Author Topic: violating a back  (Read 27259 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline osage outlaw

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,952
Re: Re: violating a back ?
« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2016, 03:29:59 pm »
This is great.  Now you know how we feel sometimes Pat  ;D  ;D
I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left

Offline Jack Napier

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
Re: Re: violating a back ?
« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2016, 03:45:28 pm »
Oh GOD:


Offline Stick Bender

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,003
Re: Re: violating a back ?
« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2016, 03:45:53 pm »
Ok Im not the sharpest chiesel in the shop but if a a solid continues ring is superior in performance why not use it ,the aurgument is moot why go threw all the trouble of making a inferior bow , it takes the same amount of time to make the crappy one ? 🤔
If you fear failure you will never Try !

Offline Jack Napier

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
Re: Re: violating a back ?
« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2016, 04:01:52 pm »
Ok Im not the sharpest chiesel in the shop but if a a solid continues ring is superior in performance why not use it ,the aurgument is moot why go threw all the trouble of making a inferior bow , it takes the same amount of time to make the crappy one ? 🤔

It's not. You're confused. There's never been a study demonstrating that a solid growth ring is superior. That's just a myth that gets passed on becsuse nobody ever steps back for a minute and thinks critically about whether it might be BS.

However, rectangular cross section bows with flat backs are superior. That science was done 80 yars ago. Making these bows usually involves violating growth rings. Violated back bows are superior in my experience. I have never broken one yet I see unviolated bows breaking everywhere I look. Your bow doesn't need one growth ring if it's got a rectangular cross section. Only when you build horribly inefficient, D, oval and circular cross sectioned bows will stress on the back even be an issue. If we keep building stupid bows, we're going to keep getting stupid results, good people.

The Lakota and the Cheyenne violated the hell out of their growth rings and actually deafeated the US government with those bows on more than one occasion. English longbowmen or Patagonian Native Americans would never have been able achieve that kind of performance with their rounded, barely debarked bows. And contrary to what Bubby said, many of these bows were not backed. Just look at this violated beast:

« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 04:16:36 pm by Jack Napier »

Offline osage outlaw

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,952
Re: Re: violating a back ?
« Reply #19 on: December 23, 2016, 04:21:13 pm »
Lets see some of your work Joker  ;)  Not images copied from museum websites.  Actual bows that you have made.  I'd like to see your interpretation of a violated rectangle bow.
I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left

Offline Stick Bender

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,003
Re: Re: violating a back ?
« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2016, 04:28:03 pm »
You are correct there Mr Jack I am confused the vast majority of bows that I make have crowened backs so the only way I could apply your theory is to de crown the stave which would make no sence to me when its far easer to apply the known dogma of a single growth ring , are those your bows in the pics ?  Maybe they where just lucky on short draw bows compared to higher stresed full draw designs just saying hypothetically ? Maybe the anglo ansestors where on to some thing just saying Jack !
If you fear failure you will never Try !

Offline Jack Napier

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
Re: Re: violating a back ?
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2016, 04:43:43 pm »
You are correct there Mr Jack I am confused the vast majority of bows that I make have crowened backs so the only way I could apply your theory is to de crown the stave which would make no sence to me when its far easer to apply the known dogma of a single growth ring , are those your bows in the pics ?  Maybe they where just lucky on short draw bows compared to higher stresed full draw designs just saying hypothetically ? Maybe the anglo ansestors where on to some thing just saying Jack !

No sir, I didn't make any of those bows. Those are all Native American bows from the 1800s, one was made by Sitting Bull, the last one I posted was made by High Bald Eagle, a participant at the Battle of Little Bighorn. They were weighted up to 85lbs draw, with no sinew backing. And severely violated growth rings. Pulling them this far was no problem:



It's no problem when you spread the stress of the tension over a flat surface.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 04:47:25 pm by Jack Napier »

Offline George Tsoukalas

  • Member
  • Posts: 9,425
    • Traditional and Primitive Archers
Re: Re: violating a back ?
« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2016, 04:51:06 pm »
Jack, I've built bows with flat backs and unviolated rings. I've built bows with crowned backs and unviolated rings.

Just cause you may have seen a museum bow with violated backs, it doesn't mean we should allow the backs of our bows to have cut through rings. That is a recipe for disaster.

Jawge

Set Happens!
If you ain't breakin' you ain't makin!

Offline Stick Bender

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,003
Re: Re: violating a back ?
« Reply #23 on: December 23, 2016, 04:51:48 pm »
Well Burts thread got high jacked hear why dont you start another thread and post some of your own bows so we can continue this topic I find it really interesting , can you do that Jack ?  The OP was asking for definitions of violations.
If you fear failure you will never Try !

Offline BSV

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
Re: Re: violating a back ?
« Reply #24 on: December 23, 2016, 04:55:55 pm »
Thanks-everyone for the replys, I will be working on some black walnut staves I posted pics of the other day,the sapwood is pretty thick and I would like to have heartwood on the belly,are there rings in the sapwood to chase? or is there a different method..Burt

Offline BSV

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
Re: Re: violating a back ?
« Reply #25 on: December 23, 2016, 04:58:49 pm »
I don't think it was high jacked, I like the read :) :)

Offline Jack Napier

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
Re: Re: violating a back ?
« Reply #26 on: December 23, 2016, 05:00:17 pm »
Jack, I've built bows with flat backs and unviolated rings.


This is possible, however, realistically most flat backs have violated rings unless scrupulous care is taken and a high visibility wood like Osage is used.

Quote
Just cause you may have seen a museum bow with violated backs, it doesn't mean we should allow the backs of our bows to have cut through rings. That is a recipe for disaster.

Every museum bow I have ever seen had violated rings, unless they weren't flatbows. People keep saying this but provide zero scientific evidence for it. In the 1920s eveyone was saying "English longbows are the best bows" simply because they had been born in the Anglosphere, and any established superstition was taken at face value. When science got down to it, it was determined that Native American bow morphology was in fact superior, and the English longbow was a POS.

Now we need to have another demonstration to find out whether violated bows are superior or inferior. The sheer number of over-used, strung, and severely violated NA bows in museums and private collections that are unbroken after more than a century, compared to the number of broken bows that get posted on this site every month, suggests that history is about to repeat itself.

« Last Edit: December 23, 2016, 05:11:19 pm by Jack Napier »

Offline paulsemp

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,918
Re: Re: violating a back ?
« Reply #27 on: December 23, 2016, 05:04:32 pm »
While I am not going to be a huge help on Walnut advice I can tell you that you can chase a ring on anything. Do yourself a favor and do not listen to this guy telling you violated bows are better. I am all ears I'm different ideas but I can guarantee you I will never purposefully violate the back. One could easily cut a few scraps of wood and test it. Guarantee it will start to pull apart at the early growth.


Offline Jack Napier

  • Member
  • Posts: 49
Re: Re: violating a back ?
« Reply #28 on: December 23, 2016, 05:05:47 pm »
While I am not going to be a huge help on Walnut advice I can tell you that you can chase a ring on anything. Do yourself a favor and do not listen to this guy telling you violated bows are better. I am all ears I'm different ideas but I can guarantee you I will never purposefully violate the back. One could easily cut a few scraps of wood and test it. Guarantee it will start to pull apart at the early growth.

Source please.

Offline Stick Bender

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,003
Re: Re: violating a back ?
« Reply #29 on: December 23, 2016, 05:09:21 pm »
Post your bow pics please ?
If you fear failure you will never Try !