Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: PlanB on January 17, 2016, 07:00:40 pm
-
I've been working on something I've wanted to try for a long time, a 76" Meare Heath style board bow. For this oddball, I wanted to do it in a light weight locally grown white wood with the hope that might keep limb mass lower than the original yew for a little better performance on similar dimensions for my low draw length. I happened to cut some red maple boards last summer and haven't tried a bow with that yet, so that kind of came together.
I was going to do a straight handle for safety sake, but got caught up half way through roughing it out with a strong desire to do it with the original set back type. I do know what that means in terms of grain violation risk. But I have a few ideas I want to try out to make it more likely to hold together. Since it's a board bow, I'm piecing the handle with a riser. I'm going to try for 50# @ 28" -- I do know the original was likely much more than that, and I'm not making an efficient bow. But I'm doing this for the fun of it, the interest, and just a whole bunch of long time curiosity.
The pics here are just the rough out, there's more shaping all around to come. And even though it's from a board that was air drying, it's still too high moisture to begin tillering. Thought people would be interested in the start of the handle area, anyway.
Pics so far:
-
Trying out ideas, doing it for the fun, interest, and curiousity...sounds like your on a good path of learning if you ask me! And also sounds like a good attitude about it.
Looks like you're off to a good start. I'm interested to watch the progress on this bow. Good luck with it.
Tattoo Dave
-
Plan B-
it will be interesting to see how a longish and moderate poundage bow will shoot. Low strain with lighter wood might be a good combination.
like the keel-at-the-fades flourish, is the handle concave on the belly side as well?
willie
-
it will be interesting to see how it shoots at that weight /draw I have a Red oak stave setting around that I was thinking of that design for , I have always liked the O B design but with Red Maple it might have surprising cast.
-
Thats the right design for that wood...it should work. ..id still be careful in tillering and also temper it..have fun n good luck!!! ;)
-
Thanks Dave, Willie, Stickbender, blackhawk! Strong believer in experiment and fun (as shown by the present mini-bow builds going on. I really love reading and seeing that stuff! Wish I could participate.)
Wllie in the last pic above, you can see the handle set backin the belly view. The top surface of the handle itself gets another piece of riser glued on. That's why it's dead flat in the photo. The reason I needed two risers instead of just doing it with one was just a change of mind -- originally I was doing the flat, non-set back handle, but just kept thinking about how it wanted to know whether the original setback was do-able. The first riser was right for a straight handle, but the setback handle required cutting right through the back, completely through the original bow blank -- basically converting it into two billets attached by the old riser. So I have to pad out the handle to make it deeper. Total handle depth will finish about 1-1/2". I glued up the additional piece last night, and will shape it today.
The bow is losing about 15 grams a day now in water weight. That's down from 100 g the first day bringing it indoors a couple weeks ago. Though I'm not tillering yet, I can tell this red maple is quite a bit more limber than black birch or even elm was. It doesn't feel weak at all -- but sort of a healthy elastic feel, hard for me to describe.
-
Excited to watch this unfold, remember the newbies trying to learn from you guys so don't assume things are too obvious or unnecessary to explain
-
Lumber man, not much more than a newbie here, my friend, and experimenting with a sawn in set back handle, so this might just be a good example of what not to do. :laugh:
Okay so explaining what I'm gonna try to do with the obvious extreme grain violations and the fact that the original example is broken across the handle:
First, in laying out the handle, I tried to maintain a 1 in 12 grain angle where all pieces taper to nothing, playing with S curves to do that.
Second, using the original's belly keel to pad out thickness at the bend and distribute the load over a larger area of the belly.
Third, trying to keep the cross sections as thick as possible through the bends, and keeping the glue surfaces as large as I can.
Fourth, tapering and rounding as much as possible, with the above in mind to keep stresses spread out.
Fifth, I'm hoping to band the handle sections, transition, as well as the limbs (which the original had). I will be using hemp fiber, though, which I have on hand. I don't have any rawhide, and besides I think it will stick better as a fiber than just a strip of rawhide. Just a guess on that. I'm hoping that if the bands are placed right, they will contribute to preventing the handle pop-off that may have happened to the original, and prevent splitting. Sinew would probably work as well, but I don't have that either. My guess is hemp fibers will work, though.
sixth, I might (not sure yet) run a strip of fiber up the back part of the handle knuckle, under the bands. Not sure on that one, yet. Have to feel how it looks -- if that makes any sense..... ::)
-
Riser on and handle shaped:
-
Are those limbs glued on separately to the handle?
