Primitive Archer
Main Discussion Area => Bows => Topic started by: Jack Napier on December 23, 2016, 12:55:17 pm
-
It's important to remember that the "growth rings can't be violated" dogma is a tradition of (civilized) Anglo-Saxon archery and that's why it's so popular on web forums such as this one. "Primitive" stone age bowyers were not aware of this "law" and thus "violated" growth rings frequently and violently. It would be impossible to build a true duplicate of an Ishi bow or a Cheyenne horsebow if you didn't violate the back of the bow, because that's exactly what they did. Honestly, after violating growth rings time and time again, and producing unbacked bows just won't break, I'm inclined to say that the primitives got it right yet again, and that this is nothing more than an Anglo-Saxon superstition.
-
Dogma or not it would make no sense to me to short cut a bow design by using a violated back of a bow with out atleast backing it , the odds can be against you even with a solid continuous ring on the back , especialy with high stressed self bow designs .
-
The 2 examples you used with a horse bow and ishi's bow were generally sinew backed and and violating a ring isn't that big a deal. Now a plain sawn board unless you chase a ring is violated. Most of the examples in museums of selfbows i have seen had a pretty clean back
-
And a browth ring CAN be violated
-
The idea of deliberately violating a back just to make a 'true duplicate" is ludicrous.
-
The idea of deliberately violating a back just to make a 'true duplicate" is ludicrous.
Well, you have to violate the back of the bow if you want to produce the true form. For example, Indian bows had a rectangular cross section which turned out to be superior to the English longbow's D-shaped cross section. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatbow#American_flatbow) Most North American bows had a flat back, there's no way to produce that without violating growth rings on the back of the bow. That's why I cringe when I see people on here with their "Native American" bows with round backs and smooth edges. Look at any Plains Indian bow from the 1800s, all flat and sharp as lumber. You'll never get real performance out of a rounded bow.
-
You need to read some more books. Native bows came in every shape and form and over a much longer period of time than 'the 1800s"
-
The 2 examples you used with a horse bow and ishi's bow were generally sinew backed and and violating a ring isn't that big a deal. Now a plain sawn board unless you chase a ring is violated. Most of the examples in museums of selfbows i have seen had a pretty clean back
I cast my doubts that a simple backing of sinew or rawhide is enough to prevent a splinter from lifting on a bow if the stakes are as high as the believers say they are, when growth rings get "violated". To say these bows were generally backed is misleading; some were, others weren't.
Here's your "sawn lumber":
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b0/e5/d9/b0e5d9355d1ac65c07b81b0ea2691b51.jpg)
-
You need to read some more books. Native bows came in every shape and form and over a much longer period of time than 'the 1800s"
Depends on where we're talking about. South American bows are very different from North American bows, which are much more influenced by East Asian styles. In South America you see lots of round, longbow-like specimens. But in North America and in the Arctic especially, rectangular cross sections with flat surfaces predominate. This was also the morphology of the wooden cores of Manchurian, Korean, Mongolian and Chinese bows.
-
Let's have a look at some of your bows and hear about their performance.
-
Good read :)
-
Let's have a look at some of your bows and hear about their performance.
We should put your bows to the test against my bows, since there's never actually been a study of any kind that demonstrates that violated bows are any less durable than plain unviolated back bows. Science has shown that the former do have superior performance, however, and they do distribute more stress over a greater area than unviolated bows, meaning that they should be more durable, as well.
-
Don't bite, Pat. Make him switch lures at least 5 or 6 more times.
-
Lol:
(http://www.photoscanada.com/gallery/albums/glenbow_museum_calgary/glenbow_museum_native_bow_arrows_027.jpg)
(http://i821.photobucket.com/albums/zz139/Ojibwa/Bitterroot/BowandArrows.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6200/6050335041_5f73232cb9_b.jpg)
(https://thefoxworthytravelingshow.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/20150711_155555x-large.jpg)
-
If think it would depend on the species of would your working with. If the wood has a distinctive early growth ring then the violated area just made the soft crumbly early growth have to take the strain, which it doesn't do too well. These would be woods like osage and black locust. If the wood doesn't have that weak crumbly layer then it wouldn't be that big of deal if the damage is cleaned up and smoothed. These would be stuff like hickory, yew, and juniper. There are more than those listed but gives an idea of the structure of the wood. I'd still rather not violate the rings if it can be helped, but wth some woods it isn't a big deal. The only one I've played with and allowed to be violated was a couple of sapwood backed black walnut.
Kyle
-
This is great. Now you know how we feel sometimes Pat ;D ;D
-
Oh GOD:
(http://www.sfmissionmuseum.org/archive/images/bmlm_800.jpg)
-
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 ? 🤔
-
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:
(http://i.imgur.com/piqyAb3.jpg?1)
-
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.
-
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 !
-
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:
(http://www.outpost-art.org/images/Miller%20Alfred%20Jacob/Dodging%20an%20Arrow%20(Crow).jpg)
It's no problem when you spread the stress of the tension over a flat surface.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
I don't think it was high jacked, I like the read :) :)
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Post your bow pics please ?
-
I know you're having a lot of fun getting a rise out of everyone but all you gotta do is go to your Workshop and do a bunch of tests on scraps. Have fun ruining this guy's thread but until you post something you made proving your point I can guarantee you you're falling on deaf ears.
For you guys that have been around here for a while this one reminds me of squirrel Slinger or whatever his name was
-
Jack, you may conduct your own test. I am not interested.
No need to chase a ring on walnut. Take off the bark and make a bow.
Jawge
-
BVS, I've done a couple of walnut bows where I chased a ring and got both sapwood and heartwood in the limbs. They both worked well. It is very difficult to chase a ring in walnut but doable with a little water and good light. The ones I did had moon rings. It's not too bad to get a yearly ring but yeoon rings give a little trouble. Both of mine had many small violations in the sapwood but has held fine. And a couple tips wth walnut, make if fairly wide, it bends easy with steam and it takes heat treating very well.
Kyle
-
Jack started out on PA by lamenting that he was unable to see how smooth finishes could be achieved without modern tools and posted pics of smooth NA bows, bewildered how they were pulling this off. Then he decided that most of them were rough and lumpy and it was unnecessary to make them smooth.
This latest violated back kick is likely confirmation bias as an answer to being unable to peel bark or work to a growth ring.
