Abstract:
A method for securing a flexible line includes winding a first section of a flexible line from a first end to a second end of a helical coil so that the first section of the flexible line is received between a plurality of first volutes of the helical coil. A second section of the flexible line is then extended from the second end of the helical coil back to the first end of the helical coil. A third section of the flexible line is then wound from the first end of the helical coil to the second end of the helical coil so that the third section of the flexible line is received between the plurality of first volutes. A fourth section of the flexible line is passed between a pair of second volutes of a retaining formation extending from the second end of the helical coil.

Description:
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS 
       [0001]    This application is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 10/484,376, filed Jun. 3, 2004, which is a US nationalization of PCT International Application No. PCT/AU2002/00952, filed Jul. 17, 2002, which claims priority to Australian Application No. PR  6455 , filed Jul. 18, 2001, the entire disclosure of which are incorporated herein by specific reference. 
     
    
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
       [0002]    1. The Field of the Invention 
         [0003]    This invention relates to a fish-hook. More particularly, this invention relates to a fish-hook and to a connecting device. 
         [0004]    2. The Relevant Technology 
         [0005]    Fishing is an extremely popular pastime. A key component of a successful fishing venture is the ability to tie knots. It is well known that most fish are lost because of a badly tied line or the failure of a knot. 
         [0006]    A significant problem with attaching fish-hooks to line is associated with the fact that a fisherman has to thread the line through a small opening. This can be difficult, especially on a boat or in inclement weather. 
         [0007]    Once the line has been threaded through the opening, the line must be tied. There are a number of different ways that are used to tie a knot in the line. Examples of some knots are the trilene knot, the clinch knot, the improved clinch knot, the palomar knot, the orvis knot and many others. All these knots require the winding of line and subsequently passing the line through an opening defined by the winding. This task can be both difficult and time-consuming. Inclement conditions and/or boat-based fishing add to the problem. 
         [0008]    Even without such conditions, many beginners find it difficult to learn how to tie an effective knot. Applicant believes that this often bars potential newcomers to the pastime. As recreational fishermen become older, they also find it difficult to tie the required knots. 
         [0009]    These problems are not limited to recreational fishing. Commercial fishermen who use lines and fish-hooks spend much time preparing their lines. Most of this time is taken up by attaching fish-hooks to the line. These fishermen use knots like the trilene knot and the clinch knot to attach fish-hooks to line. Long-line fishing requires a large number of knots per line. In spite of the large number of devices and apparatuses described in the patents cited below, the commercial fishermen still use the conventional knots described above. 
         [0010]    Applicant submits that the reason for this is that the devices and apparatus are either difficult to manufacture or do not provide the strength characteristics of the conventional knots. This is significant since long-line fishermen often have to attach hooks as fast as possible and in heavy seas. Long-line fishing requires the deployment of many kilometres of lines with hundreds of fish-hooks attached to the lines. In some cases, the lines can extend for up to 30 kilometres or more. These are attached to sophisticated reeling machines. It will be appreciated that the attachment of fish-hooks to such lines can be extremely time-consuming. It is dear that any running repairs should be carried out as quickly as possible. It follows that a means for reducing downtime is desirable. 
         [0011]    The simplification of knot-tying has been the object of a number of patents. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 2,984,882 dated May 23, 1961 to R. W. Winn shows a line connector. The line connector allows a fish-hook to be fastened to a line without a conventional knot. This apparatus relies on the principle of using at least one closed loop through which the line is passed and then wound about itself on a straight shank. The line is trapped in a loop at one end of a shank. This apparatus does not avoid the problems of having to pass a line through a loop. Furthermore, the act of trapping the line in the loop at the end of the shank also requires some dexterity. 
         [0012]    U.S. Pat. No. 3,604,143 dated Sep. 14, 1971 to Sauers discloses a fish-hook with a shank that defines a pair of spaced openings. The line is fastened to the fish-hook by passing the line through one opening, wrapping the line about a portion of the shank between the openings and passing the line through the other opening. The line is then wrapped over the previously wrapped line and passed through the initial opening again. Clearly, this requires the line to be passed through two openings. Applicant submits that this simply results in the fisherman having to pass the line through two openings. As a result, the problems associated with passing the line through an opening are duplicated. These problems have been set out above. 
         [0013]    U.S. Pat. No. 3,848,354 to Austad et al. discloses a quick tie device. The device is a convoluted arrangement of loops. One of the loops defines a winding post while the other defines a guide loop through which the line is passed. The winding loop extends generally at right angles to the direction in which the line extends. This device requires a complicated winding procedure. It is also necessary to pass the line through a loop. Applicant therefore submits that it is difficult to see how this device provides any improvement over a conventional knot. Further, Applicant believes that the manufacture of the device would require complicated wire bending equipment. This would result in the device being expensive to manufacture, especially on a large scale. 
