.......a reconstrution of a Boeotian bow?
Don?t feel dumbfolded, the relief is not a scene from a Star trekk movie, but it is posting a Boeotian warrior shooting his bow, with the string crossing the recurves somehow.
E. Godehardt, with whom I?ve cooperated in some research- projects focused on Scythian and Greek bows, was crazy enough to provoque me for to give the Boeotian bow a try. Thanks to the Thyssen Grant we could realize it.
We were thinking over and discussing it, maybe we were wrong, but we came up with 3 possibilities of making the string crossing the recurves.
Due to the shortness of the bows, we decided to make them as hornbows:
mountain- maple, waterbuffalo, buffalo leg- sinew.
The recurves had to be long and sharp, otherwise the string could slip of the bow.
We thought the bows to be of a 26" drawlength, we wanted to get a 45lbs drawweight. But due to our lack of experience with this design, we finally get bows with about 40lbs at 26".
One bow was done with a needle- eyed recurves, the next one was done with splitted recurves, the third one was done with a single recurve.
The main problem with this design is the friction of the string touching the sides of the recurves, we are still looking for better solutions. We waxed the sides of the recurves and the ends of the strings heavily. But I guess it is better to give different shapes of cross- sections a try.
Advantages of this design:
Very easy to tiller, if you realize that the ridge where the string crosses the bow determines the tiller. If you want a limb to bend less, just rasp the ridge a bit, so that the ridge comes closer to the grip.
This design keeps the string much more at its place than any other design.
Shooting these bows is great: at about 24" the string leaves the ridge, you feel a kind of a jerk, but the weight seems to fall(due to the longer leverage now).
Before I?ve done the reconstructions I did a model with mountain- maple as a selfbow, it works very well and even mountain- maple which doesn?t work to well for shorter and smaller selfbows got almost no string follow.
I will do a bow in this design as a selfbow with wide limbs in the future.
Maybe we are wrong with our interpretation of this relief, but this design is worth to do it and to think about its further- developement.
Thanks to the Boeotian people, the so- called foolish people are producing the most clever ideas.
Michael
PS: due to an unacceptable low upload speed, I? post the pic with the drawn bow tomorrow.
E. Godehardt, with whom I?ve cooperated in some research- projects focused on Scythian and Greek bows, was crazy enough to provoque me for to give the Boeotian bow a try. Thanks to the Thyssen Grant we could realize it.
We were thinking over and discussing it, maybe we were wrong, but we came up with 3 possibilities of making the string crossing the recurves.
Due to the shortness of the bows, we decided to make them as hornbows:
mountain- maple, waterbuffalo, buffalo leg- sinew.
The recurves had to be long and sharp, otherwise the string could slip of the bow.
We thought the bows to be of a 26" drawlength, we wanted to get a 45lbs drawweight. But due to our lack of experience with this design, we finally get bows with about 40lbs at 26".
One bow was done with a needle- eyed recurves, the next one was done with splitted recurves, the third one was done with a single recurve.
The main problem with this design is the friction of the string touching the sides of the recurves, we are still looking for better solutions. We waxed the sides of the recurves and the ends of the strings heavily. But I guess it is better to give different shapes of cross- sections a try.
Advantages of this design:
Very easy to tiller, if you realize that the ridge where the string crosses the bow determines the tiller. If you want a limb to bend less, just rasp the ridge a bit, so that the ridge comes closer to the grip.
This design keeps the string much more at its place than any other design.
Shooting these bows is great: at about 24" the string leaves the ridge, you feel a kind of a jerk, but the weight seems to fall(due to the longer leverage now).
Before I?ve done the reconstructions I did a model with mountain- maple as a selfbow, it works very well and even mountain- maple which doesn?t work to well for shorter and smaller selfbows got almost no string follow.
I will do a bow in this design as a selfbow with wide limbs in the future.
Maybe we are wrong with our interpretation of this relief, but this design is worth to do it and to think about its further- developement.
