Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Greetings, and a question

Expand Messages
  • logantheboweyder
    ... My understanding is that the Penobscott has an complex force-draw curve, caused by 2 different bows being put under stress. The belly bow acts as a
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 5, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, "jameswolfden" <jameswolfden@...>
      wrote:
      >

      > I haven't tried to make one but have discussed it with those that
      > have. While it works, it does not appear to be as efficient as one
      > would like and you could just build a heavier bow. i.e. You could
      > combine a 20 pound bow and 30 pound bow and get a 50 pound bow but
      > it would not cast an arrow as efficiently as just making a 50 pound
      > bow in the first place. Nor does it have the letoff that we
      > associate with modern compounds. It will still feel like you are
      > pulling a 50 pound bow. So while it may fail the pre-17th century
      > requirement, I don't think this bow really gives an advantage except
      > to get heavier drawweights with inferior bow wood.
      >
      > James Wolfden
      >
      My understanding is that the Penobscott has an complex force-draw
      curve, caused by 2 different bows being put under stress.

      The belly bow acts as a traditional bow, with it's force-draw curve
      working as an ideal spring at short draws, and starts to get steeper
      as it starts to stack.

      The back-bow is shorter, and acts in a fundamentally different manner.
      When the entire bow is at brace-height, and first starts to be drawn,
      the back strings pull on the back-bow, and much force goes into
      attempting to stretch the bow, while only a little goes into trying to
      bend it. Thus, the back bow is "stacked" at initial draw, and the
      force required to bend it is high. As the bow is drawn further, the
      angle between the back-strings and the back-bow increases, and the
      back-bow becomes less stacked, and is bent easier. Thus, the back-bow
      acts like a heavy bow at short draw lengths, and a light one at longer
      lengths.

      The sum of these two curves is what we feel when a penobscot is drawn,
      and if properly set up the force-draw curve can be altered
      significantly, getting the early draw of what might be on a 60 lb bow,
      but the curve tapers off so that the final weight might only be 45
      lbs. Much like what is seen in a recurve F/D curve.

      Yay physics!

      Logan
    • Rhisiart ap Llywelyn ap Dafydd
      ... definitely ... period ... Carolus, Thanks for the response. As was mentioned in an earlier, it is similar to the bow used by the Sami (Laplanders). I do
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 5, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com, Carolus <eulenhorst@...> wrote:
        >
        > Rhisiart,
        > There is no problem with this bow technically. It is most
        definitely
        > not what the SCA intended to ban in its compound rule. While the
        > Penobscot people were well established at the time of the first
        > European settlements in New England, and thus fit the period
        > definition used by the SCA, I have some questions about this
        > rendition of the bow. As mentioned in another post there is some
        > question as to the provenience of this bow. I also note that the
        > photo used as evidence for this design has several major
        > differences. I also note that there were several designs from
        period
        > in China which used this technology. For these reasons I would
        > hesitate to hold it up as a definite period bow style.
        >
        > As to whether it can be used in the SCA, I see no problem with it.
        > Carolus
        >

        Carolus,

        Thanks for the response.

        As was mentioned in an earlier, it is similar to the bow used by the
        Sami (Laplanders). I do recall seeing something about them during the
        1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer.

        As for being "period-worthy", that isn't much of an issue with me.
        Chances are I would not use it at an event since using it would
        require a massive persona change on my part that I am not willing to
        undergo.

        Basically, this was a case of me and a friend of mine looking at a
        bow and thinking, "Wow, that looks interesting, but is it within the
        SCA rules". Hence the initial question.

        Once again, my thanks.

        In Service,
        -Rhisiart ap Llywelyn ap Dafydd
        "Sursum ad Summum"

        "Do the little things"- St. David, patron saint of Wales
      • James Koch
        I don t actually have documentation on the cord backed and multi limbed bows. I made the thing years ago when the original hickory prod didn t have enough
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 5, 2007
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          I don't actually have documentation on the cord backed and multi limbed
          bows. I made the thing years ago when the original hickory prod didn't
          have enough cast. It didn't work, so I scrapped it. I believe I got the
          design from an article about an arctic hand bow in an issue of Primitive
          Traditional Bowhunter Archer. If memory serves, I once read about Roman
          Empire bows made of two or more stacked limbs like a leaf spring. I also
          made one of those based entirely on my own design. Again, I have no
          documentation.
          >
          Jim Koch (Gladius The Alchemist)
          >
          >
          > At 10:35 AM 1/5/2007, you wrote:

