Author Topic: Sinew question  (Read 20571 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline willie

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,174
Re: Sinew question
« Reply #30 on: February 25, 2017, 04:54:28 pm »
Quote
I've sinewed two bows, and paper backed two others. Of the four, two of them also were cable backed

Greg, did you have more set than expected on the cable bows?, or were the limbs thinner than would be, without the cable?
Just curious how massive the sinew cable was. Pics?

Offline gfugal

  • Member
  • Posts: 746
Re: Sinew question
« Reply #31 on: February 25, 2017, 05:15:02 pm »
gfugal, you believe sinew backing is a stiff material?
I thought irlt was, but you made me question it so i reviewed the data JoachimM gave me and it turns out it has a modulus of elasticity around 7. Thats stiffer than some woods but not usual bow woods. So i'll have to revise my stance. Sinew usually isn't more stiff than wood. It is however very flexible meaning it can stretch much further than wood can. I would say then that the benefits of sinew backing are probably due to it keeping fibers down, reflexing a limb, and its ability to flex without breaking. I'm going to have to change my posistion and say sinew probably wouldn't make the best cable. Flax, Jute, and Hemp however have 3 times or more the stiffness so they would make a better cable.
 
Quote
I've sinewed two bows, and paper backed two others. Of the four, two of them also were cable backed

Greg, did you have more set than expected on the cable bows?, or were the limbs thinner than would be, without the cable?
Just curious how massive the sinew cable was. Pics?
Yes my cable bows had horrible set. Not because of the cable but because i was drawing 43 inch bows with non working handles 27 inches. The compression damage was do to how far i bent them, not because they had a stiff material on the back. I also didn't use sinew for the cables. I used pollyester thread twisted into something like a bow string.
Greg,
No risk, no gain. Expand the mold and try new things.

Offline joachimM

  • Member
  • Posts: 675
  • Good - better - broken
Re: Sinew question
« Reply #32 on: February 25, 2017, 05:59:28 pm »
This has bugged me for a long time and I haven't been able to sort it out on my own. Why/how does sinew help a bow bend so much? I've read that sinew stretches something like six times as much as wood. If that's the case why doesn't the wood just break under the sinew?

To get back to the original question: Sinew CAN stretch 6 times as much, but that doesn't mean it does it on every bow and throughout the depth of the sinew layer.
Sinewed wood bows will stretch at the back maybe 2%, in extreme cases 2.5%.
If you would make sinew at the surface of a bow with a wooden belly stretch 5%, the belly would effectively fret and collapse.
Sinew will stretch to about 5% on Turkish sinew-wood-horn composites, but only at its surface. The first layer, which is glued to the wooden core, will be stretched less than 1% (as the wood core needs to be kept intact as well, it cannot stretch more than 1% at the most or it will break).

The reason sinew is so interesting has to do with the shift of the neutral plane that backings give to a bow.

Since wood is a bit stronger in tension than in compression, the neutral plane of a self bow is about 33% from the back of the bow: 1/3 of the wood works in tension, 2/3 work in compression.

The opposite backing of sinew is flax: it cannot stretch very far, and needs a lot of force to stretch a tiny bit. If you add a 1.5 mm layer of flax backing to a 30 pound bow, you'll get a 60 pound bow (but short-lived): Because the flax is so strong, all the tension is carried by the flax, and the neutral plane will shift to just under the flax. The entire wood thickness (nearly double of before) now needs to work in compression, with dramatic results: if you're lucky, it just frets all over the place and takes set, if you're not, it buckles at some point and leads to an explosive break of wood (and flax) (been there). Paper thin backings of flax can be interesting to protect a back with grain violations from breaking.

Since sinew is both very elastic (it can stretch far) and has a low modulus of elasticity (it starts to stretch under low forces already), you need a decent layer to make it really work. Add a dense wood to it as a belly, such as osage (with the extra plus that osage is superb in compression), and you have a belly that doesn't need to work extra hard. Add 3 mm of sinew to a 30 pound bow, and you'll get 45 pound bow or so, but the neutral plane will shift just a tiny bit towards the back, and for a now stronger bow, there's just a minute amount of extra belly depth needed (or the belly surface is compressed just a little bit more).   

(Do consider the numbers given here as thought experiments, not as facts)

Moreover, sinew has the extra advantage of shrinking when drying, so it pre-loads the bow by pulling the belly into tension and the back into compression! When you brace the bow, you first need to overcome this extra force, and you get a higher string tension at brace. The belly isn't put under more strain because of this, its kind of a free ride offered by the reflexed sinew.