Thanks to the Boeotian people, the so- called foolish people are producing the most clever ideas.
Michael
PS: due to an unacceptable low upload speed, I? post the pic with the drawn bow tomorrow.
I think the most obvious explanation is that the artist had only seen unstrung bows close up. The low degree of reflex would mean that the unstrung bow would look very close to the shape of the strung bow.
There is a long artistic tradition of misrepresenting archery equipment. There are several reasons for not making a bow like this.
There is a long artistic tradition of misrepresenting archery equipment. There are several reasons for not making a bow like this.
- 1. The bow would be prone to twisting because the string would be pulling to one side.
2. Piercing the limb to allow the sting to go through a hole to centre it would increase friction and reduce leverage on the tips.
3. The tips would give no advantage to the actions of the limbs and would be dead weight.
Michael; Maybe the bowyer knew of the split limb design of Tut and was replicating this technique!
But seriously, the string has slipped off the upper limb and the archer drops the bow to restring.
But seriously, the string has slipped off the upper limb and the archer drops the bow to restring.
Chris Constantine from Spitfire Horesbows built a bow where the string crosses the siyah. The siyah is basically surrounded on both sides by the loop of the string, before coming to the string bridge. IIRC he said it was quite a powerful construction. In his bow the siyahs moved inwards towards the handle first before the limbs began to flex and the siyah then uncoiled.
Do you have a bigger picture?
Do you have a bigger picture?
I saw modern bow at archeryhistory with same design as bows above.
Sorry for the bad pics, but as I told you, I was frustrated with the unacceptable upload speed. Maybe its better today, I?ll try it again. There is a problem with my local router or server.
Jack, maybe you?re right about the splitted recurves, it is told that the Cretans have known angular bows.
The pic is called:a Boeotian hunter shooting at some game
The relief is not the only pic posting a bow like this, there are some more.
In a collection in Vienna there is even an Osmanian bow with a splitted siyah, which is told to have been used with 2 strings for to shoot 2 arrows at the same time? I don?t know what to think of it, but it looks very similiar to the Boeotian splitted recurve bow.
Bede, the friction is a problem, but the recurves are not a dead weigth, I made them working a little, but in any further construction of this design I would make it more working.
It is interesting, that some selfbowyers in the USA came recently up with very similiar ideas for to amplify the efficiency of selfbows.
I?m not to sure about our interpretation of the relief, but I?ll give this design some more trials.
Michael
Jack, maybe you?re right about the splitted recurves, it is told that the Cretans have known angular bows.
The pic is called:a Boeotian hunter shooting at some game
The relief is not the only pic posting a bow like this, there are some more.
In a collection in Vienna there is even an Osmanian bow with a splitted siyah, which is told to have been used with 2 strings for to shoot 2 arrows at the same time? I don?t know what to think of it, but it looks very similiar to the Boeotian splitted recurve bow.
Bede, the friction is a problem, but the recurves are not a dead weigth, I made them working a little, but in any further construction of this design I would make it more working.
It is interesting, that some selfbowyers in the USA came recently up with very similiar ideas for to amplify the efficiency of selfbows.
I?m not to sure about our interpretation of the relief, but I?ll give this design some more trials.
Michael
Michael,
From a practical point of view, I have my doubts. The recurve must act in tension on the belly as well as compression if you have the string coming off the limb or through the limb.
Double limbed bows, like those in Tutankhamun's tomb and some in Topkapi, are interesting but the design never caught on. Why would a working bowyer do twice the work and spend extra time to balance four limbs when he could get away with two? On the other hand, some people see the Ancient Egyptian bow double bow as attempt to double the strength of a bow and maintain the same cross section. If you don't have the mathematics we have and there is no theory of beam bending, then you would tend to experiment in simple steps. It wasn't until Dionysios of Syracuse that a government paid craftsmen to experiment.