         [0014]    U.S. Pat. No. 4,092,796 dated Jun. 6, 1978 to Adams discloses a fish-hook that does not include an eyelet. Instead, an end portion of the shank is flattened and bent over into a U-shape. The end portion defines a slot. A line can be positioned in the slot. The line is held in the-slot if a suitable knot is made at the end of the line. The knot must be too large to pass through the slot. A primary disadvantage of this apparatus is that it is necessary to tie a knot in the line. Further, Applicant believes that such an arrangement is inherently weak. Line material is known to deform under pressure. In the event that extreme tension is set up in the line, Applicant believes that the knot would simply deform and pass through the slot. 
         [0015]    U.S. Pat. No. 4,294,031 dated Oct. 13, 1981 to Manno discloses a fish-hook that does require the tying of a knot. The fish-hook has an eyelet at an end of the shank. The shank defines a T-shaped projection. The line is passed through the eyelet and wrapped around the projection. This apparatus suffers the disadvantage of requiring the line to be passed through, an eyelet. These are discussed above. Further, a fisherman has to remember to wrap the line a required number of times about the projection. This is a disadvantage in hurried, commercial applications. 
         [0016]    U.S. Pat. No. 4,535,562 dated Aug. 20, 1985 to Fry discloses a fish-hook that also does not include an eyelet. Instead, the fish-hook is designed so that a line that already has a loop at its end can be attached to the fish-hook. The disadvantage here is that the line requires some preparation before it can be attached to the fish-hook. This could clearly be as time-consuming as fastening the line to the fish-hook in the conventional manner. 
         [0017]    U.S. Pat. No. 4,905,403 dated Mar. 6, 1990, also to Manno, discloses a loop fastening method and device. The device in one embodiment is a fish-hook. The shank defines an eyelet at one end and an open loop between the eyelet and the bend. The line is looped over, passed over the open loop, wrapped about the shank and passed through the eyelet. This device retains the disadvantage that the line needs to be passed through a loop. An outstanding portion of the shank is provided to assist a fisherman to pass the line through the loop. Applicant believes that this portion would have the tendency to snag when the device is used in difficult conditions. Doubling the line and drawing the line over the open loop would also be difficult to do in heavy seas, in commercial applications. Still further, a fisherman has to remember to wrap the line a certain number of times about the shank between the open loop and the eyelet. This is a disadvantage in hurried and difficult situations. 
         [0018]    U.S. Pat. No. 5,279,067 dated Jan. 18, 1994 to Tollison describes a fish-hook that does not have an eyelet. An end of the shank is bent over to define a narrow U-shape. The line is positioned along the shank and then wound over itself. Pulling on the line causes it to become bunched in the gap defined by the U-shape. A problem with this apparatus is that it requires manual dexterity in positioning the line before wrapping it over the portion positioned against the shank. Again, this is a disadvantage in situations where the working conditions are difficult. Applicant has found that bunching of line under tension is one of the reasons why knots and other forms of attachment fail. 
         [0019]    This invention is directed to a fish-hook and to a connecting device that addresses the disadvantages highlighted by the description of the prior art. 
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
       [0020]    According to a first aspect of the invention, there is provided a fish-hook that includes 
         [0021]    a shank; 
         [0022]    a bend that extends from the shank; 
         [0023]    a point defined by a free end of the bend, wherein 
         [0024]    an end portion of the shank defines a helical formation having at least three spaced volutes, with a first volute closest to the bend and a final volute furthest from the bend. 
         [0025]    The end portion of the shank may define a tactile gap. A volute preceding the final volute may have an extended portion that defines the gap. 
         [0026]    The end portion of the shank may define a retaining portion that terminates at the end of the shank. The retaining formation may be configured to retain a line within the final volute. The final volute may be positioned close to or against the preceding volute, so that the final and preceding volutes are urged apart to admit a line into a region bound by the volutes. A material of the fish-hook may have a degree of resilient flexibility so that the final and preceding volutes return together once the line has been admitted to retain the line in said region, so that the final and preceding volutes define the retaining formation. 
         [0027]    According to a second aspect of the invention, there is provided a connecting device that includes 
         [0028]    a shank; and 
         [0029]    at least one connecting member positioned on the shank, the, or each connecting member being elongate and defining a helical formation having at least three volutes, with a first volute closest to the shank and a final volute furthest from the shank. 
         [0030]    The connecting device may include two connecting members, one connecting member positioned on each end of the shank. Each connecting member may define a tactile gap. 
         [0031]    Each connecting member may define a retaining formation that is configured to retain a line within the final volute. 
         [0032]    Each final volute may be positioned close to or against the preceding volute, so that the final and preceding volutes are urged apart to admit a line into a region bound by the volutes. A material of the fish-hook may have a degree of resilient flexibility so that the final and preceding volutes return together once the line has been admitted to retain the line in said region, so that the final and preceding volutes define the retaining formation. 
         [0033]    A unitary, elongate article may define the shank and the connecting members. 
     
