balanced bows with different limb length's

[DCM]

"measure the center of the bow then place a mark say an inch above center.Then I cut an inch off of the bottom limb"

60" bow, mark arrow pass at 31" from the end of the lower limb.  Now cut 1" off that lower limb end.  The mark is now at 30" from the lower end, on a 59" bow.  Correct?  So, the distance from arrow pass to lower is 30", to upper is 29".  The center of a 59" bow is 29 1/2".  The arrow pass is at 30".  Arrow pass 1/2" above center.

"that puts his arrow pass 1/2" above center"

Viola, you are correct Art!  Thanks for keeping me straight.

[DCM]

"That's incorrect about the closer the arrow pass to center the more you can heel the bow. It's the other way around."

"You are however correct about needing more positive tiller when heeling the bow."

This is the crux of my confusion, although I'm not yet convinced I'm wrong.  I have long held, in my own debates w/ myself, that placing the arrow pass at dimensional center tends to mitigate the need for positive tiller.  That they have the same effect, of reducing the asym inherent in drawing the string above where we put pressure on with the bow hand.  By simply comparing two strings, one from a bow with arrow pass at center, another 1" to 2" above, one can see this exaggerated assymetry in the latter example (above center).  By having unequal limb lenghts, we're forced to bring the bow back into balance by using the spring force of each, specifically by reducing the upper to let it bend farther because it is inherently shorter.  I believe having the arrow pass closer to center helps put the nock point on the string closer to center, and thus reduces the need for positive tiller.  But to be honest I have not resolved the issue completely for myself.

Seems like heeling a bow exaggerates this asym, and requires more positive to combat it.  And if placing arrow pass closer to center combats it (as yet unproven in my thinking, but the idea I'm currently entertaining), then one might conclude having the arrow pass closer to center helps combat heeling in the same way as positive tiller.  I base this on the spring strenght theory, as articulated by Tapley, and it's impact on nock travel, and the resulting incentive to positive tiller.

We may just be having a semantics disagreement, where we're saying the same thing in different words and perhaps don't realize it.

"Since there is no nock travel at brace I believe any upward/downward nock travel at full draw is irrelevant."

I would agree with you, were that my position.  But it's not.  Rather, my position is that the nock moves up or down as it moves along the path from full draw to brace during a shot.  This I think is irrefutable.  One can find lots of demonstrations all over the net, Paleoplanet for example had a thead recently.  I was first exposed to it perhaps 8 years ago by Steve Harville.  He may have is blog up still.  But whether it is relevant is certainly subject to debate.

[Art B]

I think that asymmetrical string on a symmetrical bow is what is throwing you off David. It's hard to comprehend that a short string angle and a long string angle can produce even bending limbs with the symmetrical design. Well it can't by its self, that's where the counterbalancing bow hand comes in.

As you know, a long tillering string unneccessarily works the inner limbs (comparing this to the upper string angle of a sym design). Now the bow hand does exactly the same thing. This is why I think you get a perfect sym designed bow to bend evenly even though it's accomplished with a asym string. Just my opinion here folks. Would love to hear others.

I agree with you on having the arrow pass as close to center as possible. But only if both limbs are made the same length. ART B