Wireless GF Bite Alarms

[Steve Burke]

It looks simple but if you look at the thread for the ultimate bobbin you will see that a huge amount of work was put in by many people.

 

This is at http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/forums/Ultimat...bin#entry815867.

[GF Bite Alarms]

Blimey, I really underestimated the issues maybe I should stick to Bite Alarms

[Dick Dastardly]

Blimey, I really underestimated the issues maybe I should stick to Bite Alarms

 

Don't worry Phil we all did except for Paul. It wasn't till we actually started building ours that we realised/encountered the many problems.Paul had it sussed right from the start and we poo pooed his ideas! Needless to say my prototypes are all back in the spare parts bin and Im the proud owner of some Tinca tinca Swinghams! and when ever the talk turns to mechanics hang on Pauls every word!

Edited December 8, 2010 by BUDGIE

[wyeknot]

I've been thinking about the issue of line skate when the rods are at a steep angle. I had this problem once when I was fishing a lake that had high steep banks and, even if you had the rod butt on the ground, it still meant the rod was at an acute downward angle (unless you were happy with your rod tip about six feet above the water). The work-around I came up with was to angle the front rod rest towards the water so that it was back to being closer to a right angle wrt to the rod. The bite alarm was positioned between two rings with the bobbin behind the backmost ring. Nowadays, you can get some very good adjustable connectors so the front rod rest can still be vertical but the bite indicator can lean forward.

 

Not sure if it would help with the line skate issue but it might be worth a try. What do you think Andrew/Paul?

 

Steve C.

[tincatinca]

I've been thinking about the issue of line skate when the rods are at a steep angle. I had this problem once when I was fishing a lake that had high steep banks and, even if you had the rod butt on the ground, it still meant the rod was at an acute downward angle (unless you were happy with your rod tip about six feet above the water). The work-around I came up with was to angle the front rod rest towards the water so that it was back to being closer to a right angle wrt to the rod. The bite alarm was positioned between two rings with the bobbin behind the backmost ring. Nowadays, you can get some very good adjustable connectors so the front rod rest can still be vertical but the bite indicator can lean forward.

 

Not sure if it would help with the line skate issue but it might be worth a try. What do you think Andrew/Paul?

 

Steve C.

 

By positioning the bite alarm midway between the rod rings and the bobbin between the rod ring and the alarm then it may work well as you are replicating a right angle between the rod and the alarm but the key issue to all this is the distance from the bottom of the rod to the top of the roller. Not all roller type alarms are the same and the wheels on most are quite small, so in order to ensure that there is a good contact between the line and the roller then the smaller the distance is between the bottom of the rod and the top of the roller the better it is which can be achieved either by making the vee lower or increasing the size of the roller. My personal preference would be for a larger sized roller as this gives far more versatility when angling rods up or down. Also I like the added security of the rod ring hard up against the bite alarm. This is where the Optonics have scored well due to the size of the roller. Hope this makes sense.

Edited December 8, 2010 by tincatinca

[Guerilla]

I'll just reiterate my point; line skip when using braid with an open bail arm even if the butt ring was tight to the alarm is a problem, just like the angled rests. I bought some 'old skool' Optonics and sounder box to try the big wheels but didn't bother in the end; I'm not convinced that roller wheels are the best technology for this form of indication personally, so it might be trying to solve a problem that others have already solved albeit at a much more expensive price (Delkim).

 

Not entirely sure I mentioned it before but many people swear by putting an o-ring seal in the groove of the roller wheel. Didn't solve the open bail problem for me but may help when fishing mono with angled rests? That extra friction from the seal on the line may be enough to overcome the inertia and register a movement.

Otherwise is it possible to put 4 magnets on the roller wheel or would that just add to the inertia and be over-sensitive?

 

I thought the suggestions Budgie made were very good and valid. A niche product would be a unique selling point for sure a there are lots of alarms out there. Korum and Chub at the lower end of the market along with ACE and the new Nash Siren ones have all bee released at the top end of the market with great public fanfare during the time you've owned GF.

