3Rivers Archery



The Trad Gang Digital Market













Contribute to Trad Gang and Access the Classifieds!

Become a Trad Gang Sponsor!

Traditional Archery for Bowhunters






LEFT HAND BOWS CLASSIFIEDS TRAD GANG CLASSIFIEDS ACCESS RIGHT HAND BOWS CLASSIFIEDS


Author Topic: arrow physics 2  (Read 5133 times)

Online Rob DiStefano

  • Administrator
  • Trad Bowhunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12246
  • Contributing Member
    • Cavalier Pickups
Re: arrow physics 2
« Reply #120 on: January 25, 2010, 10:47:00 AM »
jason,

all i stated was what i feel is gonna work best for me.  if you read something else in that, sorry.

enjoy whatever works best for you!    :wavey:
IAM ~ The only government I trust is my .45-70 ... and my 1911.

Offline trashwood

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 1405
Re: arrow physics 2
« Reply #121 on: January 25, 2010, 11:08:00 AM »
The good thing is the more a bowhunter knows about the maximum and minimums, the better a bowhunter can tune a bow and arrow to fit the situtation he hunts in.  

I don't want to go to an extreme either way.  the lightest arrow would give me the best hunting range trajectory (IMO) but might not be the best selection at the terminal end.  

it is fun taking all the information and testing it against what the bowhunter has (or thinks he has) figured out over the years.  I love to tinker with my toys  :) .  

good thread.  lots of good tinkering bits  :)

rusty

Offline Old York

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 577
Re: arrow physics 2
« Reply #122 on: January 25, 2010, 11:24:00 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by George D. Stout:
...But nature abhors a vacuum!  8^).
If I may offer a more modern version:

"But Nature and Man abhor vacuum cleaners"
"We were arguing about brace-height tuning and then a fistmele broke out"

Offline Dr. Ed Ashby

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 673
Re: arrow physics 2
« Reply #123 on: January 25, 2010, 11:55:00 AM »
George,

A clarification. There is a difference between the force of pull exerted by the Gravitational Constant and the acceleration of a falling body that results from the pull of the gravitational constant.

The force of the Gc is a universal constant. The Gravitational Constant, denoted Gc, is an empirical physical constant involved in the calculation of the gravitational attraction between objects with mass. It appears in Newton's law of universal gravitation and in Einstein's theory of general relativity. It is also known as the universal gravitational constant. The rate of acceleration of a falling body resulting from the pull exerted by the Gc changes, depending on the medium the object is falling through. Ergo, as a 'body' is falling through air the resistance gradually increases, progressively reducing the rate of acceleration until "limiting velocity" is reached. In a true vacuum the rate of acceleration would not decrease. However the Gc would remain constant in each case.

The rate of acceleration resulting from the pull of the Gc at sea level is 32.174 feet per second/second ... until the limiting velocity is reached, where the force of resistance equals the Gc acting upon the body. To be absolutely precise, I should have said that the Gravitational Constant is 32.174 lbm-ft/lbf-sec2, which results in the acceleration rate of a falling body of 32.174 feet per second/second at sea level.

So, just for clarification:

"It is easy to verify that, when air resistence is negligable, all objects accelerate towards the earth at the same rate. The 'reason' is that the gravitational force on an object is proportional to its inertial mass. According to Newton's second law, in order to calculate the acceleration of an object caused by gravity, we must take the gravitational force on that object and divide by the inertial mass. Thus, the inertial mass of the object cancels out of the resulting expression for the acceleration. In fact the acceleration of any object at the Earth's surface is determined by the distance of the object form the center of the Earth, Newton's constant (Gc) and the mass of the Earth:

Acceleration = Gc multiplied the Mass of the Earth divided by the Radius of the earth squared

If you put the value of Newton's constant, the radius of the Earth ( 6 x 106 meters) and the mass of the Earth ( 6 x 1024kg) into the above expression you will get approximately 9.8m/s2, which is the rate at which all objects accelerate downwards at the surface of the Earth (at the level of the earth's surface).

Although the magnitude of the acceleration due to gravity, g, is the same everywhere on the Earth's surface, its direction changes depending on where you are. It is a vector that always points towards the center of the Earth, so, for example, it is in the opposite direction at the North Pole than at the South Pole. This effect is not very relevant to us because the Earth is so big. If we move from one end of the room to another, or even one end of the city to another, we are only moving across a very small fraction of the total circumference of the Earth, so the direction of the gravitational acceleration changes very little. Our notion of ``down'' only changes significantly when we travel very large distances. However, if you happen to be near a very massive, but small object, such as a black hole, the fact that gravitational acceleration changes direction depending on your location becomes very significant indeed: it gives rise to so-called tidal gravitational forces that can tear a spaceship apart in microseconds.