One thing worth considering is that bow wood is not a commodity that surrounds a person in the great wide open and the lumber that settlers dragged along with them was a likely source of lumberized bow wood of species that do withstand violations. Wagon hoops of Hickory etc. Pick handles etc.
-
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:
(http://www.outpost-art.org/images/Miller%20Alfred%20Jacob/Dodging%20an%20Arrow%20(Crow).jpg)
It's no problem when you spread the stress of the tension over a flat surface.
Do you know the difference between a painting and a photograph? lol Actual photos from the period show very short draws. VERY short in most cases.
In fact most of them make Osage Outlaw look like he's hooting a Yuni.
-
Jack started out on PA by lamenting that he was unable to see how smooth finishes could be achieved without modern tools and posted pics of smooth NA bows, bewildered how they were pulling this off. Then he decided that most of them were rough and lumpy and it was unnecessary to make them smooth.
This is an inaccurate description of what really happened, --but note that no one in those threads were able to give me a straight answer as to what they were really doing-- only more assumptions with no evidence.
This latest violated back kick is likely confirmation bias as an answer to being unable to peel bark or work to a growth ring.
I have no problems peeling bark or working growth rings. Who can't do that?
One thing worth considering is that bow wood is not a commodity that surrounds a person in the great wide open and the lumber that settlers dragged along with them was a likely source of lumberized bow wood of species that do withstand violations. Wagon hoops of Hickory etc. Pick handles etc.
Lumberized rocky mountain juniper? Lumberized chokecherry? Puh-leeze. I do know Indians sometimes made bows out of cattle yokes but that's not lumber.
-
I've seen about as many Patm bows as I have Jack Napier bows ;D
-
Do you know the difference between a painting and a photograph? lol Actual photos from the period show very short draws. VERY short in most cases.
In fact most of them make Osage Outlaw look like he's hooting a Yuni.
Wrong again you are sir.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/a9/ac/bf/a9acbf0acfc01af41cf1635d801399f4.jpg)
Driftwood bows:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/6b/59/7c/6b597cfeed115700098446033be81bb5.jpg)
-
I've seen about as many Patm bows as I have Jack Napier bows ;D
Pat M doesn't make bows, he makes oversized tooth picks. Wait till you see my bows, I'm going to take PrimitiveArcher's standards to the next level.
-
A Cherokee dressed as a Sioux and sinew backed Eskimo bows. Brilliant. lol
-
A Cherokee dressed as a Sioux and sinew backed Eskimo bows. Brilliant. lol
Those weren't sinew backed. They were balleen-cable braced. Huge difference. Sinew backing is a full covering that is alleged to keep splinters from lifting. All a cable (sinew or otherwise) does is relieve tension on the bow's back. And realistically that's going to be necessary for some shoddy driftwood.
-
Those weren't sinew backed. They were balleen-cable braced. Huge difference. Sinew backing is a full covering that is alleged to keep splinters from lifting. All a cable (sinew or otherwise) does is relieve tension on the bow's back. And realistically that's going to be necessary for some shoddy driftwood.
Alleged? A baleen cable, eh?
-
I've seen about as many Patm bows as I have Jack Napier bows ;D
. Comon Jack Im stuck at work needs some bow porn ? Show us some of those wicked rocket launchers of yours Please ?
-
Those weren't sinew backed. They were balleen-cable braced. Huge difference. Sinew backing is a full covering that is alleged to keep splinters from lifting. All a cable (sinew or otherwise) does is relieve tension on the bow's back. And realistically that's going to be necessary for some shoddy driftwood.
Alleged? A baleen cable, eh?
Yes. Can you imagine how much sinew would be required to make a cable this long? Only a whale's baleen was sufficient.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QlTAdivgTKY/Sqo8nYLtM9I/AAAAAAAAAtU/fqV7mopu8BY/s1600-h/CMC+bows03.jpg
-
I've seen about as many Patm bows as I have Jack Napier bows ;D
Pat M doesn't make bows, he makes oversized tooth picks. Wait till you see my bows, I'm going to take PrimitiveArcher's standards to the next level.
Not to stand up for patm, but I've seen some of his bows and haven't seen squat of yours in fact all we have got out of you is being told our bows are all junk and you spouting off how great you are. Go troll some where else and quit wasting everybody elses time. This ain't facebook put up or shut up
-
Those weren't sinew backed. They were balleen-cable braced. Huge difference. Sinew backing is a full covering that is alleged to keep splinters from lifting. All a cable (sinew or otherwise) does is relieve tension on the bow's back. And realistically that's going to be necessary for some shoddy driftwood.
Alleged? A baleen cable, eh?
Yes. Can you imagine how much sinew would be required to make a cable this long? Only a whale's baleen was sufficient.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QlTAdivgTKY/Sqo8nYLtM9I/AAAAAAAAAtU/fqV7mopu8BY/s1600-h/CMC+bows03.jpg
So that's baleen? How did they process and braid it?
-
Those weren't sinew backed. They were balleen-cable braced. Huge difference. Sinew backing is a full covering that is alleged to keep splinters from lifting. All a cable (sinew or otherwise) does is relieve tension on the bow's back. And realistically that's going to be necessary for some shoddy driftwood.
Alleged? A baleen cable, eh?
Yes. Can you imagine how much sinew would be required to make a cable this long? Only a whale's baleen was sufficient.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QlTAdivgTKY/Sqo8nYLtM9I/AAAAAAAAAtU/fqV7mopu8BY/s1600-h/CMC+bows03.jpg
So that's baleen? How did they process and braid it?
I'm unsure how they did that but they also made nets with baleen, some 70 feet long for trapping birds...
-
So the thought that Eskimos used sinew cable backs is erroneous?
-
Those weren't sinew backed. They were balleen-cable braced. Huge difference. Sinew backing is a full covering that is alleged to keep splinters from lifting. All a cable (sinew or otherwise) does is relieve tension on the bow's back. And realistically that's going to be necessary for some shoddy driftwood.
Alleged? A baleen cable, eh?
He must not realize that baleen is plates made from the same thing horn is, you would have to saw it in some small strips to make a cable from it
-
He must not realize that baleen is plates made from the same thing horn is, you would have to saw it in some small strips to make a cable from it
Well, looks like we got another ill-informed assumption from a balding middle aged non-Eskimo male. The eskimo made braided nets and knots from baleen cordage to make cables for bows and nets for animal trapping and they had no long saws.