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         [0034]    The invention is now described, by way of example, with reference to the accompanying drawings. The following description is directed to embodiments of the invention so that a person skilled in the art can fabricate and use the embodiments. It follows that the description is not intended to limit the broad scope of the invention described in the above summary. 
           [0000]    In the drawings: 
           [0035]      FIG. 1  shows a side view of one embodiment of a fish-hook, according to the invention. 
           [0036]      FIG. 2  shows one side of the fish-hook of  FIG. 1 . 
           [0037]      FIG. 3  shows another side of the fish-hook of  FIG. 1 . 
           [0038]      FIG. 4  shows a connecting member of a connecting device, also according to the invention. 
           [0039]      FIG. 5  shows the connecting member of  FIG. 4  with line attached to the connecting member. 
           [0040]      FIG. 6  shows a first stage of attaching line to the fish-hook of  FIG. 1 . 
           [0041]      FIG. 7  shows a second stage of attaching line to the fish-hook of  FIG. 1 . 
           [0042]      FIG. 8  shows a third stage of attaching line to the fish-hook of  FIG. 1 . 
           [0043]      FIG. 9  shows a side view of another embodiment of a fish-hook according to the invention. 
           [0044]      FIG. 10  shows a side view of the fish-hook of  FIG. 9  indicating a first stage of attaching line to the fish-hook. 
           [0045]      FIG. 11  shows a side view of the fish-hook of  FIG. 9  indicating a second stage of attaching line to the fish-hook. 
           [0046]      FIG. 12  shows a side view of the fish-hook of  FIG. 9  indicating a third stage of attaching line to the fish-hook. 
           [0047]      FIG. 13  shows a side view of the fish-hook of  FIG. 9  indicating a fourth stage of attaching line to the fish-hook. 
           [0048]      FIG. 14  shows a side view of the fish-hook of  FIG. 9  indicating a fifth stage of attaching line to the fish-hook. 
           [0049]      FIG. 15  shows a side view of the fish-hook of  FIG. 9  indicating a sixth and final stage of attaching line to the fish-hook. 
           [0050]      FIG. 16  shows a first stage of another method of attaching line to the fish-hook of  FIG. 9 . 
           [0051]      FIG. 17  shows a second stage of another method of attaching line to the fish-hook of  FIG. 9 . 
           [0052]      FIG. 18  shows a third stage of another method of attaching line to the fish-hook of  FIG. 9 . 
           [0053]      FIG. 19  shows a schematic diagram of a test apparatus used in an experiment to test the attachment ability of the fish-hook of  FIG. 9 . 
           [0054]      FIG. 20  shows a schematic diagram of a half blood knot conventionally used to attach line to a hook. 
           [0055]      FIG. 21  shows a schematic diagram of a double clinch knot conventionally used to attach fine to a hook. 
           [0056]      FIG. 22  shows force-extension graphs generated as a result of tests carried out on conventional half blood knots used for tying fishing line to a conventional fish-hook. 
           [0057]      FIG. 23  shows force-extension graphs generated as a result of tests carried out on attachments of fishing line to a fish-hook in accordance with the invention. 
       