There's an extra advantage in dry conditions. Tension strength of wood peaks at 12% MC, and decreases at lower and higher MC. Compression strength of wood only gets higher at lower MC. That's why very dry selfbows break when MC drops too much: tillered for higher MC, the neutral plane shifts towards the belly at low MC, and the backs are overstrained when drawn.
Tension strength of sinew also gets higher at lower MC. So in dry climates, sinew and wood complement each other extremely well, as they keep pace. The same goes for horn, by the way. That's why horn bows are kept as dry as possible.

So to summarize, sinew doesn't protect the belly, but it doesn't require a lot of extra strain either from the belly relative to the extra draw weight it adds. And in dry climates, it effectively protects the back from breaking.

that's my 2ct

Offline willie

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,174
Re: Sinew question
« Reply #33 on: February 25, 2017, 06:31:48 pm »
perhaps someone can help me understand what is happening with some fiber back samples I tested earlier this winter.

I made up about a half a dozen test samples, and bent them in a bend test, noting the MOE, MOR , and % strain at where set became noticeable.

Although I would not post a synthetic backed bow on this Primitive only forum, I  mention this test, because it may be appropriate in a discussion of different backing applications. The fiber was vectran which is known to be very stiff, and have very low  creep. specs on the fiber show it to be capable of elongation of 4%, similar to flax and approx 4 times that of which wood is considered to be able to stretch on a bows back.

Missing in a lot of discussions of backings that stretch, is the need to use the appropriate amount of fiber to put the stretching in a range of usefulness. If you hang a weight of x lbs from a string, and it stretches y inches, then halving or doubling the weight should half or double the stretch. Same with a backing in a matrix I assume.

With something like sinew, a shallow layer will stretch ok, but might separate from the back it is glued to, when the wood immediately  underneath fails.Typically because the wood is not able to stretch/bend near as much as needed to accommodate your sinew backed "design" bend. If  sinew is placed in a very thick layer, the outer surface will stretch enough to permit bends that wood will not, but further down in the cross section where the sinew/wood glue line is, the limb materiel  is not required to do near as much stretching as what happens at the outer surface of the back. So much for a  backing that is less stiff than the wood it is applied to.

In the case of vectran, and I assume similar backings such as flax, I found that in small amounts, it would stretch along with the underlying wood until the wood failed, similar to the action of sinew, but I noticed no increase in the MOE/stiffness of the sample as a whole or much benefit  to having the thin layer of backing. Why no improvement?

In increasingly heavier applications of backing, set taking happened sooner and MOR/ultimate strength decreased or remained the same over the unbacked (control) sample. Considering all samples, the control performed just as well as the best,  and MOE/stiffness remained relatively unchanged across all tested samples. There were a few samples that had moderate amounts of backing, where the backing could be said to protect the back from breaking, but well past the point of the belly taking the amount of set that would be desirable in a bow. Fiber applied over a knot or defect might have its place, though.

What is going on here? I thought stiff backings might offer improvements  :(

« Last Edit: February 26, 2017, 01:13:29 pm by willie »

Offline PatM

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,737
Re: Sinew question
« Reply #34 on: February 25, 2017, 06:40:50 pm »
What did you glue the vectran with? To me discussing any fiber is useful for a material understanding.

Offline willie

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,174
Re: Sinew question
« Reply #35 on: February 25, 2017, 06:44:47 pm »
PatM

some with hide glue, others with system 3, no noticeable difference on account of adhesive, although this test was not designed to compare glues.

Offline PatM

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,737
Re: Sinew question
« Reply #36 on: February 25, 2017, 06:54:12 pm »
You have to factor in how well the glue actually bonds with the fiber though.

Offline willie

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,174
Re: Sinew question
« Reply #37 on: February 25, 2017, 07:09:59 pm »
"factor in"?  like how?

The values reported were at strain levels up to where set began. The only glue/ fiber failures I noticed were well beyond strains levels usable in a bow, ie. at the breaking points of the samples. In very light applications of fiber, they stretched away and separated from the wood when the wood broke slowly. In samples with moderate amounts of fiber, the fiber break was clean similar to  tension break in brash wood, and of course the samples with excessive fiber just crushed the wood without breaking the fiber.