Please consider too that angular composite bows do not have any recurve
From a practical point of view, I have my doubts. The recurve must act in tension on the belly as well as compression if you have the string coming off the limb or through the limb.
Double limbed bows, like those in Tutankhamun's tomb and some in Topkapi, are interesting but the design never caught on. Why would a working bowyer do twice the work and spend extra time to balance four limbs when he could get away with two? On the other hand, some people see the Ancient Egyptian bow double bow as attempt to double the strength of a bow and maintain the same cross section. If you don't have the mathematics we have and there is no theory of beam bending, then you would tend to experiment in simple steps. It wasn't until Dionysios of Syracuse that a government paid craftsmen to experiment.
Please consider too that angular composite bows do not have any recurve
Maybe bigger pics?
One more pic, finally 12minutes for the upload, my local server is o.k. now, maybe ATARNO could help?
This is Prof. Godehardt, drawing the Boeotian at 23".
Bede, I appreciate your comments, cause I?m still thinking about the value of this reconstruction.
I?m just preparing the research- project for the split- limb- bows found in tut?s grave. So I know they are straight limb bows, but the main reason for the split seems to be the static. A splitted limb is more stable.
As usual I?ve made some models of mountain- maple, almost no string follow! Keep in mind the split- compounds evolved by Hoyt.
You know, I believe every type of bow earns its value, not only the bloodiest ones.
In my opinion, history, especially when it is focused on weapons, war, warrior, hunt......, is to much male dominated.
Bows that have been used in the great bloody battles or by famous tribes or people have to be good.
We should have a look at every bow used in history.
Michael
One more pic, finally 12minutes for the upload, my local server is o.k. now, maybe ATARNO could help?
This is Prof. Godehardt, drawing the Boeotian at 23".
Bede, I appreciate your comments, cause I?m still thinking about the value of this reconstruction.
I?m just preparing the research- project for the split- limb- bows found in tut?s grave. So I know they are straight limb bows, but the main reason for the split seems to be the static. A splitted limb is more stable.
As usual I?ve made some models of mountain- maple, almost no string follow! Keep in mind the split- compounds evolved by Hoyt.
You know, I believe every type of bow earns its value, not only the bloodiest ones.
In my opinion, history, especially when it is focused on weapons, war, warrior, hunt......, is to much male dominated.
Bows that have been used in the great bloody battles or by famous tribes or people have to be good.
We should have a look at every bow used in history.
Michael
Keep on with this tests.
But post a fd-curve and speed please, then we can find out if this has any advantages.
But post a fd-curve and speed please, then we can find out if this has any advantages.
Michael,
I agree that we have to study all bows, not just the ones that were used by the most successful warriors. There are many reasons why people made bows a certain way. Sometimes the requirement was only to deliver a poisoned arrow to big game like the San people of the Kalahari who use a small simple bow. That small bow was all they needed to feed their families so why would they build a longbow or a composite bow? Their bow solved their problem.
I agree that we have to study all bows, not just the ones that were used by the most successful warriors. There are many reasons why people made bows a certain way. Sometimes the requirement was only to deliver a poisoned arrow to big game like the San people of the Kalahari who use a small simple bow. That small bow was all they needed to feed their families so why would they build a longbow or a composite bow? Their bow solved their problem.
[external image]
Or is that really the string you see across the bow tip? Could it be a second arrow held ready to shoot?
![[external image]](http://198.170.107.188/phpBB2/files/meine_scans_1_1_1_1_1_1_113.jpg){kind=link}
Or is that really the string you see across the bow tip? Could it be a second arrow held ready to shoot?
I agree , that line over the siyah is either something else ,like an arrow or the artist wasnt familiar with bows
I don?t insist on this bow to be a real bow. But I?ve done reconstructions of it and now I?ll see, what?s up with it.