Note that the rate at which objects accelerates towards the Earth changes with distance. We don't notice this because we are already so far from the center of the Earth (6 thousand kilometers) that we would have to move vertically a large distance to cause a significant change: for example, to decrease the acceleration due to gravity by half down to 4.9 m/s2 we would have to go out into space about 1500 km above the Earth's surface."

Gc is a constant. The rate of acceleration resulting from the Gc changes with a number of factors. Nonetheless, the Gc always remains constant. Hope that clears everything up.

I was trying to keep the explination(s) as simple as I could - as some folks think I tend to make explinations too complex - but any time I'm less than absolutely precise there's always someone looking to point it out. That's good. Keeps us all on our toes!    :biglaugh:  

Ed

Offline daveycrockett

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 1501
Re: arrow physics 2
« Reply #124 on: January 25, 2010, 12:00:00 PM »

Offline George D. Stout

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 3467
Re: arrow physics 2
« Reply #125 on: January 25, 2010, 12:43:00 PM »
Dr. Ashby: "I was trying to keep the explination(s) as simple as I could - as some folks think I tend to make explinations too complex.."

Don't sell yourself short Doc, "most" folks think you tend to make explanations too complex."
  :knothead:    :thumbsup:

Online Rob DiStefano

  • Administrator
  • Trad Bowhunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12246
  • Contributing Member
    • Cavalier Pickups
Re: arrow physics 2
« Reply #126 on: January 25, 2010, 12:59:00 PM »
quote:
Originally posted by George D. Stout:
...
What tends to tick us (me) off is the trend of "some" to think a study of this nature cancels and supercedes everything else we have learned over the decades.  ...   :saywhat:  

but nah, that's not you, george.  :D      :biglaugh:
IAM ~ The only government I trust is my .45-70 ... and my 1911.

Offline George D. Stout

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 3467
Re: arrow physics 2
« Reply #127 on: January 25, 2010, 01:08:00 PM »
I entertain them Rob....I'm just quick to dismiss them.    :thumbsup:    :p

Online Rob DiStefano

  • Administrator
  • Trad Bowhunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12246
  • Contributing Member
    • Cavalier Pickups
Re: arrow physics 2
« Reply #128 on: January 25, 2010, 01:30:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by George D. Stout:
I entertain them Rob....I'm just quick to dismiss them.     :thumbsup:      :p  
atta boy, good for you!     :thumbsup:    :biglaugh:
IAM ~ The only government I trust is my .45-70 ... and my 1911.

Offline Dr. Ed Ashby

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 673
Re: arrow physics 2
« Reply #129 on: January 25, 2010, 01:56:00 PM »
George said:
What tends to tick us (me) off is the trend of "some" to think a study of this nature cancels and supercedes everything else we have learned over the decades.

Humm ... George, you should read the "Bows and Arrows of Papua New Guinea"!  http://tradgang.com/noncgi/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=24;t=000016;p=1#000000

Ain't nothing 'new' about EFOC - or even Ultra-EFOC! It's been around more "decades" than most any of the things we 'modern bowhunters' seem to nowadays consider as 'traditional'.

We're not learning something new, George, we're just rediscovering the things learned long, long ago, over many, many decades; things that "some" have managed to forget all about!   :banghead:  

Ed

Offline FlintRiverKen

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 46
Re: arrow physics 2
« Reply #130 on: January 25, 2010, 02:16:00 PM »
Zradix, what kind of bow and string for the 2 arrows in your original post? Are the numbers the average of repeated measurements? Using a 2 arrow 2 speed method to determine bow efficiency you look great! My job title is physicist but archery is a big pond i've just stuck my toe in it- maybe Dr.A or somebody could look at your numbers also, i make mistakes alot. BTW, what percent bow efficiency is common with modern trad equipment? -Ken

Offline Jim now in Kentucky

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 507
Re: arrow physics 2
« Reply #131 on: January 25, 2010, 02:57:00 PM »
The Dr. has lots of good conclusions, but sometimes I wonder where he gets his numbers:
"the mass of the Earth ( 6 x 1024kg)"

But in looking it up, I see that copying and pasting the correct numbers does not translate into the correct notation here. I'm sure he pasted in numbers where the last 4 digits meant 10 to the 24th power.
"Reparrows save arrows!"