Nets may also have been used for winter sealing as indicated by balleen cordage and knots found on Qeqertasussuk
https://books.google.com/books?id=0K3Np5MHPtcC&pg=PA118
It was commonly used to crease paper; its flexibility kept it from damaging the paper. It was also occasionally used in cable-backed bows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baleen
-
Hey Jack how many Beers 🍻 tonight Bud ?
-
So the thought that Eskimos used sinew cable backs is erroneous?
Well, some bows undoubtedly used sinew and were much smaller without the massive cable. They are also likely to have been made of antler. Only baleen could ever provide that massive cable.
-
So the thought that Eskimos used sinew cable backs is erroneous?
Well, some bows undoubtedly used sinew and were much smaller without the massive cable. They are also likely to have been made of antler. Only baleen could ever provide that massive cable.
Why is that? Aren't ropes just made by adding more of the same?
-
So the thought that Eskimos used sinew cable backs is erroneous?
Well, some bows undoubtedly used sinew and were much smaller without the massive cable. They are also likely to have been made of antler. Only baleen could ever provide that massive cable.
Why is that? Aren't ropes just made by adding more of the same?
Yes but you can only get so much sinew from a caribou. Think about how little sinew you get from four leg tendons and a backstrap, and compare that to what you get from baleen. Now consider that sinew had to be used for other, more pertinent tasks like sewing clothing and kayaks. There simply was not enough of this precious material to go around, particlarly among those further inshore.
-
So the thought that Eskimos used sinew cable backs is erroneous?
Well, some bows undoubtedly used sinew and were much smaller without the massive cable. They are also likely to have been made of antler. Only baleen could ever provide that massive cable.
Why is that? Aren't ropes just made by adding more of the same?
Pat that's because this guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, i guess those sinew bow strings are only 8" long lol. When you have to resort to name calling and Wikipedia for a response it's not worth my time, how about you?
-
So the thought that Eskimos used sinew cable backs is erroneous?
Well, some bows undoubtedly used sinew and were much smaller without the massive cable. They are also likely to have been made of antler. Only baleen could ever provide that massive cable.
Why is that? Aren't ropes just made by adding more of the same?
Yes but you can only get so much sinew from a caribou. Think about how little sinew you get from four leg tendons and a backstrap, and compare that to what you get from baleen. Now consider that sinew had to be used for other, more pertinent tasks like sewing clothing and kayaks. There simply was not enough of this precious material to go around, particlarly among those further inshore.
An animal has tendons in the front of the legs too. ;)
However I think sinew is a bit more readily stockpiled than hunting or finding whales for baleen. Speaking of precious material...
Maybe you should consider that the main part of the bow would be baleen?
-
So the thought that Eskimos used sinew cable backs is erroneous?
Well, some bows undoubtedly used sinew and were much smaller without the massive cable. They are also likely to have been made of antler. Only baleen could ever provide that massive cable.
Why is that? Aren't ropes just made by adding more of the same?
Pat that's because this guy doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, i guess those sinew bow strings are only 8" long lol. When you have to resort to name calling and Wikipedia for a response it's not worth my time, how about you?
Making sinew bow strings isn't that big of a problem although many groups preferred to make them from babiche. A bow string is maybe 40" long but those cables on the big bows are over 100 feet long.
-
I'm curious how much ainew they got from whales and seals. I would assume they would have quite a bit of back strap sinew.
Kyle
-
So the thought that Eskimos used sinew cable backs is erroneous?
Well, some bows undoubtedly used sinew and were much smaller without the massive cable. They are also likely to have been made of antler. Only baleen could ever provide that massive cable.
Why is that? Aren't ropes just made by adding more of the same?
Yes but you can only get so much sinew from a caribou. Think about how little sinew you get from four leg tendons and a backstrap, and compare that to what you get from baleen. Now consider that sinew had to be used for other, more pertinent tasks like sewing clothing and kayaks. There simply was not enough of this precious material to go around, particlarly among those further inshore.
An animal has tendons in the front of the legs too. ;)
However I think sinew is a bit more readily stockpiled than hunting or finding whales for baleen. Speaking of precious material...
Maybe you should consider that the main part of the bow would be baleen?
Doesn't matter, those tendons are short and contribute nothing. A backstrap offers one light backing of sinew for a bow, now tell me how many caribou backstraps do you think you would need to produce +100 feet of cordage? Keep in mind these people were strapped for sinew with all that multilayered clothing they wore and all that kayak jointing.
-
This is hilarious!!!
-
Seems like Jack doesn't know his name. ;)
-
So the thought that Eskimos used sinew cable backs is erroneous?
Well, some bows undoubtedly used sinew and were much smaller without the massive cable. They are also likely to have been made of antler. Only baleen could ever provide that massive cable.
Why is that? Aren't ropes just made by adding more of the same?
Yes but you can only get so much sinew from a caribou. Think about how little sinew you get from four leg tendons and a backstrap, and compare that to what you get from baleen. Now consider that sinew had to be used for other, more pertinent tasks like sewing clothing and kayaks. There simply was not enough of this precious material to go around, particlarly among those further inshore.
An animal has tendons in the front of the legs too. ;)
However I think sinew is a bit more readily stockpiled than hunting or finding whales for baleen. Speaking of precious material...
Maybe you should consider that the main part of the bow would be baleen?
Doesn't matter, those tendons are short and contribute nothing. A backstrap offers one light backing of sinew for a bow, now tell me how many caribou backstraps do you think you would need to produce +100 feet of cordage? Keep in mind these people were strapped for sinew with all that multilayered clothing they wore and all that kayak jointing.
They used whale sinew. So there was plenty on hand. Huge 12' peices would go a long way.
-
It is indeed. The images he posts give no clear indication that those bows have a violated back.
If Jack wants to prove his point then he should post bows he has made himself, at full draw :)
-
I'm curious how much ainew they got from whales and seals. I would assume they would have quite a bit of back strap sinew.