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS 
       [0058]    In  FIGS. 1 to 3  and  6  to  8 , reference numeral  10  generally indicates one embodiment of a fish-hook in accordance with the invention. 
         [0059]    It is to be understood that the fish-hook  10  can be of any size. In particular, the fish-hook  10  can be of a range of sizes that corresponds generally with the available range of sizes of conventional fish-hooks. 
         [0060]    The fish-hook  10  includes a shank  12 . A bend  14  extends from one end of the shank  12 . The bend  14  terminates at a barbed point  16 . An end portion  18  of the shank  12  is twisted to define a helical formation  20 . 
         [0061]    The helical formation  20  has four spaced volutes  22 . These are a first volute  22 . 1 , closest to the bend  14 , a second volute  22 . 2 , a third volute  22 . 3  and a fourth volute  22 . 4 . 
         [0062]    The third volute  22 . 3  is extended to define a gap  24 . The gap  24  is significantly larger than remaining spaces between the volutes  22 . In particular, the gap  24  is dimensioned to be tactile so that a user can readily determine a position of the gap  24  relative to the spaces between the other volutes  22 . The purpose of the gap  24  is described below. 
         [0063]    The end portion  18  of the shank  12  defines a retaining formation  26 . The fourth volute  22 . 4  is positioned against or close to the third volute  22 . 3  so that the fourth volute  22 . 4  and the third volute  22 . 3  must be urged apart to permit passage of a fishing line. Thus, the fourth volute  22 . 4  defines the retaining formation  26 . 
         [0064]    The fish-hook  10  is of conventional fish-hook material. An example of such a material is stainless steel or high-carbon steel. It will thus be appreciated that the material is resiliently flexible. 
         [0065]    A particular advantage of the fish-hook  10  is that line  28  is very easy to attach to the shank  12 . The steps of fastening the line  28  to the shank  12  are shown in  FIGS. 6 to 8 . A length of line is held against the shank  12  with a free end  30  positioned near the bend  14 . The line  28  is then wrapped about the shank  12 , following the first and second volutes  22 . 1 ,  22 . 2 , while the free end  30  remains held. At the gap  24 , the line  28  is wound back towards the bend  14 , again following the volutes  22 . 1 ,  22 . 2 . 
         [0066]    The gap  24  facilitates the change in winding direction. An extended portion  32  of the third volute  22 . 3  that defines the gap  24  provides a starting point for the change in winding direction. If necessary, the line  28  can be wound once around the extended portion  32  before being wound back towards the bend  14 . 
         [0067]    When the wind extends past the first volute  22 . 1 , it is again reversed. This wind follows the volutes  22  again. If necessary, the line  28  can be wound once about the shank  12  before following the volutes  22  again. This time the gap  24  is ignored as shown in  FIG. 7  and the line  28  is wound through the third and fourth volutes  22 . 3 ,  22 . 4 . The line  28  is urged between the third and fourth volutes  22 . 3 ,  22 . 4 . The resilience of the fish-hook material permits the third and fourth volutes  22 . 3 ,  22 . 4  to part to allow passage of the line  28  and to return under release of spring tension. This serves to retain the line  28  in a region  34  bound by the volutes  22 . An end  36  of the shank  12 , which is also the end of the fourth volute  22 . 4 , is rounded to facilitate slipping the line  28  between the third and fourth volutes  22 . 3 ,  22 . 4 . 
         [0068]    It will be appreciated that the first wind results in the line  28  extending through the region  34 . The following two winds serve to lock the line  28  in position against parts of the shank  12 . As a tension is applied to the line  28 , the line  28  is clamped against the shank  12  at said parts of the shank  12 . It will be appreciated that the line is clamped against the shank  12  at a number of spaced positions along the shank  12 . This serves to spread loading points along a length of the line  28 . A conventional fishing knot tends to generate large amounts of stress at a single location. This can result in unravelling of the line or failure at the knot. The fish-hook  10  avoids this problem by spreading the load generated when the line  28  is under tension. 
         [0069]    In  FIGS. 4 and 5 , reference numeral  40  generally indicates part of a connecting device in accordance with the invention. With reference to  FIGS. 1 to 3  and  6  to  8 , like reference numerals refer to like parts, unless otherwise specified. 
         [0070]    One half of the connecting device  40  is shown since a remaining half is the same. The connecting device  40  includes a shank  42  and a connecting member  44  positioned on each end of the shank  42 . The shank  42  and the connecting members  44  are a unitary structure formed from a single length of suitable material such as stainless steel or high-carbon steel. 
         [0071]    The connecting device  40  is suitable for connecting two lengths of line together. It will also be appreciated that, instead of a second connecting member  44 , that end of the shank  42  not shown could be connected to some other device, such as a fishing lure. 
