Does string follow lead to set?

[tom sawyer]

  Chrysals have the potential to decrease breakage, not increase it.

Chrysals are in fact broken wood.  Maybe the broken spots decrease stress in the rest of the belly but the bow is broken and on its way to folding where the chrysals are.

Sharpend they're both nouns.

"Following the string" is the older term, back when people probably didn't care a whole lot about reflex or whether somebody on the internet was going to be critical of their tillering job.

Nobody on this forum is going to settle the meaning of these terms with any amount of discussion, since 99% of the bowyers out there ain't reading this.  And TBB wasn't written under divine inspiration, whether Bible is part of the title or not.  If you want to distinguish between subtle differences in descriptions, you might just use the words to say exactly what you mean.  In the case of just-unstrung set vs what you get when the bow has time to recover, you can use those words.  Its already been stated which one of those is of practical significance, and which one is cosmetic.

One more observation that speaks somewhat to the original question.  Shooting a well-made wood bow leads to set.  Thats why the Thompsons went through multiple bows when they shot daily.  If you rarely shoot a bow it will never wear out.  If you shoot an overbuilt bow it will show little set, but will be sluggish.  The former is a sad result of us having stupid jobs, the latter is to be avoided.

[sharpend60]

I dont think they are EXACTLY nouns. One is a thing that happens and the other a descriptions of things. But that is back to the semantics argument, which is not at all helpful...

I think the chrysals comment was simply meant to say that 'chryals relieve stress from the wood'. Whether that is a degradation or not. I also believe that by "decrease breakage" the poster meant wholesale failure.

[SLIMBOB]

  Black Hawk, I read Bryce's definition and I said in my earlier post that I agree with it personally.  That matches how I define the difference.  My point is simply that PatM has a valid take on this IMO.  Your argument about set and the 2 bows that each started with different degrees of set back and both ended up at the same spot after shooting in at 1" of reflex "they are not the same" was your response.  I simply make the same argument with my scenario.  Two bows of equal length, one starting with 3 inches of back set and the other starting with 1 inch of deflex.  Both settle in with 1 inch of "string follow".  Are these the same bows?  If not then the classic definition still falls short of explaining the difference.

[George Tsoukalas]

Now, boys take it easy. We are talking about wood here and not US Foreign Policy. For years, the term string follow has meant the bow appears strung when it is not. PatM, you are changing the traditional definition which is your prerogative I suppose.. Definitions have their purpose as they are intended to lessen confusion.

As for heat damaging or not damaging wood, I don't know for sure. My point on that sentence about heating and bending was that no matter how much of it I've done it has never caused chrysalling which are the ultimate of belly wood collapse. Chrysals will eventually cause a bow to fold in upon itself like a book so they will break a bow.

Jawge

[PEARL DRUMS]

'

String follow and set are two totally different birds and do not mean the same thing, not even close.

What are you definitions?
We all know you can build a decent bow, lets hear it.


[/quote]

Im flattered!...........My definition means nothing. I'll just keep building decent bows and not know why! Its much easier than trying to change the world.

[sharpend60]

Ha!

I just get the idea that the first post ya made was right on target.
Just was trying to get some clarification. Thats all.
I'm clear as could be but something else is going on here. I think that something has little to do with my original concerns.

This thread is certainly raising the blood pressure isn't it.

[blackhawk]

 

This thread is certainly raising the blood pressure isn't it.

Nope..not mine..this is nothing more than a debate and discussion..

And you'll come to realize some folks just like to stir the pot...but not me ....riiiiiiiiiight..lol

[sharpend60]

Good, wouldn't want anyone's well being to be at stake due to a bow building question.
High blood pressure leads to all sorts of health issues...

[SLIMBOB]

No way.  Not here either.  It's all good.

[sharpend60]

Okay then, I still don't think my original question as been answered.

There have been some that were close or pointed in the right direction. Answers about over built bows, cosmetics or definition of one term or another but honestly I feel like I'm talking with a politician...

Is there a direct relationship to my bow follow the string now, temporarily, to the set it will take in the future.

I know a well tillered bow take less set and overbuilt is more reliable but what of the bounce back?
Assuming the wood is well tillered and cared for, will it bounce back ten years from now or will it turn to set?

[blackhawk]

Theres three things everyone here has in common....building bows,a hard head,and have grown thick skin. Those who don't have or learn the latter two don't end up sticking around the forums for too long.

For those who like keeping track of data,and want to learn how to build a better bow, then it helps to discern the two the way they have been defined as two separate things and a cause and effect. Especially in this day and age when a lot of guys are into building performance bows.

As far as "temporary set" , yes I still look at it as set and the bow s belly starting to break down but not fully all the way yet. Can you maybe explain more of what exactly you mean by that term? Once it starts to break down you really can't correct the cells,but you can temper it back into some reflex like some guys do and gain some of a setback in the limbs/profile back.

[blackhawk]

Okay then, I still don't think my original question as been answered.




Assuming the wood is well tillered and cared for, will it bounce back ten years from now or will it turn to set?

Assuming it has been made and cared for properly then no it shouldn't turn into set and will still bounce back. But,that's a tall order to ask for,and a lot of variables can come into play and induce more set than the day it was made.

[sharpend60]

Right after stringing the bow show 3/4 of set.
1 hour later it is back to how it was before stringing.

A temporary condition.

Now, I know that set is a result of damage to the cells in the wood.
Heat treating, proper exercising etc. are known methods of reducing set and we know that wood has a 'memory' so to speak.
After unstringing a percentage of the cells return to their 'undamaged state' and some 'stick' or take set.

Assuming I can tiller a bow better than the best person in history...

Is that temporary condition (3/4 string follow in this case) an indicator of set? Assuming the bow isnt over drawn, strung too long, shot after being drowned at sea etc.

I know ever piece of wood is different, no absolutes etc.

But at what piont does a bow stop bouncing back and take set? Is there a direct relationship to bouncing back and set?
Does 3/4 now, temporarily, mean 3/4 forever later down the road?
Remember I care for my bows better than The Smithsonian and can tiller like I'm from another world.

[sharpend60]

You posted while I was typing that last long winded reply.

And, answered my question...

[SLIMBOB]

I will attempt.  Your question leads me to believe that you are perhaps mistaken about the definition of "string follow".   That was my take when I first read the post.  Maybe I have misinterpreted your question, but it sounds to me like you are thinking that the set the bow is taking and then recovering from over time is defined as "string follow".  It is not.  That is set, it's just not permanent set.  Now to really confuse things, if that set causes the tips to rest behind the handle, then it IS "string follow" just not permanent string follow.  So the "string follow turning into set" as you offered the question is in my mind, confusing, but not as confusing as my explanation.  Hope that clears it up for you.