Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

War bow string theory

<< < (8/9) > >>

bow-toxo:

--- Quote from: Yewboy on June 18, 2009, 05:23:38 am ---



--- End quote ---

 Sure. My reason for stating it is because it was reported by Hardy. I invite you to prove him a liar. The bend would not be of a kind to warp to the precise curvature of a braced bow except by having been braced.
[/quote]

I don't want to go round in circles on this, but Hardy's theory is just that - (His theory), he has been wrong in the past and could also be wrong in this instance, With regards the Westminster Abbey arrow, his information is so wrong it's crazy.
I doubt that you have actually ever seen this bow, you have probably only seen a picture of it in Hardy's book and you have accepted his theory as gospel, I have seen this bow and handled it and I will make a point of having another good look at it when I am there in few weeks time, from memory, if the bow had been braced and the shape is as you say "caused by it being braced when the ship went down, then this bow would have had a 9" brace height.....A little high don't you think?
Anyway as I say I will take some very detailed measurements of it and get some high def pictures showing the bent shape of this bow.

We are going a bit of topic here but as you seem to feel you are in the know here and have used this particular bow to help with your string theory's then we might as well explore this to the full.
Anyway
[/quote]

 Hardy's claim was that the bow was bent to what would have been what they call a 'fistmele' today, about six inches. That is not a theory, it is a statement of fact, possibly an incorrect one. I repeat; I invite you to prove him a liar. Please post your corrections about the Westminister Abbey arrow. I would like to get the correct info as I am sure others would as well.
 BTW, I haven't used this bow to help with any theory. I don't have a "string theory". What I have done is provide evidence to describe Tudor bowstrings. Let's keep the sniping to actual words and facts.

jb.68:
A couple of thoughts here gents.

An explanation as to why a bow wouldn’t float away is possibly due to the anti-boarding nets, (that’s if the bow was above decks anyway). Alternatively it could have become wedged/trapped by another object/person.

As to the fact of having such a high bracing height, I would guess the string lasted long enough to keep the strung bow under tension and that as the wood became waterlogged, it’s likely to have lost an amount of its stiffness and so developed the higher brace height.


Any thoughts?

Marc St Louis:
Just to throw a Monkey wrench in here.  I sold a Yew warbow to a guy in Sweden last year and as the RH went down over the winter so did the bow take set. In fact it took 4" of set and he didn't even have to brace the bow once to do it, it did it all on its own.

Yeomanbowman:
I was wondering about the anti-boarding nets too.  By the time they rotted the bow would be sodden. 
Another theory/spanner,  maybe the stave was naturally deflexed and straightened by the bowyer and as the bow soaked it gave up it's induced straightness and this added to the brace height.   

Rod:
The fact is that we don't know why this bow is bent.
It may be reasonable to assume that it had been braced since the shape is reasonably symmetrical, but it is still only supposition.
Nothing to get heated about.

Rod.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page