 

Something cheaper, well built, in the UK, good customer service and warranty with a niche aspect would be great IMHO.

Custom swingers/drop-offs could be that selling point!?

As Budgie said, the hard core tackle tart carpers are surely an unlikely market so its be better to suit the needs of the more general coarse/specimen anglers who would like one alarm to suit all their fishing.

[tincatinca]

There is not a great deal wrong with the principle of the roller magnet in a bite indicator however where perhaps there may be faults is in the design and materials used. As most know, the principle relates to the line turning the wheel and thus the magnet past a sensor to create the signal. Taking the electronics aside it comes down to simple mechanics with three key factors which are

1) The roller is free running

2) the line makes good contact with the roller

3) The frictional properties of the roller material and the design of the roller ensures good grip

 

Pictured below are the wheel assemblies from both an Optonic XL and a GFX

 

 

 

As can be seen the Optonic wheel is much larger than the GF and measuring both wheel where the line sits gives a diameter of less than 6mm for the GF and more than 20mm for the Optonic.

This respctively gives a circumference of less than 19mm for the GF and more than 62mm for the Optonic.

 

The result of this is that it is a reasonable assumption that the amount of line in contact with the wheel will be much greater on the Optonic than the GF. The diameter of the rod used will also make a difference to the contact area as it will either sit lower or higher in the vee. As the efficiency of a roller type bite alarm is very much dependent on friction created between the wheel and the line used then it makes sense that the greater the length of line in contact with the wheel then the more resistant the wheel will be to line skip.

[Guerilla]

I'm not disagreeing with you about the diameter, circumference and ultimately the area of contact between the line and the wheel, but I think the effect of the magnets and their sensor also comes into play here, too.

The initial force required to overcome the effect of the magnet adhering to the sensor must be considered. In the Optonic, which uses a vane to break a light beam I think(?) this isn't an issue.

 

By putting an o-ring within the groove on my GF alarms, not only did I increase the diameter, circumference and contact area, but I also increased the friction. This still didn't solve the problem for me so I came to the conclusion that the magnets were the problem, rightly or wrongly?

[poledark]

I'm not disagreeing with you about the diameter, circumference and ultimately the area of contact between the line and the wheel, but I think the effect of the magnets and their sensor also comes into play here, too.

The initial force required to overcome the effect of the magnet adhering to the sensor must be considered. In the Optonic, which uses a vane to break a light beam I think(?) this isn't an issue.

 

By putting an o-ring within the groove on my GF alarms, not only did I increase the diameter, circumference and contact area, but I also increased the friction. This still didn't solve the problem for me so I came to the conclusion that the magnets were the problem, rightly or wrongly?

 

Yes, spot on Rob. Adding a couple more magnets, 4 in total, or even 6 on a large wheel, will help to "balance" the wheel more.

 

Den

[tincatinca]

I'm not disagreeing with you about the diameter, circumference and ultimately the area of contact between the line and the wheel, but I think the effect of the magnets and their sensor also comes into play here, too.

The initial force required to overcome the effect of the magnet adhering to the sensor must be considered. In the Optonic, which uses a vane to break a light beam I think(?) this isn't an issue.

 

By putting an o-ring within the groove on my GF alarms, not only did I increase the diameter, circumference and contact area, but I also increased the friction. This still didn't solve the problem for me so I came to the conclusion that the magnets were the problem, rightly or wrongly?

 

It is an interesting point that you make regarding whether there is any effect from the magnets however I think that this would require contolled testing to determine what if any effect there was. Having used the GF alarms for many years both in the UK and Europe I can only say that I have had no problems until recent times. That said, the alarms havegenerally been used in conjunction with a rod pod. It is interesting that you have used an 'O' ring to increase the size of the roller but by doing this it also produces a curved surface for the line to run on. When you look at the roller assembly in a GF alarm there is quite a bit of sideways play in the roller shaft and I would have thought that with a curved surface for the line to run on and if the 'O' ring came into contact with the side of the alarm body then there would be a possibility of it sticking