Kyle
I'm unsure about whales but seals definitely could not account for it.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter if the cable is made from sinew or baleen. The point is that it's a cable and not a sinew backing. A sinew backing is a covering glued over thd width of the bow's back which serves to relieve tension on the bow and and (allegedly) reinforce its surface by preventing splinters from lifing. A cable bracing, on the other hand, is just a cable that runs along the center of the bow which alleviates tension stress on the bow but does nothing to prevent splinters from rising.
This is especially relevent since driftwood is guaranteed to have violated grains; you literally cannot get to the good stuff without adzing or splitting off the worthless, punky outer layer. Dragging on this useless discussion about cable bows only distracts from the original topic of growth ring violation and I suspect that's shy some are choosing to push this as far as they can.
-
It is indeed. The images he posts give no clear indication that those bows have a violated back.
Yes they do. If you canot see this, you are an amateur. In adition to this, violation of growth rings by North American aboriginals is a well desribed phenomena in athropological literature
(http://i.imgur.com/piqyAb3.jpg?1)
-
Jack....Violated superior to one growth ring?How about when you go through a knot?What do you think's going to happen?
-
I'm sorry Mr. Jack but calling Marc an amateur is not ok.
Now I have made bows with violated backs with wood like vinemaple and yew. Other than that I stick with one ring unless I want to back the bow. And yes I've made unbanked flat backed bows as well as to say they are better... well that's just putting holes in a bucket.
And before you knock the longbow. Which is imo way better to shoot. Before the NA horse culture they shot longbows.
-
a yo Jack Napier i just wanna say i really appreciate you doing what you're doing, trying to lift the lid on the old wives tales, mad respect son. i've been skeptical about this growth ring violation stuff, cuz i'm a musician and we have myths like this in our profession, y'knaw mean?
when i had to do violin in highschool i remember everybody saying 'quartersawn lumber is best, quartersawn is the strongest'. for real? cause that totally defies intuition. years later i found out all these 'experts' were totally wrong. the exact opposite was the case.
http://liutaiomottola.com/myth/quartersawn.htm
man, when these hobos gon' learn?
much luv from the jamaica queens
-
This is hilarious!!!
-
I'm telling you this must be squirrel Slinger or squirrel Slayer or whatever his name was.... we haven't had this much Ridiculousness on here since his Christmas tree build!
-
Jack....Violated superior to one growth ring?How about when you go through a knot?What do you think's going to happen?
Absolutely nothing. I don't understand why everybody has this superstition about cutting down knots -- and refuses to evolve from there. This is another holdover from the English longbow days when English bowyers had to make due with crappy quality, knotty wood. I understand why English techniques are going to predominate in an Anglosphere country, but as a dyed-in-the-wool Cornish American, can we move beyond Victorian ideas about bow making, and realize, for once, that our ancestors didn't get everything right? HOWEVER, I generally avoid knots because they are useless weight in a bow. It's not the year 1600 anymore, we don't depend on a deplinishing supply of yew for bow wood anymore, and so there's really no need to take knotty bow staves anymore. In today's world of carbon emissions and global warming we need to be choosing our trees very responsibly.
-
I'm curious how much ainew they got from whales and seals. I would assume they would have quite a bit of back strap sinew.
Kyle
I'm unsure about whales but seals definitely could not account for it.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter if the cable is made from sinew or baleen. The point is that it's a cable and not a sinew backing. A sinew backing is a covering glued over thd width of the bow's back which serves to relieve tension on the bow and and (allegedly) reinforce its surface by preventing splinters from lifing. A cable bracing, on the other hand, is just a cable that runs along the center of the bow which alleviates tension stress on the bow but does nothing to prevent splinters from rising.
This is especially relevent since driftwood is guaranteed to have violated grains; you literally cannot get to the good stuff without adzing or splitting off the worthless, punky outer layer. Dragging on this useless discussion about cable bows only distracts from the original topic of growth ring violation and I suspect that's shy some are choosing to push this as far as they can.
No. But you just said both types of backing work the same way. They alleviate tension stress on the underlying wood. Which is good if it is violated or tension weak.
-
You can't dispell a myth or become an expert by reading about it...build 500 bows or so and then we'll talk, and while your at it post pics of your work not some museum pics, put up or shut up
-
Jack...I'm really close to Missouri.I believe in show me as a fact of truth.Phenomena???Anthropolgy literature??? as proof of yours?Show me a finished violated flat back knotty self bow at full draw that you've made that is deer killing potential.
So since I put myself into a student chair to listen here what are your opinions on violating the longitudal grain?I'm ready to learn from a hands on expert.
-
I'm curious how much ainew they got from whales and seals. I would assume they would have quite a bit of back strap sinew.
Kyle
I'm unsure about whales but seals definitely could not account for it.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter if the cable is made from sinew or baleen. The point is that it's a cable and not a sinew backing. A sinew backing is a covering glued over thd width of the bow's back which serves to relieve tension on the bow and and (allegedly) reinforce its surface by preventing splinters from lifing. A cable bracing, on the other hand, is just a cable that runs along the center of the bow which alleviates tension stress on the bow but does nothing to prevent splinters from rising.
This is especially relevent since driftwood is guaranteed to have violated grains; you literally cannot get to the good stuff without adzing or splitting off the worthless, punky outer layer. Dragging on this useless discussion about cable bows only distracts from the original topic of growth ring violation and I suspect that's shy some are choosing to push this as far as they can.
No. But you just said both types of backing work the same way. They alleviate tension stress on the underlying wood. Which is good if it is violated or tension weak.
They work the ssme way but the cordage does not afford the same reinforcement that a sinew or rawhide covering does. That's the thing. A sinew layer glued over the bow provides non-working protection on top of the tension relief that atretching sinew provides. A cable doesn't offer that, so it's not a good comparison.
-
You can't dispell a myth or become an expert by reading about it...build 500 bows or so and then we'll talk, and while your at it post pics of your work not some museum pics, put up or shut up
Alright alright we'll get some of those pictures for you... Some videos, too. It's gonna be revolutionary when people realize how this grain violation stuff was all just a bunch of voodoo. I hope I'll at least get nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize or something!
-
So it stretches but it's non-working. What engineering school did you say you went to again?
-
So it stretches but it's non-working. What engineering school did you say you went to again?
You already know what I meant, and you're pretending you don't understand here. A cable doesn't glue over the grain and reinforce the surface like rawhide, sinew, linen and fiberglass do. It doesn't offer non-working protection.
