Author Topic: A classic bow experiment  (Read 22933 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline simson

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,310
  • stonehill-primitive-bows
    • stonehill-primitive-bows
Re: A classic bow experiment
« Reply #105 on: May 09, 2016, 03:08:08 am »
Clint, i know you're the man with osage experience for sure. Looking at the vid I never seen a break like this, esp. on osage. I'm with Paul, I love thin ringed osage.
Could it be there was a fungus in the wood, the brek was like a clear cut with no fibers visible. Is there an untypical color in it?
Or is it super light by mass?
Simon
Bavaria, Germany

Offline osage outlaw

  • Member
  • Posts: 11,962
Re: A classic bow experiment
« Reply #106 on: May 09, 2016, 07:27:31 am »
There were no signs of a fungus or any other defect in the wood.  It was just a terrible ratio of early/late wood.  It was very light compared to the mass. 
I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left

Offline joachimM

  • Member
  • Posts: 675
  • Good - better - broken
Re: A classic bow experiment
« Reply #107 on: May 12, 2016, 08:52:44 am »
Any idea on the density of the wood / specific gravity?

Low density bows should be made wider or they are junk too.
I realize the goal was not to make a shooter but to test if the violations on the back would hold. They did. Good experiment that confirms what Tim Baker's been writing and telling about grain violations: it's the angle of violation that counts.

Still, I would never tiller a white wood low SG bow like that (hardly bending in the outers, most of it in the inner limbs).
Now it seams you're comparing typical .80 sg good osage to something that appears to be just over .45 sg. Sure it looks bulky for its draw weight, but volume is not a good bench mark.
I guess the discussion with PatM boils down to this.

Joachim