         [0072]    Each connecting member  44  also has volutes  22  to define a helical formation. The volutes  22  are the same as those described with reference to the fish-hook  10 . It follows that further description of the connecting members  44  is not necessary. The break lines  46  simply indicate that any number of volutes  22  is possible, depending on the application. This applies to the fish-hook  10  as well. 
         [0073]      FIG. 5  shows a slightly different manner of attaching the line to the connecting member  44 . In this method the line  28  is first wound through the volutes  22  in the manner described above. The line  28  is then wound once around the extended portion  32  and returned to the shank  42  so that it lies over the volutes  22 . The line  28  is then again wound back to the extended portion  32  and between the volute  22 . 4  and the retaining formation  26 . It will readily be understood that the line  28  is also clamped against the connecting member  44  in this method. 
         [0074]    It will be appreciated that the connecting device  40  is particularly suited to connecting two lengths of line together. A popular way of connecting two lengths of line together is to use a blood-knot, a tegis knot or a surgeon&#39;s knot. The Applicant has carried out a number of tests. These tests indicate that the connecting device  40  provides a connection that is more reliable than any of the knots. Further, these knots can be difficult to learn. Older people may also find it difficult to tie such knots. The connecting device only requires the ability to wrap the line in two directions. Clearly, the connecting device  40  is far easier to use than any of those knots. 
         [0075]    In  FIGS. 9 to 18 , reference numeral  50  generally indicates another embodiment of a fish-hook in accordance with the invention. With reference to  FIGS. 1 to 8 , like reference numerals refer to like parts, unless otherwise specified. 
         [0076]    It is clear from the drawings that the primary difference between the fish-hook  10  and the fish-hook  50  is that the fish-hook  50  does not have the gap  54 . Instead, the volutes  22  are all evenly spaced except for the last two, with the last volute  22  defining the retaining formation  26 . 
         [0077]    It should be noted that the fish-hook  50  shown in  FIG. 9  has five volutes  24 . This is simply to indicate that the number of volutes  22  can vary depending on the requirements. These requirements could be the thickness of the line  28  and the surface characteristics of the line  28 . It follows that in this case the volutes  24  are numbered from  22 . 1  to  22 . 5 , starting with the volute  22 . 1  nearest the bend  14 . Thus, the volute  22 . 5  defines the retaining formation  26 . 
         [0078]      FIGS. 10 to 15  show various stages in one method of attaching line to the fish-hook  50 . 
         [0079]    In a first stage ( FIG. 10 ), the shank  12  is held between a user&#39;s left forefinger and thumb, with the thumb holding the line  28  against the shank  12 . The line  28  is wound with the right hand from the shank  12  along the volutes  22  through three revolutions to correspond with three successive volutes. 
         [0080]    In a second stage ( FIG. 11 ), the line  28  is wound, in a plane perpendicular to the shank  12 , one and a half times about the end portion  18 . 
         [0081]    In a third stage ( FIG. 12 ), the line  28  is wound back down to the shank  12 , and one full revolution about the shank  12 . 
         [0082]    In a fourth stage ( FIG. 13 ), the line  28  is wound back, as in the first stage, three revolutions corresponding with successive volutes  22 . 
         [0083]    In a fifth stage ( FIG. 14 ), the line  28  is wound, in a plane perpendicular to the shank  12 , once about the end portion  18 . The line  28  is then urged between the volutes  22  that define the retaining formation  26 . 
         [0084]    In a sixth stage ( FIG. 15 ), the line  28  is drawn tight to clamp the line  28  against the end portion  18 . 
         [0085]    As can be seen in the drawings, the direction of winding is constant. It will be readily understood that the winding can be in any direction. Thus, those in the fishing industry will readily appreciate the ease with which the line  28  is attached to the fish-hook  50 . 
         [0086]      FIGS. 16 to 18  show another method of attaching the line  28  to the fish-hook  50 . Clearly the method of attachment is the same as that for the fish-hook  10 . There is no extended portion  32  of the volute  22 . 3 . Thus, the method cannot include using a gap to facilitate a return wind. 
         [0087]    It is clear from the experimental results provided below that the fish-hook  10 ,  50  provides a line attachment means that is superior to the conventional tying methods used presently. Applicant believes that this is amplified by the fact that attachment to the fish-hook  10 ,  50  is much faster and easier than the conventional methods. This is due largely to the fact that the attachment method involves simply wrapping the line  28  about the shank  12 . The volutes  22  not only provide a point of attachment, they also facilitate winding. The reason for this is that a user can simply follow the volutes  22  when attaching the line  28  to the shank  12 . 