-
Jack...I'm really close to Missouri.I believe in show me as a fact of truth.Phenomena???Anthropolgy literature??? as proof of yours?Show me a finished violated flat back knotty self bow at full draw that you've made that is deer killing potential.
So since I put myself into a student chair to listen here what are your opinions on violating the longitudal grain?I'm ready to learn from a hands on expert.
Longitudal grain violations are not a problem. I'm almost certain that PatM will agree with me on this one. If PatM doesn't agree with this, we're going to have a serious problem here.
-
Jack....Violated superior to one growth ring?How about when you go through a knot?What do you think's going to happen?
Absolutely nothing. I don't understand why everybody has this superstition about cutting down knots -- and refuses to evolve from there. This is another holdover from the English longbow days when English bowyers had to make due with crappy quality, knotty wood. I understand why English techniques are going to predominate in an Anglosphere country, but as a dyed-in-the-wool Cornish American, can we move beyond Victorian ideas about bow making, and realize, for once, that our ancestors didn't get everything right? HOWEVER, I generally avoid knots because they are useless weight in a bow. It's not the year 1600 anymore, we don't depend on a deplinishing supply of yew for bow wood anymore, and so there's really no need to take knotty bow staves anymore. In today's world of carbon emissions and global warming we need to be choosing our trees very responsibly.
You are wrong my friend.Again show me your bow you've made bud.I suggest you pull some shavings and make some bows and show them.Then we could see as you stated a new superior concept from you far above what's been shown on this forum.
Your opinion of sinew and what it will do as a backing is wrong too.
-
So it stretches but it's non-working. What engineering school did you say you went to again?
You already know what I meant, and you're pretending you don't understand here. A cable doesn't glue over the grain and reinforce the surface like rawhide, sinew, linen and fiberglass do. It doesn't offer non-working protection.
No, I actually don't know what you're trying to say. A cable doesn't have to be glued to function the same.
-
So it stretches but it's non-working. What engineering school did you say you went to again?
You already know what I meant, and you're pretending you don't understand here. A cable doesn't glue over the grain and reinforce the surface like rawhide, sinew, linen and fiberglass do. It doesn't offer non-working protection.
No, I actually don't know what you're trying to say. A cable doesn't have to be glued to function the same.
Yes it would, Pat. Not only would it need to be glued down, it would need to cover the entire length of the bow. I'll say it again, the cable is doing diddly squat to preveng splinters from rising and you know that. It's nothing like a linen backing.
-
Well then make a Spruce or Douglas fir bow with no cable backing and haul it back. ;)
-
Well then make a Spruce or Douglas fir bow with no cable backing and haul it back. ;)
C'mon Pat, don't make yourself look like a non-functioning autist here. Go ahead and make yourself a spruce bow with no linen backing and just haul it back. Or better yet, make a spruce bow with violated growth rings and don't back it all and haul it back. That is exactly what people used back in the day in Canada.
(http://i.imgur.com/TPwW4Wl.png?1)
-
Hey Jack I don't know if you relies this but every body on this site has made a bow or 2 or 500 un like
You there willing to back up there comments with there ex samples of there bows , I don't know if your doing some early celebrating or if your really a bower but it seems to me you can't back up your comments with any ex samples of your mythical bows , seems to me your just seeking some attention but there's Face book & twitter that you could probably get more people to buy your malarkey ,but this is a hands on rubber on the road site so ether show your bows that you bragged up or move on to social media :o :o
-
Sinew is a working part of the bow. Another in a long list of assumptions
-
I've done some experimenting with violating thin ringed osage. I do believe that you can get away with it to some extent if it is done correctly. However, your attitude and arrogance have completely nullified any valid points you may have brought up. Reading your posts is like hugging a cactus. You have made wild claims about your work yet you have not posted anything that would back it up. You have also insulted some very talented and proven bowyers. I think you owe them an apology.
-
I'm still laughing about using baleen to make a cable ;D
-
I've done some experimenting with violating think ringed osage. I do believe that you can get away with it to some extent if it is done correctly. However, your attitude and arrogance have completely nullified any valid points you may have brought up. Reading your posts is like hugging a cactus. You have made wild claims about your work yet you have not posted anything that would back it up. You have also insulted some very talented and proven bowyers. I think you owe them an apology.
Put my feelings into words better than I ever could have :)
-
Hey Jack I don't know if you relies this but every body on this site has made a bow or 2 or 500 un like
You there willing to back up there comments with there ex samples of there bows , I don't know if your doing some early celebrating or if your really a bower but it seems to me you can't back up your comments with any ex samples of your mythical bows , seems to me your just seeking some attention but there's Face book & twitter that you could probably get more people to buy your malarkey ,but this is a hands on rubber on the road site so ether show your bows that you bragged up or move on to social media :o :o
you talkin' sideways, homie. my man already showed y'all countless unbacked bows with violated rings that must have been used for hunting or even drive by shootings. how could it get mo' real than that? everybody knows you violate the growth rings on your bows. that's how you get you a gangsta bow. did you know you violate your sinew too when you splice it on top of itself? oy vey!
man, violating growth rings is the key to a successful bow. those growth rings work in conjunction with eachother like a system. It's like laminating your bow and it takes the stress off the back.
-
Yep but none where his Dog >:
-
Well then make a Spruce or Douglas fir bow with no cable backing and haul it back. ;)
C'mon Pat, don't make yourself look like a non-functioning autist here. Go ahead and make yourself a spruce bow with no linen backing and just haul it back. Or better yet, make a spruce bow with violated growth rings and don't back it all and haul it back. That is exactly what people used back in the day in Canada.
(http://i.imgur.com/TPwW4Wl.png?1)
Now you're using a bad drawings to prove it works for a full draw? lol
-
I'm going to go out on a violated limb here and guess that Jack Napier and gangsta bow are the same person.
-
Exactly this clown really must be lonely but got to admit entertaining thread to bad it has no merit
-
I'm going to go out on a violated limb here and guess that Jack Napier and gangsta bow are the same person.
I can toss you a baleen cable if you feel unsafe.
-
If you scour the web for comments about violating growth rings, you will actually find more comments from people downplaying the value unviolated growth rings, such as this:
http://tradgang.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=125;t=001618
Posted by Roy Steele (Member # 18965) on July 18, 2009 03:18 PM:
Hickory is one of favored bow woods and I've built at least 15 unbacked bows.Some had violated rings that were great bows.
