On the other hand, compound bows are harder to maintain, and more expensive to build. The compound version could also, I think, be reloaded significantly more quickly. The compound version, also, I think, might be somewhat more efficient I think it would be transferring more energy toward the end of its power stroke. A compound arbalest with a 20 inch draw and a 250 pound fairly constant draw weight theoretically stores the same amount (although in reality draw weight isn't going to be perfectly constant). So, a heavy draw arbalest with a 10 inch draw, a 1000 pound maximum draw weight, and a linear relation between force and draw theoretically stores about 560 joules. Basically, if a simple steel prod combined with a complicated windlass to give mechanical advantage is viable, why not a complex compound prod combined with a simpler drawing device, like a belt hook?Ĭompound technology would have given two big advantages: 1) it would have allowed a fairly flat force-draw curve (by varying elliptical sizes) and 2) It would have allowed much longer draw lengths than a traditional crossbow without a larger prod. After all, with late medieval crossbows, you're already dealing with a finnicky bit of equipment which has to use complicated ways of giving the user mechanical advantage. While compound bows are complicated and finnicky compared to ordinary bows, it seems to me that if the technology had been developed earlier, the real killer app of the idea would have been crossbows. Furthermore, while compound bows generally use sophisticated materials like carbon fiber that were not available in previous ages, the basic principle seems like it could have been realized earlier. It seems funny that one of the biggest technical developments in archery came after archery was essentially totally obsolete: the 1966 invention of the compound bow.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |