is a 200' weighted steel and 30# wire as backing. Yet guys that I have talked to all say that these setups just dont get as deep as their similar copper setups. Ive talk to people who have tested it with a smart troll and have found it to have a similar dive curve to 32# copper not 45#. Makes sense to me because it has a larger diameter and weighs less than 45# copper does. Everyone also agrees they like the way it comes off the reel and there is virtually zero issues with bird nests. If anyone has used 32# copper they would also tell you how much easier it is to use than 45#. So wouldnt it just be easier to spool up a 200' of 32# copper, backed with 30# 7 strand wire, and put it on a smaller reel. I am not advocating this by the way.

     

     

    im with Legacy on this one, I run my weighted steel as a chute rod, I put a 16oz ball between my leader and the steel on a drop and let it out until it hits bottom, then I real it up a bit and let it ride. its usually 300 to 500 ft out. believe it or not this rod usually catches the biggest fish of the day.

    Rubber Bands and In-Line Planer Boards

    in Tackle and Techniques

    Posted

    It will kink your line some if you clamp on the steel. The rubber band is to wrap around the release grips to hold the wire.
    I let out all my weighted steel and put my release on my backer, but you need a really tight release to hold all the weight so I use a rubber band half hitched to the backer to keep it from slipping. I also wrap it around the pads for a stronger hold on my board.


    Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

    Teaching resources

    in Questions About Trout & Salmon Trolling?

    Posted

    12 hours ago, Knot Worthy said:

     

    At least a few ways to be an observer.  Check out the tournament websites and contact the organizers who can usually set people up on boats as an observers (may put you in touch with an out of town boat who may not know locals), or watch the posts before a tournament when people post looking for observers.  Might also ask folks who fish the tournaments (facebook, this site, etc) if they they need an observer for a tournament or if they know anyone who does.  Once you make a contact or two opportunities come up.  K

    Iv been an observer for a couple years, yes it really takes a lot of the curve out of the learning curve. I also just ordered 2 of keatings books.

    last year was my first year chasing kings and we did really well.  

    Wind Turbines on Lake Ontario!

    in Open Lake Discussion

    Posted

    From May 2017. When faced with information such as this climate alarmists resort to their catchphrases of '97% consensus', peer review', '10 years to act' (a favorite of theirs for over 40 years!), 'denier' etc. What they usually avoid is presenting actual facts as a counterargument.
    The anti-CO2 line in climate changes is a scam. Always has been, always will be.
    ...............................................
    Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy

    We urgently need to stop the ecological posturing and invest in gas and nuclear
    Matt Ridley


    Tantrum of the climate alarmists
    Brendan O'Neill

    The Global Wind Energy Council recently released its latest report, excitedly boasting that ‘the proliferation of wind energy into the global power market continues at a furious pace, after it was revealed that more than 54 gigawatts of clean renewable wind power was installed across the global market last year’.

    You may have got the impression from announcements like that, and from the obligatory pictures of wind turbines in any BBC story or airport advert about energy, that wind power is making a big contribution to world energy today. You would be wrong. Its contribution is still, after decades — nay centuries — of development, trivial to the point of irrelevance.

    Here’s a quiz; no conferring. To the nearest whole number, what percentage of the world’s energy consumption was supplied by wind power in 2014, the last year for which there are reliable figures? Was it 20 per cent, 10 per cent or 5 per cent? None of the above: it was 0 per cent. That is to say, to the nearest whole number, there is still no wind power on Earth.

    Even put together, wind and photovoltaic solar are supplying less than 1 per cent of global energy demand. From the International Energy Agency’s 2016 Key Renewables Trends, we can see that wind provided 0.46 per cent of global energy consumption in 2014, and solar and tide combined provided 0.35 per cent. Remember this is total energy, not just electricity, which is less than a fifth of all final energy, the rest being the solid, gaseous, and liquid fuels that do the heavy lifting for heat, transport and industry.

    Such numbers are not hard to find, but they don’t figure prominently in reports on energy derived from the unreliables lobby (solar and wind). Their trick is to hide behind the statement that close to 14 per cent of the world’s energy is renewable, with the implication that this is wind and solar. In fact the vast majority — three quarters — is biomass (mainly wood), and a very large part of that is ‘traditional biomass’; sticks and logs and dung burned by the poor in their homes to cook with. Those people need that energy, but they pay a big price in health problems caused by smoke inhalation.

    Even in rich countries playing with subsidised wind and solar, a huge slug of their renewable energy comes from wood and hydro, the reliable renewables. Meanwhile, world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, again using International Energy Agency data, it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours.

    If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s.

    At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfil the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.

    Do not take refuge in the idea that wind turbines could become more efficient. There is a limit to how much energy you can extract from a moving fluid, the Betz limit, and wind turbines are already close to it. Their effectiveness (the load factor, to use the engineering term) is determined by the wind that is available, and that varies at its own sweet will from second to second, day to day, year to year.

    As machines, wind turbines are pretty good already; the problem is the wind resource itself, and we cannot change that. It’s a fluctuating stream of low–density energy. Mankind stopped using it for mission-critical transport and mechanical power long ago, for sound reasons. It’s just not very good.

    As for resource consumption and environmental impacts, the direct effects of wind turbines — killing birds and bats, sinking concrete foundations deep into wild lands — is bad enough. But out of sight and out of mind is the dirty pollution generated in Inner Mongolia by the mining of rare-earth metals for the magnets in the turbines. This generates toxic and radioactive waste on an epic scale, which is why the phrase ‘clean energy’ is such a sick joke and ministers should be ashamed every time it passes their lips.

    It gets worse. Wind turbines, apart from the fibreglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine. Steel is made with coal, not just to provide the heat for smelting ore, but to supply the carbon in the alloy. Cement is also often made using coal. The machinery of ‘clean’ renewables is the output of the fossil fuel economy, and largely the coal economy.

    A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tonnes, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a tonne of coal to make a tonne of steel. Add another 25 tonnes of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 tonnes of coal per turbine. Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output.

    Forgive me if you have heard this before, but I have a commercial interest in coal. Now it appears that the black stuff also gives me a commercial interest in ‘clean’, green wind power.

    The point of running through these numbers is to demonstrate that it is utterly futile, on a priori grounds, even to think that wind power can make any significant contribution to world energy supply, let alone to emissions reductions, without ruining the planet. As the late David MacKay pointed out years back, the arithmetic is against such unreliable renewables.

    The truth is, if you want to power civilisation with fewer greenhouse gas emissions, then you should focus on shifting power generation, heat and transport to natural gas, the economically recoverable reserves of which — thanks to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing — are much more abundant than we dreamed they ever could be. It is also the lowest-emitting of the fossil fuels, so the emissions intensity of our wealth creation can actually fall while our wealth continues to increase. Good.

    And let’s put some of that burgeoning wealth in nuclear, fission and fusion, so that it can take over from gas in the second half of this century. That is an engineerable, clean future. Everything else is a political displacement activity, one that is actually counterproductive as a climate policy and, worst of all, shamefully robs the poor to make the rich even richer.

    www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-are-neither-clean-nor-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy


    Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

    • Like 2

    deer sheds

    in Classifieds - Buy, Sell, Trade or Rent

    Posted

    On ‎1‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 8:54 AM, JakeyBaby said:

    This year?? Wow!

    well he started hunting for sheds over Christmas break so this is what he has found since December 22nd until now.  the big bucks started dropping their horns pretty early this year.

    he has put on over 120 miles looking for horns so far. I haven't even gone out yet this year for horns so he'll probably beat me this year shed hunting. my daughter has also found 2 sets and 4 singles so far.

×
×
  • Create New...