         [0088]    In commercial fishing, where large numbers of fish-hooks are used, any time saving is desirable. As can be seen from the experiments described below, attaching line to the fish-hook  10 ,  50  can be three times faster than tying a knot. It will be appreciated that this difference in time will be amplified in poor conditions, such as those often found on long-line fishing boats. 
         [0089]    A particular advantage of the fish-hook  10 ,  50  is that the shank  12  has a shape that can be regarded as a well-known engineering shape. It follows that the manufacture of the fish-hook  10 ,  50  on a large scale is greatly facilitated. This will serve to keep the cost of the fish-hook  10 ,  50  comparative to the cost of a conventional fish-hook. 
       Experimental Procedure and Results—Experiment 1 
     Experimental Method 
       [0090]    The testing apparatus used was a 1KN Hounsfield Tensiometer. The apparatus is shown schematically as  60  in  FIG. 13 . Two different attachment configurations were tested. One configuration was a line attached to a conventional fish-hook  62  using a conventional half-blood knot. A drawing of the half-blood knot is shown in  FIG. 14 . This is referred to as the conventional configuration. 
         [0091]    The other configuration was a line attached to the fish-hook  40  in the manner described above. This is referred to as the inventive configuration. 
         [0092]    Ten samples of the conventional configuration and six samples of the inventive configuration were used. 
         [0093]    The configurations were tested by clamping the relevant fish-hook in a vice  64  and wrapping the line about a guide wheel  66 . A load was applied at a rate of 50 mm per minute. The line had a rated load strength of 7.5 kilograms. 
       Results 
       [0094]      FIG. 14  shows a graph of force vs. extension for 6 of the conventional configurations.  FIG. 15  shows a graph of force vs. extension for 6 of the inventive configurations. 
         [0095]    Clearly, the conventional configurations slipped repeatedly. In fact, it was found that some of the conventional configurations unravelled completely. The inventive configurations, on the other hand, did not slip in any of the tests. All the failures were at around six to seven kilograms due to the line breaking near the fish-hook  40 . 
       Experimental Procedure and Results—Experiment 2 
     Overview 
       [0096]    It was shown that the strength of the attachment of the line  28  to the fish-hook  10  is only slightly dependent on the shape of coil; it varies from about 90% of the strength of the line  28  (in the worst case) to approximately 100% of the strength of the line  28  (in the best case). A few results for conventional knots on conventional hooks are also reported and are shown to be consistent with data available in the open literature. 
       Experimental Method 
       [0097]    The experiments were done with a new reel of fishing line described on the label as “Triplex tensilised mono, uv protected”, with a diameter of 0.35 mm and rated at 5.4 kg (53 N). 
         [0098]    The fish-hook  10  was made from 1 mm diameter mild steel wire. 
       Tensile Test Machine 
       [0099]    The experiments were carried out using an Instron screw driven machine with a 100 N capacity load cell. Data logging was done through a standard Instron Merlin system. The crosshead speed was set to 1000 nm/minute (preliminary tests to investigate the effect of the crosshead speed, using speeds of 50 and 1000 mm/minute were carried out and showed little effect). 
         [0100]    The device for gripping the line was standard. It involved wrapping the line several times round a 10 mm diameter cylinder and nipping the end in a clamp. The cylinder was held by a clevis that allowed free rotation to avoid bending problems. In no cases did a fracture occur at the cylinder. The hooks were simply hooked around a 2 mm rod, also held in a clevis. 
         [0101]    Line was attached to the fish-hook  10  in the manner described above. As set out above, there are a number of ways in which the line  28  can be attached to the fish-hook  10 . Method A is carried out without winding the line  28  about the extended portion  32  and the shank  12  before beginning a return wind. Method B does include this further winding. 
         [0102]    Two types of conventional knots were tested, the double-clinch knot and the half-blood knot. The half-blood knot is shown in  FIG. 20  and the double-clinch knot is shown in  FIG. 21 . 
         [0103]    The length of line between the knot/attachment and the gripping point varied from 45 to 110 mm. This meant that the strain rate in the line varied by a factor of nearly 2.5. No systematic effects on strength associated with strain rate were detected. The tests were done at one crosshead speed, 1000 mm/min. (With a length of fishing line of, say, 30 m this test speed corresponds to a fish taking the hook at a speed of about 22 km/hour). 
       Results 
       [0104]    Six tests were made at the start of the investigation to measure the base strength of the line. When testing the strength of the various attachments a few breaks occurred in the line well away from the attachment (i.e., the attachment strength was greater than the strength of the line): a total of 9 such breaks were noted (out of a total of 67 tests on knots). The results of these 15 tests are shown in Table 1 below. 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 1 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Strength, N, of the Fishing Line 
               