If your worryed back it but sinew is a long drawen out messy job thats not nessary with hickory.
My all time favorite bow was a hickory with violat rings that was barnished.
Posted by ChristopherO (Member # 12490) on July 18, 2009 02:05 PM:
A Hickory Board Bow has a violated back from the get go and I've not had one break, yet. Not that I've made many but a few that are very strong
A good number of people also report higher performance in violated bows, such as this example:
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php?topic=43071.0
I built a d bow that is 56" long 55# @ 26" and it has 5 different rings on the back. It is violated the whole way and I actually tillered it like that all the way then glued some cotton bed sheets on it. That thing is SOOOOOOOO fast!!!!!!!!!
Of course these are just three examples but there's a treasure trove of comments like this online.
What will you do, to determine the cause of this apparent superior performance?
-
I'm going to go out on a violated limb here and guess that Jack Napier and gangsta bow are the same person.
I can toss you a baleen cable if you feel unsafe.
Baleen cables aren't safe. They ensared countless seals so if someone throws one at you, that probably means they're trying to kill you.
-
Where are the countless sample of your exquisite bows ? maybe because there are none >:D
-
You know a lot of people think their bows are screaminfast till they chrono them
-
If you scour the web for comments about violating growth rings, you will actually find more comments from people downplaying the value unviolated growth rings, such as this:
http://tradgang.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=print_topic;f=125;t=001618
Posted by Roy Steele (Member # 18965) on July 18, 2009 03:18 PM:
Hickory is one of favored bow woods and I've built at least 15 unbacked bows.Some had violated rings that were great bows.
If your worryed back it but sinew is a long drawen out messy job thats not nessary with hickory.
My all time favorite bow was a hickory with violat rings that was barnished.
Posted by ChristopherO (Member # 12490) on July 18, 2009 02:05 PM:
A Hickory Board Bow has a violated back from the get go and I've not had one break, yet. Not that I've made many but a few that are very strong
A good number of people also report higher performance in violated bows, such as this example:
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php?topic=43071.0
I built a d bow that is 56" long 55# @ 26" and it has 5 different rings on the back. It is violated the whole way and I actually tillered it like that all the way then glued some cotton bed sheets on it. That thing is SOOOOOOOO fast!!!!!!!!!
Of course these are just three examples but there's a treasure trove of comments like this online.
What will you do, to determine the cause of this apparent superior performance?
Nothing screams documented performance like bedsheets and SOOOOOO fast.!!!!! ;)
-
Ladies and Gentlemen, for an attestment to the durability of unviolated growth rings, please see the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoevdKaF6ko
-
Ha, he's back after his Grand hiatus
-
Beliefs that are not founded in logic cannot be disproved with logic.
-
Beliefs that are not founded in logic cannot be disproved with logic.
That's not true. One very prevalent and illogical belief ("quartersawn wood is stronger than flat sawn wood") has already been disproved with data, as Gangsta Bow showed. Now it's time for bowyering to learn it's lesson. Violated growth rings are not detrimental to a bow's integrity.
-
Jack...I'm really close to Missouri.I believe in show me as a fact of truth.Phenomena???Anthropolgy literature??? as proof of yours?Show me a finished violated flat back knotty self bow at full draw that you've made that is deer killing potential.
So since I put myself into a student chair to listen here what are your opinions on violating the longitudal grain?I'm ready to learn from a hands on expert.
Longitudal grain violations are not a problem. I'm almost certain that PatM will agree with me on this one. If PatM doesn't agree with this, we're going to have a serious problem here.
Actually violations in the taper don't have much effect but you have to follow the grain of the bow longitudinally. You can't cut a straight bow from a curvy stave
-
Jack could make a bow from a curly Maple gunstock.. This boy is GOOOD!
-
Beliefs that are not founded in logic cannot be disproved with logic.
That's not true. One very prevalent and illogical belief ("quartersawn wood is stronger than flat sawn wood") has already been disproved with data, as Gangsta Bow showed. Now it's time for bowyering to learn it's lesson. Violated growth rings are not detrimental to a bow's integrity.
You do realize that building a violin has no, absolutely no commonality with building a bow and has no place in this thread
-
show me a scientific paper which demonstrates that violated growth rings make a bow more likely to break. show me the money, frankie. until you have science on your side, it's nothing but an old wives tale. y'nah mean?
-
And we all know the dude in the video
-
show me a scientific paper which demonstrates that violated growth rings make a bow more likely to break. show me the money, frankie. until you have science on your side, it's nothing but an old wives tale. y'nah mean?
Show one that does
-
You do realize that building a violin has no, absolutely no commonality with building a bow and has no place in this thread
that don't change the fact that it's a very widespread belief that extends beyond violins. everybody seems to think quartersawn grain is stronger, including bowyers. they're all wrong. science says so. face facts, yo. violatin' the grain ain't no thang but a chicken wang.
-
Moderators, isn't there a rule about making multiple user accounts? This guy is a joke and needs to be dealt with.
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,9065.0.html
-
Jack, do you know what burden of proof is? ;)
"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.[1]" - Wikipedia: Philosophical burden of proof
Also if you expect scientific data from a hobbyist community then you're going to come up short. Many of us don't care or have the time to conduct scientific studies just to "prove" what we have learned from experience. In this game anecdotal evidence is what you'll get and let me tell ya, it's produced some amazing bows and bowyers and they only keep getting better. It would be truly ignorant to ignore the massive amount of anecdotal evidence of thousands of people accumulated over decades/centuries, believing that a single scientific paper (which always have plenty of their own flaws) has any more weight.
-
Moderators, isn't there a rule about making multiple user accounts? This guy is a joke and needs to be dealt with.
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,9065.0.html
You're going to get him banned before he dazzles us with his work.