          >--- In <mailto:SCA-Archery%40yahoogroups.com>SCA-Archery@yahoogroups.com,
          >Carolus <eulenhorst@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Rhisiart,
          > > There is no problem with this bow technically. It is most
          >definitely
          > > not what the SCA intended to ban in its compound rule. While the
          > > Penobscot people were well established at the time of the first
          > > European settlements in New England, and thus fit the period
          > > definition used by the SCA, I have some questions about this
          > > rendition of the bow. As mentioned in another post there is some
          > > question as to the provenience of this bow. I also note that the
          > > photo used as evidence for this design has several major
          > > differences. I also note that there were several designs from
          >period
          > > in China which used this technology. For these reasons I would
          > > hesitate to hold it up as a definite period bow style.
          > >
          > > As to whether it can be used in the SCA, I see no problem with it.
          > > Carolus
          > >
          >
          >Carolus,
          >
          >Thanks for the response.
          >
          >As was mentioned in an earlier, it is similar to the bow used by the
          >Sami (Laplanders). I do recall seeing something about them during the
          >1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer.
          >
          >As for being "period-worthy", that isn't much of an issue with me.
          >Chances are I would not use it at an event since using it would
          >require a massive persona change on my part that I am not willing to
          >undergo.
          >
          >Basically, this was a case of me and a friend of mine looking at a
          >bow and thinking, "Wow, that looks interesting, but is it within the
          >SCA rules". Hence the initial question.
          >
          >Once again, my thanks.
          >
          >In Service,
          >-Rhisiart ap Llywelyn ap Dafydd
          >"Sursum ad Summum"
          >
          >"Do the little things"- St. David, patron saint of Wales
          >
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • ICE TIGER
          Just for the record Primitive Archer and Traditional Bowhunter are two different publications so don t go looking for Primitive Traditional Bowhunter
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 5, 2007
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Just for the record "Primitive Archer" and "Traditional Bowhunter" are two different publications so don't go looking for Primitive Traditional Bowhunter Archer magazine at a newsstand near you.
            Dalton

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: James Koch <alchem@...>
            Date: Friday, January 5, 2007 9:50 am
            Subject: Re: [SCA-Archery] Re: Greetings, and a question

            > I don't actually have documentation on the cord backed and multi
            > limbed
            > bows. I made the thing years ago when the original hickory prod
            > didn't
            > have enough cast. It didn't work, so I scrapped it. I believe I
            > got the
            > design from an article about an arctic hand bow in an issue of
            > Primitive
            > Traditional Bowhunter Archer. If memory serves, I once read about
            > Roman
            > Empire bows made of two or more stacked limbs like a leaf spring.
            > I also
            > made one of those based entirely on my own design. Again, I have
            > no
            > documentation.
            > >
            > Jim Koch (Gladius The Alchemist)
            > >
            > >
            > > At 10:35 AM 1/5/2007, you wrote:
            >
            > >--- In <mailto:SCA-Archery%40yahoogroups.com>SCA-
            > Archery@yahoogroups.com,
            > >Carolus <eulenhorst@...> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > Rhisiart,
            > > > There is no problem with this bow technically. It is most
            > >definitely
            > > > not what the SCA intended to ban in its compound rule. While the
            > > > Penobscot people were well established at the time of the first
            > > > European settlements in New England, and thus fit the period
            > > > definition used by the SCA, I have some questions about this
            > > > rendition of the bow. As mentioned in another post there is some
            > > > question as to the provenience of this bow. I also note that the
            > > > photo used as evidence for this design has several major
            > > > differences. I also note that there were several designs from
            > >period
            > > > in China which used this technology. For these reasons I would
            > > > hesitate to hold it up as a definite period bow style.
            > > >
            > > > As to whether it can be used in the SCA, I see no problem with it.
            > > > Carolus
            > > >
            > >
            > >Carolus,
            > >
            > >Thanks for the response.
            > >
            > >As was mentioned in an earlier, it is similar to the bow used by the
            > >Sami (Laplanders). I do recall seeing something about them during the
            > >1994 Winter Olympics in Lillehammer.
            > >
            > >As for being "period-worthy", that isn't much of an issue with me.
            > >Chances are I would not use it at an event since using it would
            > >require a massive persona change on my part that I am not willing to
            > >undergo.
            > >
            > >Basically, this was a case of me and a friend of mine looking at a
            > >bow and thinking, "Wow, that looks interesting, but is it within the
            > >SCA rules". Hence the initial question.
            > >
            > >Once again, my thanks.
            > >
            > >In Service,
            > >-Rhisiart ap Llywelyn ap Dafydd
            > >"Sursum ad Summum"
            > >
            > >"Do the little things"- St. David, patron saint of Wales
            > >
            > >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.