Offline gfugal

  • Member
  • Posts: 746
Re: Sinew question
« Reply #38 on: February 25, 2017, 11:28:14 pm »
This is what's great about this forum, you can learn so many things. It gives us new people a huge learning curve. For example, i was basing all my thought expiramemts on the idea that the neutral plane is always the exact center of limb thickness. I suppose then that differing stiffness in back and front can effect the each other. I'll have to re-examine what i said earlier. 
« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 11:32:27 pm by gfugal »
Greg,
No risk, no gain. Expand the mold and try new things.

Offline willie

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,174
Re: Sinew question
« Reply #39 on: February 26, 2017, 01:07:35 am »
Greg

here is a link to a paper might be pertinent. I find interesting about the effect of knots, and it actually cites some values for MOE tension, which were obtained in an actual tension test. Most data you find about wood tension is estimated from bend tests and compression tests.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rakesh_Gupta24/publication/258111089_Revisiting_the_neutral_axis_in_wood_beams/links/53d7f3c10cf2a19eee7fe792/Revisiting-the-neutral-axis-in-wood-beams.pdf

Offline DC

  • Member
  • Posts: 10,396
Re: Sinew question
« Reply #40 on: February 26, 2017, 12:06:03 pm »
Thanks for all the responses, it turned into a great thread. I think that what I was missing before was that it doesn't matter how much the sinew stretches.( I was hung up on the sinew stretching more than the wood) What matters is the amount of force necessary to stretch each a given distance. As long as it takes more force to stretch the sinew than it takes to stretch the wood then the wood will be protected. I still haven't quite sorted how/if it protects the belly though. It's probably something to do with the neutral zone, but until the Federation/ Romulan problems are sorted it may remain a mystery ;D ;D

Offline Stick Bender

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,003
Re: Sinew question
« Reply #41 on: February 26, 2017, 12:20:21 pm »
Thanks for posting the thread there MR DC one of the best ones we have had in a while learned a lot.
If you fear failure you will never Try !

Offline joachimM

  • Member
  • Posts: 675
  • Good - better - broken
Re: Sinew question
« Reply #42 on: February 26, 2017, 01:09:48 pm »
In the case of vectran, and I assume similar backings such as flax, I found that in small amounts, it would stretch along with the underlying wood until the wood failed, similar to the action of sinew, but I noticed no increase in the MOE/stiffness of the sample as a whole or any benefit to having the thin layer of backing. Why?

In increasingly heavier applications of backing, set taking happened sooner and MOR/ultimate strength decreased or remained the same over the unbacked (control) sample. Considering all samples, the control performed as well as the best,  and MOE/stiffness remained relatively unchanged across all tested samples.
What is going on here? :(

Willie, two thoughts:
First, maybe your test method is just not accurate enough, is too noisy to detect differences. 
Any raw data we might munch through?
Second: if the wood starts to take set, it is effectively being crushed. as you continue to compress it, your bos effectively functionally a bit less thick as the belly wood beneath the belly surface is now taking the compression, the wood at the belly surface is just dead mass now, not pushing against the force anymore. So basically, the force required to make the samples bend is mostly determined by the compression qualities of the wood, less the tension strength of the backing.
   
With a strong fiber backing, set is expected to happen sooner (when considered as the amount the sample is bent, not the force required), as more belly depth is being asked to work in compression. When the wood (being asked to work in compression) is thicker, you reach the proportional limit at a lower bend radius.

Joachim

Offline willie

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,174
Re: Sinew question
« Reply #43 on: February 26, 2017, 03:05:07 pm »
Joachim, look in your email. I tried to format the data in the editor for the forum post, but not too usable, and can't seem to attach either.


If anyone wishes to review the data, please PM your email address.
 

Offline PatM

  • Member
  • Posts: 6,737
Re: Sinew question
« Reply #44 on: February 26, 2017, 05:26:43 pm »
"factor in"?  like how?

The values reported were at strain levels up to where set began. The only glue/ fiber failures I noticed were well beyond strains levels usable in a bow, ie. at the breaking points of the samples. In very light applications of fiber, they stretched away and separated from the wood when the wood broke slowly. In samples with moderate amounts of fiber, the fiber break was clean similar to  tension break in brash wood, and of course the samples with excessive fiber just crushed the wood without breaking the fiber.

  Some fibers do not bond well with the glue so when you start bending the sample the fibres move inside the matrix  rather than functioning like a linked composite.  That usually requires microscopic examination.