-
its a beautiful shape,, I am a little worried about the limbs coming off the handle,,if you think that might be an issue,, maybe go with a lower poundage,,???
-
Pearl Drums, yes, they are now, though they started out as a full length straight blank. Riser added and the center was cut out which separated the two limbs.
I know it looks bad, but that's actually how the original grain lines went on the Meare Heath bow, except it was all cut from a single stave. But essentially it was a board bow with separated limbs in terms of grain violation.
The handle was broken on the original, but not at the inner limb juncture with the handle. It broke in the center of the handle. Possibly because the back of the handle popped off first. If you look at the original limb on the left of the photo linked below you can see the ring lines completely severed from the handle area. The limbs were essentially boards.
http://digitaldigging.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/010-meare-heath-neolithic-bow-reconstruction.jpg
-
The difference is you are trusting glue to hold it, MH wasn't. I wouldn't pull it back at any draw weight without safety goggles on. I'm just watching out for your eyes and face.
-
its a beautiful shape,, I am a little worried about the limbs coming off the handle,,if you think that might be an issue,, maybe go with a lower poundage,,???
Brad, it's definitely a possibility, which is why, as far as I know, people build new versions with a straight handle. But I just had to try it set back per the original.
As far as the weight goes, the few reconstructions are all over the place with regard to weight 40-90 lbs. I'm shooting for 50 lbs. and if my own experience is correct, it'll be 45lbs a few months after it's finished. Assuming it holds together.
-
The difference is you are trusting glue to hold it, MH wasn't. I wouldn't pull it back at any draw weight without safety goggles on. I'm just watching out for your eyes and face.
Thanks, Pearl, I will be very cautious. I have a hardhat, too.
There will be banding in that area, too. Which wasn't on the original.
-
Ok I checked out the link,, very interesting,,
the handle set back does not seem that steep in the photo,, but hard to tell
anyway,, maybe another option ,, would be to bend the set back in a stave handle,,
obviously the bow worked back then,, I think Pearl has a good point about the stave bow being a bit more stable than the glued on handle,, not saying it won't work,, just thinking out loud,,,
best of luck to you with the project,, it looks great so far,, :)
-
Sorry I made a typo back a ways -- I said I was going to use "hemp" as reinforcing bands -- I meant flax. I have some hanks of combed flax for reinforcement.
TBB Vol 1 talks about it as a reinforcing material. In this bow, I won't be using it as a backing, though. It will be used in bands around the bow, and particularly in the handle area.
Here's a pic of what I'm talking about:
-
With that handle and poor glue joints its more than likely gonna fail...especially if you used titebond for your glue because titebond requires perfectly flat mating surfaces,and if ya dont it could go pop,especially and even more so with the stress your putting on it with a handle like that...in any event i HIGHLY recommend wrapping those fades very well if you want to continue with it (i wouldnt if it was me personally)..sinew wraps wood be best. You dont see people building wood bows like that handle for a very good reason.
You just posted before me...but i guess its still some what relevant
-
Ok I checked out the link,, very interesting,,
the handle set back does not seem that steep in the photo,, but hard to tell
anyway,, maybe another option ,, would be to bend the set back in a stave handle,,
obviously the bow worked back then,, I think Pearl has a good point about the stave bow being a bit more stable than the glued on handle,, not saying it won't work,, just thinking out loud,,,
best of luck to you with the project,, it looks great so far,, :)
Brad I'd thought of a steam bent handle, especially after the steam discussion thread, but I decided the bends would be really severe and the form would be pretty difficult. That's when I thought about the flax as hoop reinforcement -- which is what the original actually used, though probably rawhide. So it seemed in keeping with the original design idea. I think the original, if it broke in use, might not have if binding had extended to the handle area. I notice it was apparently used to reinforce the nock end. If the handle did split an the back pop off before it broke, I think binding would have prevented that. Glue or not, wood is very weak in tension perpendicular to the grain. Binding has been used for millennia to prevent that.