-
Also if you expect scientific data from a hobbyist community then you're going to come up short. Many of us don't care or have the time to conduct scientific studies just to "prove" what we have learned from experience. In this game anecdotal evidence is what you'll get and let me tell ya, it's produced some amazing bows and bowyers and they only keep getting better. It would be truly ignorant to ignore the massive amount of anecdotal evidence of thousands of people accumulated over decades/centuries, believing that a single scientific paper (which always have plenty of their own flaws) has any more weight.
bows aren't getting better. this dude wrong. he needs to step his vocabulary up cuz he's startin' to sound like a flat earther. the bows I see on the internet look like some straight up dookie. all knotty, twisted, lookin' like a shillelagh. i see bows breaking all the time on forums, but most of the old injun bows are still holding the string 150 years later. can't nobody top the records the Khanites were setting 700 years ago. what's ignorant is holding on to these old fashioned beliefs without critically examining them. see what happens when people do that is they start flying and walking on the moon. word!
-
Moderators, isn't there a rule about making multiple user accounts? This guy is a joke and needs to be dealt with.
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,9065.0.html
You're going to get him banned before he dazzles us with his work.
I'm fine with that.
-
Moderators, isn't there a rule about making multiple user accounts? This guy is a joke and needs to be dealt with.
http://www.primitivearcher.com/smf/index.php/topic,9065.0.html
You're going to get him banned before he dazzles us with his work.
I'm fine with that.
proof ? add me on facebook if you think i'm not real. y'all like the spanish inquisition up in here with your paranoid, censorship loving, anti-science mentality.
-
Also if you expect scientific data from a hobbyist community then you're going to come up short. Many of us don't care or have the time to conduct scientific studies just to "prove" what we have learned from experience. In this game anecdotal evidence is what you'll get and let me tell ya, it's produced some amazing bows and bowyers and they only keep getting better. It would be truly ignorant to ignore the massive amount of anecdotal evidence of thousands of people accumulated over decades/centuries, believing that a single scientific paper (which always have plenty of their own flaws) has any more weight.
bows aren't getting better. this dude wrong. he needs to step his vocabulary up cuz he's startin' to sound like a flat earther. the bows I see on the internet look like some straight up dookie. all knotty, twisted, lookin' like a shillelagh. i see bows breaking all the time on forums, but most of the old injun bows are still holding the string 150 years later. can't nobody top the records the Khanites were setting 700 years ago. what's ignorant is holding on to these old fashioned beliefs without critically examining them. see what happens when people do that is they start flying and walking on the moon. word!
Conveniently avoid my point about burden of proof, throw in some good ol ad hominem, and make points without any evidence. Seems to be some romanticism about Native American knowledge somehow lacking the same "old fashioned beliefs" that only modern men create. People are people, guaranteed their beliefs about bows were founded on the same anecdotal evidence and experience that ours are. But anyways, beginning a discussion with the sole purpose of changing others minds as opposed to wanting to create discussion to learn will only result in this kind of bickering. You've clearly followed the former. 8)
-
burden of proof
https://encyclopediadramatica.se/The_Burden_of_Proof
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Abuse
-
Conveniently avoid my point about burden of proof, throw in some good ol ad hominem, and make points without any evidence. Seems to be some romanticism about Native American knowledge somehow lacking the same "old fashioned beliefs" that only modern men create. People are people, guaranteed their beliefs about bows were founded on the same anecdotal evidence and experience that ours are. But anyways, beginning a discussion with the sole purpose of changing others minds as opposed to wanting to create discussion to learn will only result in this kind of bickering. You've clearly followed the former. 8)
Ah the good ol "Burden of Proof" fallacy. Thanks but no thanks, Socrates, I don't follow your misguided philosophical dogma. Maybe you'll want to take that up with the Hague or whoever cares. When it comes to anecdotal experience, who would you listen to? Because Native Americans blew a hole through Viking selfbowyers when they tried to settle Canada. Eskimos blew a hole through the Viking selfbowyers on Greenland. Mongolians used violated grain wood and destroyed the selfbowyers of the world. Let's face it, these people knew what they were doing. They made the best, most efficient bows. So if we're going to go from anecdotal experience on bowmaking, we have to go with Native Americans. Science already proved their bows superior in one way. Let's watch it happen in another.
-
Conveniently avoid my point about burden of proof, throw in some good ol ad hominem, and make points without any evidence. Seems to be some romanticism about Native American knowledge somehow lacking the same "old fashioned beliefs" that only modern men create. People are people, guaranteed their beliefs about bows were founded on the same anecdotal evidence and experience that ours are. But anyways, beginning a discussion with the sole purpose of changing others minds as opposed to wanting to create discussion to learn will only result in this kind of bickering. You've clearly followed the former. 8)
Ah the good ol "Burden of Proof" fallacy. Thanks but no thanks, Socrates, but I don't follow your misguided philosophical dogma. Maybe you'll want to take that up with the Hague or whoever cares. When it comes to anecdotal experience, who would you listen to? Because Native Americans blew a hole through Viking selfbowyers when they tried to settle Canada. Eskimos blew a hole through the Viking selfbowyers on Greenland. Mongolians used violated grain wood and destroyed the selfbowyers of the world. Let's face it, these people knew what they were doing. They made the best, most efficient bows. So if we're going to go from anecdotal experience on bowmaking, we have to go with Native Americans. Science already proved their bows superior in one way. Let's watch it happen in another.
k
-
Also if you expect scientific data from a hobbyist community then you're going to come up short. Many of us don't care or have the time to conduct scientific studies just to "prove" what we have learned from experience. In this game anecdotal evidence is what you'll get and let me tell ya, it's produced some amazing bows and bowyers and they only keep getting better. It would be truly ignorant to ignore the massive amount of anecdotal evidence of thousands of people accumulated over decades/centuries, believing that a single scientific paper (which always have plenty of their own flaws) has any more weight.
bows aren't getting better. this dude wrong. he needs to step his vocabulary up cuz he's startin' to sound like a flat earther. the bows I see on the internet look like some straight up dookie. all knotty, twisted, lookin' like a shillelagh. i see bows breaking all the time on forums, but most of the old injun bows are still holding the string 150 years later. can't nobody top the records the Khanites were setting 700 years ago. what's ignorant is holding on to these old fashioned beliefs without critically examining them. see what happens when people do that is they start flying and walking on the moon. word!
We are still waiting to see pictures or videos of your incredible bows.
-
Jack i'm all for abolishing dogma and am intruged with the concept. However, you haven't probided much evidence other than a couple of pictures unstrung. I would be content with that scientific article you mention. Just give us a link. Post a picture of full drawn violated bow without backing.
