Author Topic: Penobscot (exploring the puzzle) SUCCESS (Read 34912 times)

burchett.donald · « **Reply #30 on:** December 20, 2015, 01:04:38 pm »

Rich,
Very interesting...So the shorter outside bow is actually assisting the main limbs speeding up their return stroke? They are being pulled/assisted forward in addition to their own power stroke...

Don

bradsmith2010 · « **Reply #31 on:** December 20, 2015, 03:38:55 pm »

what seems interesting to me, is that you can increase the draw weight of the main bow,,, without adding much mass,,

Springbuck · « **Reply #32 on:** December 20, 2015, 04:14:34 pm »

Thanks, HalfEye. I knew all of that stuff about how the cables were arranged and attached, but somehow had the idea that that tensioning was done when the bow was made and that was it. Or, mybe it was done if tiller started to slip or something. Didn't occur to me that it might be released and re-tightened after each use. That sounds like it would cause a lot of wear on the cables where the tool is inserted, and take a lot of time to tie down each time.

So, next, I wonder why. Sinew back cables would simply pull the bow into reflex, and perhaps a bit more as they dried, if they were wet. I can easily see how the damp might change the tension, too, though.

willie · « **Reply #33 on:** December 20, 2015, 04:36:24 pm »

Quote

My interest is in the appreciation of the Native bows for what they are, and trying to get inside the head of the maker.....and the more I can understand how they work and thier useage the more appreciation I have for the culture. I have no interest in attempting any "improvements" and any differences are only because I dont have the exact same material. I genuinely appreciate them for what they are.....not if they were good or bad, better or worse or any of that.

Rich-
I can appreciate the investigation for "what they are". Or at least what some of the examples we have to work from are. I wish I could cite what I read years ago about some of the examples in museums, all's I can recall is that some historian alleged that the last "authentic" penobscot bows were built long after the bows that defined the form were produced, and the implication was that some aspect of the original designs might have been lost.

Watching this project with interest......

thanks

willie

half eye · « **Reply #34 on:** December 20, 2015, 06:48:47 pm »

Don, I believe your right on, sir.

Bradsmith, that seems to be the case....plus you can tweek what ever "section" you want and not only increase weight but also where that weight falls (early or late).

Springbuck, The tool is first inserted between the 2 main cables, not through them, the opposing "hooks" keep the tool from slipping out during the wind up. Then the holding cord is run through the twisted cable along the side of the winder, wrapped in opposite directions and the ends tied off, then the tool is withdrawn. To loosen the holding cord is simply untied and the cables unwind themselves.
One other thing is about the cables themselves. The cordage is made, treated and completed prior to being strung up....like starting with a coil of rope, so to speak. Another thing is that their cordage is rendered virtually moisture proof by coating first with fish glue and then being greased I believe with seal fat. Their bow cases are also unique in that when the bow is fully wound up it cows into a seal skin case that complete covers the bow and arrows completely (reducing exposure to an absolute minimum. And on top of all that the cables are called sinew cables by the whites....They could also be made of whale intestine, seal gut or walrus gut all of which are very strong and more water proof than sinew as well as more receptive to the glue and fat treatment.

Willie, You are absolutely correct or being suspicious of some museum examples, the old time collectors were not always scrupulous and ethical in their discoveries. The sketch from the Peniobscot Museum was supposedly done by a Native American long ago and "re-done" by an artist....as well as the fact that the Native Collection example is of that type as well. I'm adding some thoughts below for you fellas to consider.

If you compare these bows to raw hide backed, cable backed or sinew backed....there is a completely different thing going on. The former can be adjusted as to weight and draw, can have components replaced or repaired and when unstrung the parts of the bow are under very little or no strain at all. The traditional "backed" bows are made to a cretain weight, and profile and while the bow is in good shape that is how it stays.....the backing is glued down and not easily tweeked or repaired. While the cable can be wound to increase draw weight and relaxed after being unstrung. Any significant changes are just not possible. I believe that these bows allowed high performance with less than ideal materials OR The system would greatly benifit Hickory when exposed to humid conditions because the raw hide could keep the bow in shape and very strong because the strings can be adjusted.
When backings are glued down or otherwise conjoined with the bow the mechanics of the rawhide and sinew, gut are different. I think the Penobscot is slightly more versatile than the other types of backed bows.
rich

burchett.donald · « **Reply #35 on:** December 20, 2015, 08:10:33 pm »