Maybe we wouldn't have that artifact if it had been bound at the handle, so I guess it was a good thing it wasn't, maybe.....
-
Thanks blackhawk, I agree, I wouldn't trust glue alone, or even a perfect full depth stave for that kind of sawed to shape set back handle -- it kinda flies in the face of current good bowyer practice. The binding was planned right from the start.
-
Just a thought a little unconventional but you could drill some dowel holes a little over half limb depth & epoxy dowels threw the handle & limbs the limbs would break before that area would give.
-
Thanks stickbender, I thought about treenails, but wanted to do it with banding since it fit the method that the original bowyer used on the limbs. Also I wanted to try flax as a reinforcement.
Last night I put a flax backing strip lengthwise on in the handle area, and this morning when it was dry, I added some bands. I will add another band further out on the fades, but I want to wait until after tillering to go any further with reinforcment.
-
I like the banding look its realy nice look!
-
PlanB
the flax job looks nice. could you share a little more about the technique and glue that you used?
willie
-
I Like this bow :) very unique.
-
hi Plan B....that handle design looks dodgy, if I'm being blunt and honest ( and for benefit of newbies!!)....good you have reinforced it. What was you thinking in the first place as to your reasons for doing this? it seems to over complicate the design for no apparent advantage.....there are definately simpler and better ways of joining limbs to a handle!!!
I do wish you all good luck with it though now you have started it and I am sure like you say it will be a good learning experience! and hopefully a good shooter
Dave
-
Thanks stick bender, willie, legionnaire, and dragonman!
Willie, TB3, and i masked the sections off, combed the flax, and laid it in place with a brush, saturating fibers. Fibers ar left full length, so a number of wraps to build to thickness desired.
Dave, I think it looks good, but that is a matter (always) of personal opinion. Stickbows of any sort look dodgy to many people shooting compounds, glass bows, etc. As do character bows, stone and reed arrows, etc. I don't think this is dodgy, but that's just me.
My specific reasons for particular design choices are already given from post one onwards, but let me just repeat the overall reason, also from post #1:
"I was going to do a straight handle for safety sake, but got caught up half way through roughing it out with a strong desire to do it with the original set back type. I do know what that means in terms of grain violation risk. But I have a few ideas I want to try out to make it more likely to hold together. Since it's a board bow, I'm piecing the handle with a riser. I'm going to try for 50# @ 28" -- I do know the original was likely much more than that, and I'm not making an efficient bow. But I'm doing this for the fun of it, the interest, and just a whole bunch of long time curiosity."
As far as complicating the design, since the original Meare Heath bow had a carved out handle, not bent, not paying attention to ring orientation in any way, anywhere along the back, the ring violations are severe. The back appears steeply cambered -- far beyond the original ring camber.
It apparently had many rawhide bands and crossed reinforcements -- some say for appearance, others as working reinforcement. The original is also broken at the handle. Some say for purposeful reasons, others for structural reasons. Some people consider the MH design a very poor one, with apparently too long and heavy limbs for good performance, along structural deficiencies.
I'm very curious about all of this, and one way of finding out (which is how I like to do things) is by experimenting with these problems oneself. I want to see what happens, on my own bow, if I do something similar. Not the same obviously, in some respects, but similar enough to me to satisfy my curiosity on the points I'm personally interested in.
I do not mean to mislead newbies, or promote what I'm trying as good practice, or suggest that this is the only way to connect two limbs, or that it is a superior way. I'm just doing this because it appeals to me to do it. People will certainly draw their own conclusions, and that's fine. Gives us all something to talk about, yes? And I am sure that it will be a good learning experience not only for me, whether or not a good bow results, but for anyone interested enough to continue to read this thread about something different from the norm (whatever that might be!)
I do know that your well wishes are truly meant, and I think you're a fine and admirable bowyer.
-
I didnt realize that the MH bow had a handle like this....there you go, I dont realy know what I'm talking about...maybe you are on to something! anyway, it is good to think in an original way, this is how new things are discovered. please let us know how it progresses...interesting
-
No problem, Dave. almost all MH style bows built recently have a straight handle, unlike the original bow, so it's easy to miss that point. Plus the original handle broke, so it's easy to see why there haven't been many attempts.
