violating a back

[Marc St Louis]

Well, I see I made a mistake approving those 2 accounts.  I can rectify that 

[George Tsoukalas]

Burt, it is a simple question. Note the experience level of the bowyers who answered your question and take it from there.
Personally, I've been making bows for almost 25 years. I don't keep records. I figure around 200 bows.
Jawge

[Pappy]

Man I am sorry I missed most of this, I would take the advice Jawges just gave and move on . Marc I know you can and will if provoked. Pappy

[BSV]

Thank-everyone I just noticed the topic got split...Burt

[bentstick54]

I can't believe this thread is 10 pages long and still going. And worse yet, that I read the whole thing.🙄

[bushboy]

Wowzers,that's a lot of banter jack.Tim baker favoured the perfectly rectangular cross section,so I suspect it has some merit.as far as durability goes I have broken many riff and quarter sawn boards but very few staves with unviolated backs.I suppose decrowned and violated are same but not really imo.why do people chose to be so ignorant at a key board,I suspect it would be different one on one gangsta jack!

[BowEd]

If decrowning was his meaning for his statements he could of stated that.We are'nt phsycic.Still no ground shattering concepts in bow making there either and by the looks of BSV's logs of walnut they did not need to be decrowned.
BSV...I will say this about walnut.I hav'nt made a bow from it but have made a lot of arrow shafts from it.Sapwood and heartwood alike.Both seem to have the same amount of spine.

[Marc St Louis]

The thought that he meant de-crowning crossed my mind as well but regardless his attitude was bad and now he is gone, along with his sidekick

P. S. I wouldn't mind lifting his ban if he had a change of attitude

[osage outlaw]

Thank you Marc.

[SLIMBOB]

"Jack Napier" is an alias used by "The Joker" in the Batman saga. 

[scp]

If I'm being kind (and I am never gumpy )
Maybe he means violations along the back, like when you decrown a bow?... Otherwise he is talking complete rowlocks.
Del

That's what I thought at first. But it became clear that Jack is talking about ring violation across the back.

Jack's main idea is that it is more important to make the back flat than to make no ring violation. It might have some merit for staves with very thin growth rings. I also think it would matter a lot where are the ring violations. It would be catastrophic if they happen in the main working limb section. It might not matter much if it happens near the tips, especially if the rings there are higher than those of the working section.

As I have made several successful stave bows with cross ring violation, this issue is of some interest to me. But they were all low poundage kid bows salvaged from a failed hunting weight bows. Still I would love to see any numerical values comparing the failure rates of flat back with cross ring violations and those of rather lumpy following of one thin growth ring. I hope someone is interested in the issue enough to start a new thread.

[JW_Halverson]

Extraordinary claims always require extraordinary proofs.  Otherwise they are nothing but trumped up fantasy. We get these  clowns from time to time and I, for one, would prefer if "management" might step on these types a little faster.  Spirited debate is one thing, but this guy was throwing insults by calling people autistic, etc. 

Thank you Moderators for the work you do in keeping this a civil society, I recognize it is a very difficult line you walk. 

And from an anthropological point of view, how many of the bows in collections are certifiable as actual BOWS and how many are ceremonial representations???  Even today, Marines carry a sword.  How many go into battle armed with a sword?  There are functional bows and there are ceremonial objects.

[bubbles]

Wowzers,that's a lot of banter jack.Tim baker favoured the perfectly rectangular cross section,so I suspect it has some merit.as far as durability goes I have broken many riff and quarter sawn boards but very few staves with unviolated backs.I suppose decrowned and violated are same but not really imo.why do people chose to be so ignorant at a key board,I suspect it would be different one on one gangsta jack!

Yep -  lots of broken board bows from tension failures. Zero tension failures on one ring staves.  One stave I tried decrowning....lifted a splinter. It was elm, a wood known for tension strength.  I wish I had left it as a single ring. But that was a long time ago. 
Seriously though, they're just trolling, probaby just seeing how long it would take to get banned. 

[Marc St Louis]

If I'm being kind (and I am never gumpy )
Maybe he means violations along the back, like when you decrown a bow?... Otherwise he is talking complete rowlocks.
Del

That's what I thought at first. But it became clear that Jack is talking about ring violation across the back.

Jack's main idea is that it is more important to make the back flat than to make no ring violation. It might have some merit for staves with very thin growth rings. I also think it would matter a lot where are the ring violations. It would be catastrophic if they happen in the main working limb section. It might not matter much if it happens near the tips, especially if the rings there are higher than those of the working section.

As I have made several successful stave bows with cross ring violation, this issue is of some interest to me. But they were all low poundage kid bows salvaged from a failed hunting weight bows. Still I would love to see any numerical values comparing the failure rates of flat back with cross ring violations and those of rather lumpy following of one thin growth ring. I hope someone is interested in the issue enough to start a new thread.

This train of thinking can apply to certain species of wood but a tension strong wood actually performs better when the back has a crown.  An extreme example of a ring violation is when a bug eats a channel across the back down to the next ring.  Bows like this will not survive even if the wood has interlocking grain and is tension strong.  Only an idiot would deliberately try and replicate this

[willie]

"Jack Napier" is an alias used by "The Joker" in the Batman saga. 

actually, Slimbob, "The Joker" is the alias used by the character "Jack Napier" in the Batman story, but no matter, I think I get the drift. Of course if the "jack" that we met is not implying anything by his choice of screen names, he might be this guy.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Napier_%28actor%29