             
          
           
               
                 Number of 
                 Mean ± Standard 
                   
               
               
                 Tests 
                 deviation - N 
                 Range N 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 15 
                 66.2 ± 1.1 
                 68.4-64.1 
               
               
                   
               
             
          
         
       
     
         [0105]    Three different embodiments of hook, in accordance with the invention and referred to as hook “A”, “B” and “C” and two methods of attachment were tested. The fracture strength for each test was recorded, and the location of the fracture was also noted as either at (or in) the attachment or outside the attachment (i.e., in the line). Fractures occurring less than 5 mm from the attachment were recorded as “at the attachment”. The data are shown in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4. The results for hook “C” are complicated because one of the attachments slipped during loading. This was the only such occurrence in 41 tests. Thus, the results are recorded both with and without this anomalous result. The attachment for hook “C” was with method A since method B was not possible given the configuration of the volutes  22  of the hook “C”. 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 2 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Strength, N, of attachment to Hook “A” (all tests) 
               
               
                 Numbers of fractures occurring at and outside attachment are shown. 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                   
                 Fractures 
                 Mean ± 
                   
               
               
                   
                 Fractures at 
                 outside 
                 Standard 
               
               
                   
                 attachment 
                 attachment 
                 deviation 
                 Range 
               
               
                   
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                 Method B 
                 6 
                 2 
                 60.6 ± 4.1 
                 65.2*-51.8 
               
               
                 Method A 
                 6 
                 2 
                 58.1 ± 7.1 
                 65.8*-44.8 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 *broke outside attachment 
               