The f/d?s and chronos are done, but as mentioned there is still a problem with the friction. The numbers are quite normal. The f/d?s are like the draw of the bow, at first the bow is a bit hard to draw, as soon as the string has left the ridge the draw becomes easier. I?ll publish them the next days.
I forgot one detail, the recurves are sinew- backed at their belly- sides too, for to withstand the draw- forces arising, when the string has left the rigde.
Upload is still to less, so be patient with greater pics. This is important, cause you would see a bit of the string between the tigh and the elbow of the hunter running down to the end of the lower limb of the bow, in a realistic angle.
I?m very curious about other interpretations of this relief.
I don?t believe to much in the "sling dropped of" possibility, why should an artist post it? If a hunter is keeping some more arrows, he usually keeps them in the bow- hand at the grip?
Since E.Godehardt asked me about the relief for the first time, I call these bows "pig- tailed- bows".
Michael
The f/d?s and chronos are done, but as mentioned there is still a problem with the friction. The numbers are quite normal. The f/d?s are like the draw of the bow, at first the bow is a bit hard to draw, as soon as the string has left the ridge the draw becomes easier. I?ll publish them the next days.
I forgot one detail, the recurves are sinew- backed at their belly- sides too, for to withstand the draw- forces arising, when the string has left the rigde.
Upload is still to less, so be patient with greater pics. This is important, cause you would see a bit of the string between the tigh and the elbow of the hunter running down to the end of the lower limb of the bow, in a realistic angle.
I?m very curious about other interpretations of this relief.
I don?t believe to much in the "sling dropped of" possibility, why should an artist post it? If a hunter is keeping some more arrows, he usually keeps them in the bow- hand at the grip?
Since E.Godehardt asked me about the relief for the first time, I call these bows "pig- tailed- bows".
Michael
Michael; Is he drawing the bow to his waist?
Show some of the other illustrations. -j-
Show some of the other illustrations. -j-
Michael,
The Ancient Egyptians and the Assyrians usually kept a spare arrow or two under the thumb of their drawing hands. Many other peoples used the bow hand to hold arrows when hunting for rapid shooting. More modern examples are the native Americans from the Great Plains. It was also common in Africa.
The Ancient Egyptians and the Assyrians usually kept a spare arrow or two under the thumb of their drawing hands. Many other peoples used the bow hand to hold arrows when hunting for rapid shooting. More modern examples are the native Americans from the Great Plains. It was also common in Africa.
Bede,
as you can see on the picture of the Boiotian bronze relief, the bow string crosses both recurves of the bow, the upper one as well as the lower one. So my feeling was that a real bow may be depicted on that relief (the interpretation of the archaeologists usually was that the artist did not know much about bows). In those days, bows belonged to the daily life, so most people knew how a strung bow looked like. For me it is no explanation that an archer has two arrows in the drawing hand, one crossing the upper recurve and the other one crossing the lower recurve, so I personally assume that such a bow design existed.
Our tests with these bows as shown in the picture gave efficiencies of about 57 per cent which is quite good. The recurves are working! This means that in the release process they are pulling the string faster than it would be with static recurves. Due to our string design, it is impossible that the string lifts off in each of the three different recurve constructions. The best design with the lowest friction is the "split limb" design (where the string does not touch the inner sides of the split recurves) while the worst design is that where the string has big ears which slide along the outside of the recurves. This was proved by our electronic force-draw-measurement machine, which not only took the force values during the drawing process but also during the releasing process: The hysteresis, i.e., the area beteen those two force-draw curves was smallest for the split-limb desing.
As Redhawk, I do not argue that such bows MUST have existed (my personal opinion is that a big variety of bows existed already in those times like there is a variety in our days); however, it is a possible design and a very effective one; and it works as our tests have shown.