My thought was that if the bands that were applied to the limbs were functional, and they were brought down to the handle, the original might not have broken. I've doodled in pencil some notes on handle pop off, and what I am thinking about with regard to this set-back handle. Hope it's legible and understandable to anyone following this experiment:
-
seeing the sketch, it does look like it will work, just make sure to make your joints spot on!
-
Well I only had to do a quadruple take but it finally began to make sense to me. Thanks for taking the time to spell it out!
-
Glad it's more understandable. I've added nocks and thinned the limbs down some, but no tillering yet. It's still losing about 10 grams a day in moisture on a total weight of 900 grams. Winter time R.H. in the house right now is 30%.
So, not much else I can do on this bow -- it's just going to have to be a waiting game until the weight stabilizes.
-
if it is 30% in the house, the bow may go to 6%,, which might be a little low,,,
-
You're right Brad, I'm going to move it outside on the porch.
We're in a cold snap now, so RH is really low in the house but it should be warming a little middle of next week. I'll keep an eye on the RH where the bow is.
-
Just wanted to finish this thread off even though the bow handle experiment failed.
A check of weight showed the bow gained 5 grams outside the first day, then zero grams for two days after that, so I brought it inside and continued work on it. I asked my wife to take a tillering pic of the bow so I could see it when I first started working on it after bracing. It's now the only photo of the bow intact. (Bottom pic).
I continued tillering, and I eventually had it short drawing to 50# and even tried it outside for a dozen arrows or so. But on the tree when just short of full draw (27") I heard the infamous "tick". I checked over the bow, and couldn't see any cracks in the wood or splinters. There were none.What I didn't notice was that the handle backing strip was likely split across in between two of the bands.
I put the bow on the tree again and drew it (it's a rope and pulley rig), and I could see one limb pulling well out of balance with the other one. I could tell the bow was a gonner, then, so I pulled it to full draw to see whether the crack would show or the bow break. After two pulls It let go hard at the handle.
Looking at the damage, I'm thinking that the backing at the handle's sharpest bend let go first -- the tick I heard. In hindsight, the flax was much too thin (really paper thin) and not wide enough, either. I should have put it down in two or three layers, but being new to flax (and backing, in general) I'd only put down a thin narrow strip.
Then when flexing the wood, with no reinforcing, the bow broke between the two bands at the steepest part of the grain, and the crack instantly propagated back through the bands. They snapped, one after the other, and the limb separated off.
(http://i.imgur.com/XUMBxDH.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/0EmcEin.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/0GxFiKg.jpg)
While the reinforcing experiment was a failure, I think it probably would have worked if I had used a thicker backing. Or if instead of individual bands, the wrapping around had been continuous over the sharpest bend of the handle. Though that wouldn't have looked as much like the original bow with it's band and diagonal reinforcement on the limbs.
I don't think I'll try another Meare Heath soon -- I the weight and feel of the bow wasn't great. Though it wasn't finished yet, It weighed nearly two pounds, and was pretty unwieldy to maneuver in the house. It's was more of a novelty to try. I did really want to see what kind of arrow speed it might have had, just to compare it with other reproductions, but didn't get a chance with a finished bow. If I ever do one again, I think I'll try an even lighter wood than red maple, and better backing of the handle.
Anyway, that's the post mortem. I think it came close. And I know more about flax reinforcing and some of what a real Meare Heath must have felt like like to heft and shoot.
-
thanks for the info,,very nice try on that one,, :)
-
You only fail if you dont try. Excited to see how this goes. \m/
-
Sorry that blew on you, I liked the creative thinking tho..
btw, other than the flax/tbb3 matrix not being thick enough, would you use that combo again? are the left over pieces brittle, or does the tb3 seem to have enough flexibility? Did the flax delam under tension?
-
Bummer! Thanks for sharing the whole experiment though
-
Ooch sorry it look so nice !
-
"Looking at the damage, I'm thinking that the backing at the handle's sharpest bend let go first -- the tick I heard. In hindsight, the flax was much too thin (really paper thin) and not wide enough, either. I should have put it down in two or three layers, but being new to flax (and backing, in general) I'd only put down a thin narrow strip."
