which parts of buzzers are UV active ?

[neil thomas]

Thanks Silverstoat and Midlander..
Yes, by the time fish such as rainbows are stocked they are likely to be over two years old and have lost the ability to see the lower wavelength UV spectrum.
However, we see flouresence by the uv wavelengths being transmitted into visible wavelengths, hence the flourescent glow.
Now, can trout see this?

Yes again, Midlander, Emergers and dries are different altogether and the article did point out that reflective ribbing and contrast are more likely to stand out and be significant in our dressings and success.

JohnC1: very good photography - I sure all the flouresence that will blind the trout!

Neil.

[midlander]

Originally Posted by neil thomas

However, we see flouresence by the uv wavelengths being transmitted into visible wavelengths, hence the flourescent glow.
Now, can trout see this?

Yes. As you say, UV is converted into a visible wavelength through the medium of the fluorescent material. Their ability to see the material will only be limited by the amount of light, suspended particles or the fishes visible spectrum.

[Silver Stoat]

Originally Posted by neil thomas

However, we see flouresence by the uv wavelengths being transmitted into visible wavelengths, hence the flourescent glow.
Now, can trout see this?

I very much doubt that you will get a 'glow' as shown in the illustration on here, that was taken under intense UV radiation.
The usual effect is to slightly reinforce the output at a specific wavelength/wavelengths, depending upon the qualities of the material and the dyestuff or pigment used, when viewed under 'normal' lighting conditions.

The older members among us will remember the advertising campaign that told us that 'DAZ washes whiter than white'. In that instance the washing powder contained a material that absorbed energy in the UV and transmitted some of it at the low blue end of the spectrum and this slightly higher output enhanced the appearance of 'whiteness' in sunlight and other, even energy, light sources.
Most washing powders contain similar materials yet, as you will have observed, clothes washed in these do not have a noticeable glow under 'normal' lighting conditions.
If, however, you illuminate clothing with only a light source with a high UV output then you will see a glow.

So, no the trout will not see the glow but may be able to see the colour or colours that exhibit fluorescence a little more easily although the effect will be slight.


Dave.

[midlander]

I very much doubt that you will get a 'glow' as shown in the illustration on here, that was taken under intense UV radiation.
The usual effect is to slightly reinforce the output at a specific wavelength/wavelengths.

Agreed, sorry if I wasn't specific enough or misinterpreted the question.

[outofwater]

Pardon if I use the wrong terminology or spelling or grammer.

The points on the insect you are referring to may well be the use of Bioluminescence. If it occurs within a terrestial insect Im not sure because Im a full pleb on insect biology but plenty to learn thats what makes fishing fun for me. The science. Some aquatic animals ingest dynoflagelates then use their capacity to glow for many reasons some reflect the light into their eyes to see in total darkness at a range of depths. For others it is their nemesis especially if high nutrients from fertiliser enhance the population of flagellates. The high end UV organism adheres its self to the bodies of terrestrials and combined with some oxygen and enhanced by an external light source makes them glow. Full moons may enhance the glow but not seen by the human eye at the amount of light it produces but in a fishes vision who knows we may have similar eye attributes but brains we don't understand.
So if the terrestrials have adhered flagulates or similar to their bodies they may have random, partial or full coated glow. Try a 3D buzzer coated in glow in the dark paint with a double dip of clear epoxy so it glows yet creates light refraction in the resin. Otherwise a full wrap of glow in the dark flashabou coated in a thick epoxy coat to give it depth. This will be seen both day and night though as grey scale by the fish. However as in Rayleigh Scattering short wave UV strikes particles in the water and the dirtier the water the les it travels or the more refracted the high end UV becomes.
Light and reflected colour work differently. Plain white paint may well be the brightest but plain white lure don't sell that well.
Long wave red light however travels around particles and given different fish have different colour and light vision properties they may well see red light better than humans in different situations though you would assume as gray scale under low light vision.

Again I haven't had a look at the biology of trout vision but given they appear to have a form of bright light colour vision and dichromatic low light vision which some species primary predators convert earlier than baitfish or fry because that gives them the advantage in gaining an easier feed utilising less energy and higher chance of attaining a meal hence the dawn and dusk attack/feeding that takes place which may well be evidence that they're retaining certain vision properties being fry active.

For all we know the fish don't even look at the fly they look at the refraction of light with in a riffle of water probably both in an attempt to identify surface prey. The surface distortion that takes place under light when an isect sit in the viscious surface of the water. Different distortions and movements trigger their sense to attack an easy meal. The refracting light off a swimming fry's tail/body movement distort the light in the water movement like some matrix movie special effect.

Some use mono on the dry fly because it floats yet the mono creates the same viscious surface distortion and light refraction that the fish become with familiar with yet fluorocarbon sinks/displaces itself below the surface tension providing surface distortion/light refraction.

As for mono, is the brown mono what we should be using for wets with a slightly higher refractive index but similar light attributes to certain coloured water environments.

Those translucent baitfish are the masters of camoflage using light to adjust their colour. Their give away is in the presence of flagulates they excite the microrganisms when they panic and light up or they turn pink as the blood rushes to the surface of their body.

Predators love events of Rayleigh Scattering. They're on the hunt for blind fry.
They at certain times love a rising moon in a clear sky and clear waters.

Has anyone had a look at dry flies in a fish tank under different light from beneath in different water clarity. Anyone taken any photos from beneath?

Has anyone looked at mono surface distortion and light refraction in a fish tank from beneath and taken photos?

A glow in the dark buzzer may work all over or the glow near the eyes could be good as some species of aquatic animals collect dynoflagelates to form a reflective vision. If they have adhered dynoflagelates then the light shows as bubble like formations over their whole body.

The clear lure may well be the killer lure and why so many lure manufacturers have moved towards translucent lures.

Try glow in the dark either side of the head and another version as glow int he dark flashabou wrapped up as the body.

[outofwater]

That surface distortion that struggling hopper legs create that trigger a strike may well be similar means that mono creates on the surface that a big trout uses to determine that the insect is attached to a rod.

They see the light refraction created by mono and do the Harold Holt.

Ideally a mono but section with a sub surface carbon tippet provides better camouflage without riffle distortion or light refraction.

[Silver Stoat]

Originally Posted by outofwater

That surface distortion that struggling hopper legs create that trigger a strike may well be similar means that mono creates on the surface that a big trout uses to determine that the insect is attached to a rod.

They see the light refraction created by mono and do the Harold Holt.

Ideally a mono but section with a sub surface carbon tippet provides better camouflage without riffle distortion or light refraction.

When you refer to 'mono' which mono ( monofilament ) do you mean ?
Is this any or specifically a nylon or a copolymer or a fluorocarbon?

Dave.