Best regards, Erhard
as you can see on the picture of the Boiotian bronze relief, the bow string crosses both recurves of the bow, the upper one as well as the lower one. So my feeling was that a real bow may be depicted on that relief (the interpretation of the archaeologists usually was that the artist did not know much about bows). In those days, bows belonged to the daily life, so most people knew how a strung bow looked like. For me it is no explanation that an archer has two arrows in the drawing hand, one crossing the upper recurve and the other one crossing the lower recurve, so I personally assume that such a bow design existed.
Our tests with these bows as shown in the picture gave efficiencies of about 57 per cent which is quite good. The recurves are working! This means that in the release process they are pulling the string faster than it would be with static recurves. Due to our string design, it is impossible that the string lifts off in each of the three different recurve constructions. The best design with the lowest friction is the "split limb" design (where the string does not touch the inner sides of the split recurves) while the worst design is that where the string has big ears which slide along the outside of the recurves. This was proved by our electronic force-draw-measurement machine, which not only took the force values during the drawing process but also during the releasing process: The hysteresis, i.e., the area beteen those two force-draw curves was smallest for the split-limb desing.
As Redhawk, I do not argue that such bows MUST have existed (my personal opinion is that a big variety of bows existed already in those times like there is a variety in our days); however, it is a possible design and a very effective one; and it works as our tests have shown.
Best regards, Erhard
I would not call 57% good. But for the first bow of a new design we can accept that :)
Can you make it better? Say high 70? Low 80? Then it beats the selfbow and gives sense to the making process.
Can you make it better? Say high 70? Low 80? Then it beats the selfbow and gives sense to the making process.
Erhard,
The knowledge of archery in a general population as an argument is hard to prove. I have been studying Persian miniature painting for years, and, despite the prevalence of archery in the culture, there are still some amazing inaccurate paintings of bows and their use.
When judging something like the usability of an image for the diagnostic purpose of replicating a bow, you have to evaluate the whole attitude to representation in the culture as well as the equipment that is depicted. One of my friends did a survey of Scythian-style bows in Greek vase painting for a study he was doing on the bows. Once enough samples were examined, styles of depiction could be recognised and obviously non-representational ones eliminated. The habit of some artists to misrepresent the position of the string on a bow is present in many cultures. It is most obvious on bows that are recurved. The Greeks in general did not have a high regard for archery and they probably did not demand the exactitude depicting bows that they did in represent in shields and helmets.
Regarding the stability of doubled limbs, it is generally accepted that by increasing the width of a limb, you can increase its stability. In horn, wood and sinew composites, there is a continuing problem with stability. By doubling the number of limbs, you are doubling the chances of instability. You also have the relative width to thickness problem that you would have had with a single bow of half the weight.
I am interested in how you manage the string on a double-limbed bows. Do you bifurcate it and have two loops on each end?
The knowledge of archery in a general population as an argument is hard to prove. I have been studying Persian miniature painting for years, and, despite the prevalence of archery in the culture, there are still some amazing inaccurate paintings of bows and their use.
When judging something like the usability of an image for the diagnostic purpose of replicating a bow, you have to evaluate the whole attitude to representation in the culture as well as the equipment that is depicted. One of my friends did a survey of Scythian-style bows in Greek vase painting for a study he was doing on the bows. Once enough samples were examined, styles of depiction could be recognised and obviously non-representational ones eliminated. The habit of some artists to misrepresent the position of the string on a bow is present in many cultures. It is most obvious on bows that are recurved. The Greeks in general did not have a high regard for archery and they probably did not demand the exactitude depicting bows that they did in represent in shields and helmets.
Regarding the stability of doubled limbs, it is generally accepted that by increasing the width of a limb, you can increase its stability. In horn, wood and sinew composites, there is a continuing problem with stability. By doubling the number of limbs, you are doubling the chances of instability. You also have the relative width to thickness problem that you would have had with a single bow of half the weight.
I am interested in how you manage the string on a double-limbed bows. Do you bifurcate it and have two loops on each end?