             
          
         
       
     
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 3 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Strength, N, of attachment to Hook “B” (all tests) 
               
               
                 Numbers of fractures occurring at and outside attachment are shown. 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                   
                 Fractures 
                 Mean ± 
                   
               
               
                   
                 Fractures at 
                 outside 
                 Standard 
               
               
                   
                 attachment 
                 attachment 
                 deviation 
                 Range 
               
               
                   
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                 Method B 
                 6 
                 0 
                 62.9 ± 2.3 
                 65.2*-51.8 
               
               
                 Method A 
                 6 
                 0 
                 61.9 ± 3.7 
                 65.8*-44.8 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 *broke outside attachment 
               
             
          
         
       
     
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 4 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Strength, N, of attachment to Hook “C” (all tests). 
               
               
                 Attachments in accordance with Method A 
               
               
                 Numbers of fractures occurring at and outside attachment are shown. 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                   
                 Fractures 
                 Mean ± 
                   
               
               
                   
                 Fractures at 
                 outside 
                 Standard 
               
               
                   
                 attachment 
                 attachment 
                 deviation 
                 Range 
               
               
                   
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                 All data 
                 5 
                 2 
                 64.2 ± 7.0 
                 67.2*-48.5 
               
               
                 Ignore slipped 
                 4 
                 2 
                 66.8 ± 1.0 
                 67.2*-65.2 
               
               
                 experiment 
               
               
                   
               
               
                 *broke outside attachment 
               
             
          
         
       
     
         [0106]    Tests were also done on a double-clinch knot and on a half-blood knot. First, in all three datasets the strength of the knot was significantly less than that of the line so that no fractures occurred in the line away from the knot. Second, in several cases (7 out of 24 tests) the knots slipped, sometimes completely unravelling the knot. The results for the tests in which no slipping occurred are shown in Table 5. 
         [0000]    
       
         
               
             
               
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE 5 
               
             
             
               
                   
               
               
                 Strength, N, of conventional knots 
               
               
                 (not including tests in which slipping occurred) 
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                   
                 Mean ± 
                   
               
               
                   
                   
                 Standard 
               
               
                   
                 Number of Tests 
                 deviation 
                 Range 
               
               
                   
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                   
                 Double-clinch 
                 14 
                 54.6 ± 6.6 
                 68.3-42.4 
               
               
                   
                 Half-blood 
                 5 
                 54.9 ± 5.7 
                 63.6-49.5 
               
               
                   
                   
               
             
          
         
       
     
         [0107]    The time to tie knots was measured. Attachment to the fish-hook  10  took about 12 seconds and for the conventional knots it was about 35 seconds for a skilled fisherman. 
       Conclusions 
       [0108]    The data shown in Tables 1 to 4 show that the strength of the attachment to the fish-hook  10 ,  50  is only slightly dependent on the shape of the coil or on the method of tying the knot. Expressed as a percentage of the base line strength, the attachment has a strength of between 88% and 100% of the line strength (depending on coil design and tying method). 
         [0109]    The data shown in Table 5 show that the strength of two conventional knots is about 83% of the line strength. However, 7 out of 24 knots slipped on testing and these gave strengths as low as 33% of line strength (these data were not included in the calculation of 83%). These strength figures are consistent with those reported elsewhere. For example, values of between 60% and “greater than 90%” of line strength are given on www.ao.net/˜nautbob/fishknot.html. 
         [0110]    The consistency of strength can be measured as (a) the standard deviation of the mean, or (b) the absolute range of strengths recorded, or (c) the proportion of knots that slipped. Comparing the data for Hook C (Table 4) with those for conventional knots (Table 5) it can be seen that the attachment method A and method B are superior to the conventional methods in this regard. 
         [0111]    The present invention may be embodied in other specific forms without departing from its spirit or essential characteristics. The described embodiments are to be considered in all respects only as illustrative and not restrictive. The scope of the invention is, therefore, indicated by the appended claims rather than by the foregoing description. All changes which come within the meaning and range of equivalency of the claims are to be embraced within their scope.