"But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he that cometh to God must believe that he is and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him." Hebrews 11:6

Offline FlintRiverKen

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 46
Re: arrow physics 2
« Reply #132 on: January 25, 2010, 03:27:00 PM »
he is using scientific notation, shorthand to handle big numbers meant 6 x (10 to the 24th pwr)
on a calculator 6E24.

seriously, i think efficiency is important to all the cool stuff discussed, skinny strings and quietness, etc etc

Online Rob DiStefano

  • Administrator
  • Trad Bowhunter
  • ****
  • Posts: 12246
  • Contributing Member
    • Cavalier Pickups
Re: arrow physics 2
« Reply #133 on: January 25, 2010, 03:33:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Jim in Maine:
The Dr. has lots of good conclusions, but sometimes I wonder where he gets his numbers:
"the mass of the Earth ( 6 x 1024kg)"

But in looking it up, I see that copying and pasting the correct numbers does not translate into the correct notation here. I'm sure he pasted in numbers where the last 4 digits meant 10 to the 24th power.
and your point is, sir ... ?
IAM ~ The only government I trust is my .45-70 ... and my 1911.

Offline Dr. Ed Ashby

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 673
Re: arrow physics 2
« Reply #134 on: January 25, 2010, 05:05:00 PM »
Sorry Jim. Ken has it exactly right. I should have spelled it out: 6 time 10 to the 24th power gives the earth's mass in Kg's. Once more I took the simple route, without being specific enough.   :banghead:    :banghead:    :banghead:  

Ken, you just hit the nail squarely on the head. It ALL about EFFICIENCY. Arrows carry so little force that even tiny, tiny gains in efficiency yield HUGE rewards - percentage wise, that is.

Ed

Offline Jason R. Wesbrock

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 2507
Re: arrow physics 2
« Reply #135 on: January 25, 2010, 05:25:00 PM »
Ed,

If you don’t mind, I have a couple follow up questions.

 
Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Ed Ashby:
With big traditional broadheads (like the 190 Grizzly), Wesley Mulkey is getting total stability and can consistently hit 1" dots at forty yards using a 2" A&A pattern 3-fletch on a 28% FOC arrow setup. At lower FOC he can't do that, even with considerabley more fletching and regardless of the tuning. That's from actual testing too. Why does it happen? Because of the inate stability of a higher FOC projectile in flight. (Wesley is a three time Georgia 3-D champion, and by far the most accurate shooter I personally know.)
What are the specs of the arrows he uses for 3D shooting, where speed and flat trajectory are of substantial importance?

 
Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Ed Ashby:
As previously noted, several compound shooters who approached me at the ATA reported that they were getting equal or less drop at 20, 30 and 40 yards with a heavier arrow having EFOC than with a lighter arrow at low FOC (and in one case the shooter reported that he had tested to 60 yards, with the same results). The aggregate of reported results indicated that an EFOC arrow in the 24%-25% range shot to the same point of impact as a low FOC (in the 5% to 6% range) that was 150 to 175 grains lighter.
Has anyone ever done a controlled test (shooting machine, well-tuned arrows differing only in weight and FOC, etc.) and demonstrated this actually happening? The reason I ask is that I’ve heard a lot of “interesting” stories from shooters over the years, as I’m sure most of us have. Barring a controlled test demonstrating that someone can shoot faster and flatter at 20, 30, or 40 yards by adding 175 grains to their arrows—approximately a 40% increase in arrow mass for the average compound shooter—I’m more than a little skeptical of those claims.

Offline sj_lutz

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 157
Re: arrow physics 2
« Reply #136 on: January 25, 2010, 05:25:00 PM »
I said it before in this thread, I'll say it again...I LOVE threads like this.

I've read Dr. Ashby's work, and have yet to stumble across a passage where he says a whitetail can't be killed with anything other than an EFOC single bevel 2 blade broadhead; that some folks seem to make such an assumption shouldn't detract from the validity of his testing.

Offline Dr. Ed Ashby

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 673
Re: arrow physics 2
« Reply #137 on: January 25, 2010, 06:01:00 PM »
Jason, Wesley is no longer an active participant in 3D. He was single back then, with no family to support. ('Nuff said). I seem to remember that he told me he shot large diameter shafts though (line cutters). That’s about the sum of the information I have on his old 3D setup.

As far as I know there has not been a controlled test of this, which is why I said, "This would make an interesting investigation with a shooting machine!” (from my first post on this thread, on Page 6).

Ed

Offline Jason R. Wesbrock

  • Trad Bowhunter
  • **
  • Posts: 2507
Re: arrow physics 2
« Reply #138 on: January 25, 2010, 06:31:00 PM »
Thanks again, Ed. It's always fun and educational to bounce these things around.

Users currently browsing this topic:

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
 

Contact Us | Trad Gang.com © | User Agreement

Copyright 2003 thru 2024 ~ Trad Gang.com ©