I was enjoying this thread. I am currently working on the same thing only using sweetgum, but opted to not worry about doing the all out set back handle. Maybe rawhide applied wet would have been a better solution, but who's to say. At least you went for it. Thanks for sharing your experience.
-
Brad Stix Lumberman, thanks, guys!
Willie in answer to your question, I would try flax and tb3 again in some area of special need. It definitely didn't delaminate first, but broke across the backing first. It was under tension, which tends to pull it down into the wood, instead of away from it. The break shows it broke across right at the edge of the upper band.
If the backing had been thicker, I don't think it would have happened, and/or if the circular reinforcement had covered the area, I also think it could have held. Tb3 seemed and still does seem flexible, but long term, I don't know. My guess is, it will stay flexible enough, but no proof.
Tim, I think rawhide might have worked well or better if you had a good way of dealing with the ends. Maybe it would have to wrap around more than once. I haven't used rawhide yet, so I don't really know.
Today I looked at the broken pieces and thought why not use it as a test bed, still? Just epoxy that break back together (I used W.E.S.T epoxy) and then try more flax positioned as mentioned to reinforce the handle.
Worst that could happen is it breaks again, either at the new glue line, or elsewhere in the grain violated wood, as before. I know epoxy doesn't make it a primitive bow, exactly. I don't really care about that for a simple test. And it's just applied to the break surfaces, so I'm thinking a repaired bow will still be a good test of flax reinforcement. Maybe even harder a test.
-
Just epoxy that break back together (I used W.E.S.T epoxy) and then try more flax positioned as mentioned to reinforce the handle
sounds like a good...... PlanB
sorry I did not ask that delam question well......................what I meant to ask was....
Did the flax fibers seem to delaminate from the tb3? With the low stretch flax I might guess that individual flax fibers reached their breaking points sequentially, before getting to stretch much and act as a bundle with the other fibers. with a stretchier binder glue, the bundle might perform different
-
The first thing I can remember that my father taught me was never depend on "cross grain" (his words). It will let you down every time. You are to be commended on your perseverance though. And the fact that you posted the failure. Too many times these post just fade out and nobody learns anything.
-
DC agreed! And of course, I knew that going in, since the historical bow had it. Plus it was broken.
I would add that it won't always let you down if reinforced with some other material in the cross grain tension direction -- which also has an ancient tradition. Lashing, laminating, banding with fibers, hides and metals, doweling, pinning, through-bolting and drifting with drift rod and other methods have all been used historically to take up wood cross grain tension, and still are in use today.
Since the Meare Heath bow used banding on the limbs, it seemed like a good experiment to see if it might have worked on the handle as well.
Glad to report the last failure in case it's useful or interesting, and I'll probably need to again. :laugh:
Willie, no the flax and glue stayed together quite sound, in fact on the side bands it looked like somebody cut across the grain along the cracked wood with an X-acto knife -- very little detectable fiber separation at all. I bet it's a lot better bond,as a matrix than glass fiber and polyester resin. In fact I'm certain of it, having seen plenty of those fractures.
I did see air entrapment/glue starvation in the bands when I tried to remove them -- that's because they were wrapped and saturated several layers at once. The backing strip was only one layer thick and looked perfect. So the lesson is, only one layer at a time, let dry, then add another layer, to build thickness.
btw the rings are proving difficult to peel off. Really good adhesion to the wood. They are going to have to be sanded off.
-
Wouldnt it have been easier to just learn by listening to those with more knowledge and experience than by going thru and attempting that mess of a handle? Every experienced guy on here wouldnt have hesistated betting a good amount of money that it was gonna let loose.... Jus sayin...
-
Plan B...I have some of that flax like you got.Bought it somewhere.Hav'nt used it seriously yet on anything.I'm sure it'll come into use for me sometime.TB3 was the glue I was going to try with it too.The deal that drew me me to getting it was that it weighs a lot less than sinew.For the limbs[the back since it's good in tension.] in some sort of use like that where there is surface lateral tension going on.
I know this is regurgitated hindsite but in your situation there with the handle 3 wraps thick of sinew with hide glue the full length over those tapered rings on the handle,then some thick rawhide stretched and sewn on very tight over the whole handle might of held the handle together at 50# or lower.
Maybe someone may have mentioned that already.I've reinforced fades on bows already using sinew and rawhide.
An A+ though for your investigation of a M Heath type bow though, and showing the results.
-
Wouldnt it have been easier to just learn by listening to those with more knowledge and experience than by going thru and attempting that mess of a handle? Every experienced guy on here wouldnt have hesistated betting a good amount of money that it was gonna let loose.... Jus sayin...
Yep, easier. Easier to build a board bow. Easier to buy a glass bow. Easier to stop building and shooting and sit and watch television until you croak. But less interesting.
And I don't give a damn if somebody with more knowledge and experience doesn't like what I do.
Beadman, thanks, I'd rather post a structural failure that's part of an experiment than avoid that responsibility to the people following it.
-
Sometimes and I'd say most times the reasons for doing things are not explained,and sometimes people don't ask the right questions for why things are done in a certain way.The poster most times is open to any questions.I see your point about responsibility but the poster has already lived up to his by succeeding on his project.Most times the poster just wants to post results and not type forever explaining preconcieved questions that might arise.That's what's cool about this site,and I don't think you'll find a more helpful site out there.
I know I've run into advice that I did'nt want to hear.No shame in it at all.It's a long learning curve making all of these different types of bows.For me understanding the strong and weak points of materials is a must.
-
Interesting experiment. Like Blackhawk mentioned, I think sinew wraps would have made a difference in the longevity of the bow. In fact, if you just epoxy the handle back together and trade the flax wraps for sinew on the whole handle, I would be curious to see if you got more arrows through it than before.
-
Sinew wont change the results. Rather than breaking like the flax it will stretch after the glue line blows up, but still broke in the end.
-
Bubbles, that suggestion was beadman's, and I agree with it, and you, that sinew and/or rawhide could prove better. But flax is what I have and what I'm curious about, so that's what I'm going to continue to use.
I don't mind if the bow breaks again any more than a materials engineer minds that a test sample breaks. At this point I have nothing to lose by gluing this bow blank back together and testing more flax. Why throw these two limbs away without testing more?
So enough of the reasons why, I think I'm beating that horse to death here, and it's getting boring I bet. Let's talk about flax itself. What I'm seeing is what I think you'd expect of failure in flax.
Flax is reported to have high tensile strength for its weight, and have only 1% stretch. That's vs. 3% elongation for sinew. What that means to me is that flax will be great up until a point, but then it will break without stretching or warning. While sinew and rawhide will stretch more, and return for an equivalent amount of tensile strength at that loading. Stretch not by much, but some.
So if you are designing for flax, you want to overbuild the reinforcement so it doesn't come close to its break point. Presumably, it's still lighter when overbuilt than sinew or rawhide.
Okay, that's a theory. Not proof -- you'd have to do controlled tests to find that out, and specify all kinds of things like the quality of flax, glue/resin used, wood, test method etc. etc. and the same for the animal materials.
I'm not doing that. I'm doing it the sloppy, fun way, for me. My theory is that I went too thin on the backing, and I should have put it and the rings down in layers. I'm going to try that out on the same bow again. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. Let's find out........
edit: wrote this before I saw Pearl Drums post...
-
No need to soil ur diaper here dude.....chill out.
The merits and properties of flax isnt the issue here,or needs to be the solution in just adding more...your main problem here is the way you attached the limbs to the handle...nuff said.
Btw...sinew wraps was my suggestion first..but i even stated i wouldnt even continue with that even with sinew wraps over a poorly glued wrong type of glue joint used....reread your thread again.... :laugh:
-
bad luck...sorry it broke....just caught your thread, was wondering how it would go!!!
failures are the pillars of success.......I'm sure you learnt a lot.....I broke 2 bows last week....thats the way of bowyering it seems...they dont all work
Dave
-
I for one, appreciate the willingness to experiment and share the results. Even if the bow breaks, there is something to be learned.......by all who are participating in the discussion.
On the other hand, some commenter's seem to participate only by "dropping pronouncements from on high" just sayin.....
-
Blackhawk, there is no issue here with a "wrong" or "bad" glue joint.
