Originally Posted by comeonavs
Well maybe someone can help me out here with the basis of my post above.
What I was told by several people at shops at sales reps is that the main advantage of flouro is the difference in amount of light it reflects compared to mono. I was told flouro absorbs more / refracts less light and therefore wont be as visible whether on top or below clear water.
I went fishing with a buddy and when we fished midstream ie deeper darker runs I actually caught more than him he was using all flouro I was using mono and we had the exact fly setups on. No I dont think mono made me catch more fish. However when we were working shallow banks and pools he had much more success than me. I attribute that possibly in some way to him running flouro in crystal clear water.
Like I said maybe I am wrong but that is where I base my theories on.
I think you misunderstood what you were told OR you were told the wrong information. You mention three properties of a material = reflection, absorption and refraction.
Reflection is the light that is bounced back and that is the basically the light spectrum that is bounced off of the surface. For an opaque object, it is the color of the object. For example, a red car looks red because it reflects back the red
portion of the visible spectrum of light. The visual spectrum is composed of the colors ROY G BIV = Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet
Absorption is the the property of a material to absorb light without reflecting it or refracting it. For example, that same red car looks red because it absorbs the OY G BIV light and reflects the R. So absorption and reflection can be thought of as opposing properties.
You can see that both fluorocarbon and mono can have pigments added to change their absorptive and reflective properties.
The correct property to describe how fluorocarbon differs from nylon monofilament for fishing is refraction which is the bending of light
. To bend light, a material has to be clear. It occurs because light undergoes a velocity change as it goes from one environment to another such as air to water, or air to monofilament, or air to fluorocarbon. This difference is called the refractive index (n). Water has a refractive index of 1.33. Therefore, the closer the refractive index of a material is to 1.33, the less it visible in water and fluorocarbon (n=1.42) is closer to 1.33 than mono (n=1.62) so fluorocarbon is less visible in water than mono.
Note: Fluorocabon must be underwater to be less visible than nylon monofilament.
Seaguar Community - Fishing Line Q&A
"Refractive Index, in this case, is a numerical value assigned to how light is bent when something extends from air to water. It can be demonstrated by placing a pencil in a clear glass of water. It looks like the pencil bends under the water. Air to Water has a refractive index of 1.33. Air to Fluorocarbon has a refractive index of 1.42. Air to Nylon has a refractive index of 1.62. This means that fluorocarbon refracts light closer to water, thus making it more difficult to see when under water."
---------- Post added at 02:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 PM ----------
Originally Posted by Joni
I also agree with Fluoro being much stronger for the diameter size.
I think the brand makes a big difference also, plus making sure it is 100% fluoro and not 100% fluoro impregnated or coated, because there are these out there.
I have found fluorocarbon to be slightly
stronger than the same diameter of mono from the same vendor.
Other than tested breaking strength, there is abrasion resistance and fluorocarbon is harder than nylon and more abrasion resistant. Nylon monofilament absorbs water and gets weaker. Fluorocarbon does not an maintains it's breaking strength.
The abrasion resistance of fluorocarbon and gradual weakening of mono are probably the reasons that fluorocarbon can seem much stronger in practice.