Bede,
Yes, you are right that we should be careful when examining pictures of bows to use them for reconstructions. However, sometimes these pictures are very good to be used. Let me tell an example: The bows shown, e.g., on the Pazyryk carpet are really too short, and the curvature shown there is quite different from the pictures shown on Black Sea findings or on Greek vases. We therefore did not take them as a hint for our first reconstructions. Then the bow found in the grave on the Olon Kurin Gol showed just the same shape as those on the Pazyryk carpet, and we had the correct length of a bow of about 300 BC used in the Altai mountains. So I think that quite often many details on the pictoral representations are correct, and some others like the length are not.
The same should be true with the Boiotian bows. I just want to check whether that design gives a working bow.
Your second question: We first tried to use a string which was split on its ends. However, much better and easier to use is a solution which is similar to the solution used on Turkish bows. I made two very short strings which just connected the two parts of the split limbs, and the long string has two "conventional" short ears; each ear is hung into one of the short strings.
Greetings, Erhard
Yes, you are right that we should be careful when examining pictures of bows to use them for reconstructions. However, sometimes these pictures are very good to be used. Let me tell an example: The bows shown, e.g., on the Pazyryk carpet are really too short, and the curvature shown there is quite different from the pictures shown on Black Sea findings or on Greek vases. We therefore did not take them as a hint for our first reconstructions. Then the bow found in the grave on the Olon Kurin Gol showed just the same shape as those on the Pazyryk carpet, and we had the correct length of a bow of about 300 BC used in the Altai mountains. So I think that quite often many details on the pictoral representations are correct, and some others like the length are not.
The same should be true with the Boiotian bows. I just want to check whether that design gives a working bow.
Your second question: We first tried to use a string which was split on its ends. However, much better and easier to use is a solution which is similar to the solution used on Turkish bows. I made two very short strings which just connected the two parts of the split limbs, and the long string has two "conventional" short ears; each ear is hung into one of the short strings.
Greetings, Erhard
There is another element that should be taken into account in making these replicas. The "memory" of a design, once abandoned, will not last more than one to two generations. It means after no more than 50 years the artists will be depicting the bows completely from memory, even though other bows are still used in this historical period. So the old representations are very doubtful, unless proven by many other or by the exact placement in time.
Such projects are a lot of fun though, especially when supported by grants...
Adam
Such projects are a lot of fun though, especially when supported by grants...
Adam
Anyway, Redhawk, kudos to you for making the thing and trying. We never discover anything by talking about it - only by experimenting. 8)
Maybe better pics?
It has worked thanks to my new firefox- browser.
As you can see the splitted recurve is equipped with a single string with double loops.
Michael
It has worked thanks to my new firefox- browser.
As you can see the splitted recurve is equipped with a single string with double loops.
Michael
More pics.
The relief again.
The Ottoman bow with the splitted recurve. The museum in Vienna describs this bow to be shot with 2 string and so with 2 arrows. On the carpet(gobelin) you can see Ottomans shooting those bows.
I? ve never heard about it and I?m in serious doubts about the 2- arrows- interpretation. Any comments?
Michael
The relief again.
The Ottoman bow with the splitted recurve. The museum in Vienna describs this bow to be shot with 2 string and so with 2 arrows. On the carpet(gobelin) you can see Ottomans shooting those bows.
I? ve never heard about it and I?m in serious doubts about the 2- arrows- interpretation. Any comments?
Michael
If you look closely at the tapestry, you will see that the bows are standard bows. This is a tapestry depicting Charles V at the siege of Tunis. The technique of shooting multiple arrows with a normal bow and string is described in Arab Archery, so it is possible that the Hapsburg forces did encounter multiple arrow shooting archers, but there are so many errors in the depiction of weapons in the tapestry that it cannot be relied on.