There is no "right" glue joint because the original didn't have any glue joint. Just carved out violated end grain.
If I had just carved out that handle from a single piece of wood, exactly same manner as the original was done, it would have shown the same weakness and broken the same way. I knew that going in.
The whole point of this is a "what if" question. What if the builder of the original bow had banded the handle as well as the rest of the limbs. Would it have held? And what if I used flax instead of rawhide or sinew for banding reinforcing throughout?
I don't know anybody who can definitively answer those questions, other than offer a personal opinion based on entirely different bows and materials. Practically every MH replica bow built in recent times has avoided the crooked cross grain handle. But I didn't want to just do it with the usual straight handle. I want to see what those "what if's" in action not just take somebody's word for it.
Please, get off the glue joint -- that wasn't what broke. The point of that joint wasn't to make the bow act differently than the original weak cross grain handle but only to equal it. And I hope the new glue joint is just as bad or worse. That will be a good test of the banding and backing.
Sure blackhawk, if you did a totally different kind of handle joint, scarf, finger, laminated curve, grown curve, steam bent curve or a joint with different wood orientation, it might have been stronger. But that wouldn't have answered the two questions I had about band reinforcement on the original type of handle.
And substituting rawhide or sinew won't answer the questions I have about flax.
If you want to build a finger jointed rawhide backed Meare Heath, I promise I'll read your thread and applaud along with everybody else. But that ain't this project.
-
"And I don't give a damn if somebody with more knowledge and experience doesn't like what I do." Made my day :D
-
The bow is glued back together, and I spent a couple hours today removing the band reinforcements. Not an easy task.
(http://i.imgur.com/n3aUqSI.jpg?1)
-
Love the forensic Archilolgy aspect of your thread & exsparmental attitude keep it up can't wait for next update.
-
Pretty clearly too much leverage for such a short length of wood to hold together. Would have been extremely lucky if it held together and even then it probably would have been a ticking time-bomb. The meare heath bow has a much gentler transition in its setback than the bow you've made. Also it is made of yew which is known to be able to handle massive ring violations. I expect you may eventually make the concept work but not with that piece of wood.
-
I took an archaeology class at a local university a couple of years ago. One of the things I learned was that conclusions about the use of an artifact by its makers are always affected by some degree of conjecture (read GUESSING).
I'm not aware of evidence that the Meare Heath bow was even successfully used by its maker. That is pure conjecture mixed with assumption. Maybe the handle grain was so bad that it broke before it could even be shot once. Maybe if it had been shot once, the violated rings in the limb would have failed. Maybe it was pitched into the bog as a failure.
I do look forward to the results of your repair. I have used red maple, but not for this design.
Jim Davis
-
Ryoon, I appreciate your comment, as it's thoughtful. and thought provoking.
The length of the limbs doesn't affect the force on the handle, even though it would seem intuitively that a longer lever will produce a stronger force. That can be true of a lever in an unlimited mechanical sense.
But in the case of a bow, the force at the handle is actually always limited by the bowyer during construction to the draw weight he/she intends. The force applied by the bowyer's hand to the handle of a 50 lb draw bow is 50 lbs.
That is true whether the bow is 48" or 76" in length. What varies is the force applied at the tips of different length bows of the same draw weight. That compensates through tillering to yield 50 lbs at the handle on a 50 lb bow.
re. handle shape. : I agree with you that the shape of the bend in the handle of this bow is not quite the same as some illustrators have drawn of the original. But most of the handle is missing on the real bow, so those are necessarily guesses as well. The bottom of the original is completely gone. And that's probably why it broke.
The bottom of the handle I decided on is, I'm guessing, deeper than the original. I did that intentionally. This isn't a strict reconstruction, but it's closer than the straight handles usually seen on reproductions.
re. wood: I don't know what the quality of yew used in the original was, but references say it was all heartwood and in photos, highly violated. I wanted to try this bow in red maple to see if lighter limbs would yield somewhat better performance than one other reconstruction I read about. And because I've grown and cut it myself. here That was also a personal choice.
Asharrow, I agree with you totally. I didn't intend this to try to prove anything in archaeology. But just to do some things I'm curious about and have fun while doing it.