OK, a question...Rich where do you think the compression is highest in this design? Maybe the back of the main limb or somewhere near center? I know you stated absolutely no chrysaling and we have to remember your using HHB...
Don

half eye · « **Reply #36 on:** December 20, 2015, 08:19:20 pm »

Don, I believe that when at full draw the main bow is supported in the middle by contact with the back bow....and the outter 1/3 of each limb is supported by the back bow string tension. I never thought about that but at first blush you may be right.....the neutral plain may be the line drawn where the back of the main bow lies. Maybe the whole main bow is in compression and the strings and back bow eat all the tension.....hell man we need to get an engineer, I'm gettin a headache

rich

burchett.donald · « **Reply #37 on:** December 20, 2015, 08:21:48 pm »

Seems we have one on board, carry on Sir...
Don

Buckeye Guy · « **Reply #38 on:** December 20, 2015, 09:14:23 pm »

Loven it Rich
keep up the good work

half eye · « **Reply #39 on:** December 21, 2015, 09:07:51 am »

Thought I would share my thoughts to this point.

1. Even with thin bows and a recurved profile these bow do not seem to have any stability issues at all. Even with the two bows not perfectly aligned the 3 string configuration sets up a condition where all the draw forces go "linear"...meaning the bow braces and draws in a stable straight line and no twisting in the hand,

2. While the profile of the back bow (and it's wrapping size) change in several examples the one thing they have in common is that the backbow holds the back strings off of the limbs. I believe this is a difference to "conventional" backed bows. The conventional bows are either glued down tight or in the case of cable backed solider hitches/ half hitches to keep the cables centered down the long axis of the limb.....whereas in the Penobscot the cords are stretched between "point a & point b" and therefore automatically make a straight line between the two....and so the limbs are aligned .

3.All of Allely's illustrations of these bows (from 3 different museums) show the back bow being smaller in diameter than the main. Also, the illustrations show the back bow strings tied directly from the two bows knock ends. The illustration from the Penobscot museum (and the example bow) shows two distinct differences....the back bow is larger in dia. than the main bow...and the back bow string is heavy and continuous from main bow tip to tip. So insted of 2 tied off strings it is a single string manipulated by the back bow and no string knocks at all. In this configuration the central bow wrap is much longer than in the other versions.

4. While the longer working limbs on the back bow, and the extra set of knock cuts (2 strings) might seem to be a matter of evolution in design....I'm leaning toward the idea that this is a matter more of conservation of material. The longer working limbs of the back bow and 3 strings requires less material than does the short limb version....shorter cordage, smaller wood, and less central grip wrap......just an opinion however.

5. Even though these bows are unique to the Penobscot, they are NOT the only type they used. Their other bow was a more traditional long, squared section, self bow in the category of Algonkin, Mohegan etc.

6. The flat cut rawhide strings are more quiet than round cordage (that requires knots) as the only noise for the bow comes from string knots contacting the main bow recurve.

I have reposted the pics from the Penobscot museum and one from the Peabody Essex so you dont have to scroll back. Also check out how heavy the rawhide is on the backbow string in the Native Museum example.

I guess that it is time to start building a "real" one, and hopefully I get the rawhide right.
rich

Springbuck · « **Reply #40 on:** December 21, 2015, 12:05:32 pm »

Yup, just how I thought it was done, I just hadn't made the connection that this happened every time the bow was used. Still seems like a certain amount of wear in one place, but obviously not too significant.

ajooter · « **Reply #41 on:** December 21, 2015, 09:22:26 pm »

This is awesome rich!!! That's one cool lookin little bow. Can't wait to see more.

half eye · « **Reply #42 on:** December 23, 2015, 09:01:58 am »

OK fellas, The next one of these is going to be an Ironwood (HHB), and I'm looking for 70-75# at 24" of draw. I'm going to attempt to use buffalo rawhide for the back bow string-up and hopefully elk rawhide for a 3ply twisted main bow string.....haven't decided of the bow wrapping yet but it will also be rawhide.

This bow is being made for my good friend Oglala Bowyer and this is his preferred weight and draw.

PLEASE NOTE: I can not speak for Native Americans so remember the order of this build is how my my brain works not necessarily the way they did it...as always, if I forget something or you have ? please advise. The material will be authentic and hopefully the shape will be too, thanks to Oglala.

With out further adieu we can start with the general rough shapes of the 2 bows...steaming in the initial shapes, semi-matching the curves of the two bows, and then to make the final "pre-fit of the 2 bows a light decrowning of the back bow to get the two fairly fit together. 2 sets of pics
rich