The Turkish bow with four tips is interesting and illustrates what I mentioned earlier about twice the work to produce without twice the benefit. The idea that the two strings would serve to shoot two arrows is naive. Shooting two arrows is practical if they are placed one above the other on the same string. Each arrow takes half the available energy from the bow. The author of Arab Archery considered it suitable for trick shooting only. He was able to shoot ten specially constructed arrows at once. Imagine trying to control two arrows on two separate strings. The strings would be pulled together by the thumb causing the arrows to diverge. One would almost certainly fall off the bow hand. With one string, the index finger keeps both arrows in place and they sit one above the other on the thumb of the bow hand.
I once heard a suggestion that the Turkish style of double limbed bow had a small bar at each end of the string which fitted between the two tips at each end seating itself in the string nocks. Someone else mentioned the possibility of a stone bow with two strings joined at the centre with a pouch for the stone. However, the bows made this way look too powerful for a stone bow.
The Turkish bow with four tips is interesting and illustrates what I mentioned earlier about twice the work to produce without twice the benefit. The idea that the two strings would serve to shoot two arrows is naive. Shooting two arrows is practical if they are placed one above the other on the same string. Each arrow takes half the available energy from the bow. The author of Arab Archery considered it suitable for trick shooting only. He was able to shoot ten specially constructed arrows at once. Imagine trying to control two arrows on two separate strings. The strings would be pulled together by the thumb causing the arrows to diverge. One would almost certainly fall off the bow hand. With one string, the index finger keeps both arrows in place and they sit one above the other on the thumb of the bow hand.
I once heard a suggestion that the Turkish style of double limbed bow had a small bar at each end of the string which fitted between the two tips at each end seating itself in the string nocks. Someone else mentioned the possibility of a stone bow with two strings joined at the centre with a pouch for the stone. However, the bows made this way look too powerful for a stone bow.
Michael; I am absolutly dumbfounded by the picture of the Turkish bow with four limbs. Can't wait to hear what the others say. -j-
Bede, thank you for your comment and sharing your knowledge about the Ottoman splitted recurve.
About 2 arrows on 2 strings I?ve had the same thoughts, additionally I would be afraid, that the recurves such small would be drawn sidewards to much and break?
I?m as dumbfounded like you Jack and excited for following comments.
Michael
About 2 arrows on 2 strings I?ve had the same thoughts, additionally I would be afraid, that the recurves such small would be drawn sidewards to much and break?
I?m as dumbfounded like you Jack and excited for following comments.
Michael
The double bow to me looks like it's just been split and broken down the middle. I may well be wrong about this though.
I know someone who inspected this bow and it is built with partially doubled limbs. It looks like the bow was bent backwards and broken. This happens to reflex bows in the hands of people unfamiliar with archery.
How should it break exactly in two halves??
Michael
Michael
Sorry if I was not clear. You will see that the horn is splintered on the belly at the base of the lower left hand siyah. That is the break I meant, not splitting the tips into two halves. The four tips were built on purpose.
I really think the string would force the paired tips closer as the draw lengthened if it was bifurcated at each end. Whether or not this would be a problem could only be determined by experiment.
I really think the string would force the paired tips closer as the draw lengthened if it was bifurcated at each end. Whether or not this would be a problem could only be determined by experiment.
I have been thinking about this kind of bow, even since I built 2 M?geballet (holmegard) bows with split limbs.
I think this would be obivious way to solve the sideways bending problem without needing stability corrections in the way.
For modern boyer this could mean usage of epoxy for everything except the sinew ... or perhaps everything but sinew and horn.
Also I think this could be well done with one piece core with kerfed recurves.
(example sinew backed Bulletwood:)
http://www.perinnejousi.fi/~jkekoni/bul ... 200114.JPG
I think this would be obivious way to solve the sideways bending problem without needing stability corrections in the way.
For modern boyer this could mean usage of epoxy for everything except the sinew ... or perhaps everything but sinew and horn.
Also I think this could be well done with one piece core with kerfed recurves.
(example sinew backed Bulletwood:)
http://www.perinnejousi.fi/~jkekoni/bul ... 200114.JPG