I think i buy the concept as long as its backed but not otherwise. My first succesful bow was a violated duglus fir but it had a lot of sinew. I want to believe this, but instead of providing convincing evidence like everyone has been asking for you've been too busy trolling. This has discredited a potentially insightful conversation.
-
Jack i'm all for abolishing dogma and am intruged with the concept. However, you haven't probided much evidence other than a couple of pictures unstrung. I would be content with that scientific article you mention. Just give us a link. Post a picture of full drawn violated bow without backing.
I think i buy the concept as long as its backed but not otherwise. My first succesful bow was a violated duglus fir but it had a lot of sinew. I want to believe this, but instead of providing convincing evidence like everyone has been asking for you've been too busy trolling. This has discredited a potentially insightful conversation.
Gee do you think these Indians went to all the trouble of making those bows for nothing? Of all the things an Indian had time to spare for in the 1800s? Do you really think none of those bows were ever fired? They were all unbacked bows.
-
No they weren't all unbacked jeeze nothing but miss info and bs. Never seen a sheep horn bow a horse bow an ishi bow or paddle bow, bows from the yosemite valley you haven't got a clue there are plenty of examples of backed bows made by indigenous people. And those Mongol bows you talked about, sinew backed horn bows
-
I'm going to go out on a violated limb here and guess that Jack Napier and gangsta bow are the same person.
Yup.
This dude is just as bad as the squirrel kid.
-
I'll give you credit where credit is due. Those few pictures you posted were successful voilated NA bows. But you can't know how many broke to get those succesful ones, nor their intended draw length. You also can't say that all NA bows were unbacked voilated bows. I could pull up just as many unvoilated native american bows if i searched the web, as well as backed ones. Cherry picking photos just isn't going to cut it. It's a start but you need more man.
If you really want to prove your point just link the sientific article, or post a picture of one of your bows its that easy.
-
I cant believe i read this whole thread. :-[
-
Jack or Gangsta.....You don't seem to be making any headway with convincing people here.Is that all you got?A bunch of quoted literature and museum pictures?You seem pretty proud and admiring of your statements but not of your work.I call that all show and no go.Getting vile and name calling with your statements does not help your argument any and is the showing of bad manners.
Do you really think you've done more research about different designed and cultural bows than the whole PA community?By the sound and depth of knowledge of your statements you hav'nt.Just by my accounts I see you are wrong about at least 4 different things about bow making successfuly.Speaking for myself you are'nt making any big ground breaking notifications about bow making.Your old news that we've all seen and heard before with no burden of proof behind it like the others.
You definitely don't have the appeal for wooden bows that a true primitive archer has describing what you think is an ugly bow IMHO.Maybe it's because you can't make a bow or can't hit anything with one.Either way it's just not there.Maybe your a compound shooter.That would make sense.I've met many that would like to make and shoot a wooden bow but tell themselves they can't and can only criticize a primitive archers' efforts.So until you show me your wasting your breath.
With no proof of work yourself you criticize work of others which falls into the catagory of all show and no go again.
-
This rather strange individual is talking complete nonsense. We all know it. I would advise not entering into any 'debate' with him as all this is obviously playing into his hands.
My friend - too many whiskeys/smokes....appear to have fried your brain. Making completely false assumptions from a few old pics then repeating nonsense means nothing. Throwing the flat earth comment in to the mix tells me a lot.
-
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
-
If this guy put half the energy into chasing a ring & making bow that he puts into his BS he probably would have a nice bow , insted of staying up late drinking & being a wannabe ::)
-
I read the whole thang! If you leave out the useless back and forth and ignore the fact that no full draw pics by the author have been presented, I was wondering the same thing Del expressed.
-
Well at least this troll was entertaining lol!
-
WOW and I thought it was a SIMPLE question for you guy's SORRY.....Burt
-
Well, I see I made a mistake approving those 2 accounts. I can rectify that :)
-
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
-
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. 8) Pappy
-
Thank-everyone I just noticed the topic got split...Burt
-
I can't believe this thread is 10 pages long and still going. And worse yet, that I read the whole thing.🙄
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
Thank you Marc.
-
"Jack Napier" is an alias used by "The Joker" in the Batman saga.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
"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
-
Ha!Ha! He is probably a wanabe for that too !! He would say violated actresses perform better 😛
-
After reading his drivel, and seeing his handle, I assumed early on this was just some youngsters attempt at feeling relevant without having to be relevant.
-
It was elm, a wood known for tension strength.
bubbles, is not elm also noted for interlocking spiral grain? and the recommendations for decrowning, to keep the ring lines straight?
-
Funny how bh video got dragged into this!lol!
-
It was elm, a wood known for tension strength.
bubbles, is not elm also noted for interlocking spiral grain? and the recommendations for decrowning, to keep the ring lines straight?
The grain was pretty straight on this piece, but yes, I've also had elm with seemingly straight grain on the belly with the back ring swirling and weaving in and out of itself. Maybe this was one of those pieces. I wasn't very experienced back then (not that i am now either) so I probably didn't do a good job decrowning.
My experiment with decrowning was a while ago, and very short lived. Back when I first read about decrowning in TBB series. I believe it was claimed to increase performance. But I read in the next TBB that trapping increases performance and that (like what Marc just said) a crowned stave is a naturally trapped and therefore will perform better.
-
Decrowning is difficult to do properly. That longitudinal grain has to be followed equally from side to side.
Typically, it is not needed if heavily crowned bows are left a few inches longer.
I have made many board bows and have had very few failures as long as I chose the stave which must be straight grained.
There's more on my site if anyone is interested.
Jawge
-
I went by the library and picked up TBB 1, which has Tim Baker's comments on the matter. By strict reading, yes a "violated" back would perform better, but in reality the ring orientation he posited would mean one ring that's running down the center unviolated.
As to the experiences people have with chasing rings, it sure seems to work as well. Physics generally would state that the rectangular bow would outperform a chased stave (unless flat) but that isn't always true.
I'm not a great or even good bowyer, but I do get physics. I get the point Jack wanted to make, but it was not very well elucidated.
-
wow. i read it too. i know ive not got many bows to show for my work as i am just starting but even my edge grain project was a fail... meanwhile my UN-violated staves have produced. there is proof enough for me. and furthermore... if there was ever a group of guys who could produce a scientific paper on the matter, they are all on this site.