| Author |
Message |
Jared Smith
|
 Posted: Sat 08 Mar, 2008 3:23 pm Post subject: Re: HI Peter and Vincent |
 |
|
| Angus Trim wrote: |
Where the theoretical "COP" is on a blade? I don't know, I'm not sure I care frankly. Today, when I get involved in these conversations, its usually to try and bring things to the practical again.
No, I'm not going to correct you Vincent, just throwing another view on this........ |
This is roughly my own opinion as well. I think anyone who takes the sword to a pell striking session or a little test cutting is going to figure out where they find it comfortable to strike very quickly.
Again, that said, we are publishing numbers with a precision of ~ 0.02% claims of accuracy with respect to the dimension (cutting length) that I consider relevant. Defining CoP in rotational plane of cutting with wrists flexing is the most complicated standard that could possibly be undertaken. In comparison, you can examine a vibrational node in the direction of the flat of a finished sword, and mark it. Subsequently, affixing typical 3" C-clamps to the pommel or guard will not greatly alter the location of the node identified in the terms of vibration along the flat, that is normally near the optimal cutting point. The same application of C-clamps greatly alter any realistic discussion of CoP and Point of Balance with respect to any realistic handling though.
So again, my question is....if you have a completed sword, how do YOU MEASURE the published statistic that is commonly presented on our reviews here as XX.XX" from the guard? I am not calling your method wrong. As Craig suggested, it possibly it should be called something else besides CoP. I don't know. Until we know how it is being done, no constructive criticism or comment would really be fair.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
  |
 |
|
Angus Trim
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Mar, 2008 3:35 pm Post subject: Re: HI Peter and Vincent |
|
|
| Jared Smith wrote: | | Angus Trim wrote: |
Where the theoretical "COP" is on a blade? I don't know, I'm not sure I care frankly. Today, when I get involved in these conversations, its usually to try and bring things to the practical again.
No, I'm not going to correct you Vincent, just throwing another view on this........ |
This is roughly my own opinion as well. I think anyone who takes the sword to a pell striking session or a little test cutting is going to figure out where they find it comfortable to strike very quickly.
Again, that said, we are publishing numbers with a precision of ~ 0.02% claims of accuracy with respect to the dimension (cutting length) that I consider relevant. Defining CoP in rotational plane of cutting with wrists flexing is the most complicated standard that could possibly be undertaken. In comparison, you can examine a vibrational node in the direction of the flat of a finished sword, and mark it. Subsequently, affixing typical 3" C-clamps to the pommel or guard will not greatly alter the location of the node identified in the terms of vibration along the flat, that is normally near the optimal cutting point. The same application of C-clamps greatly alter any realistic discussion of CoP and Point of Balance with respect to any realistic handling though.
So again, my question is....if you have a completed sword, how do YOU MEASURE the published statistic that is commonly presented on our reviews here as XX.XX" from the guard? I am not calling your method wrong. As Craig suggested, it possibly it should be called something else besides CoP. I don't know. Until we know how it is being done, no constructive criticism or comment would really be fair. |
Jared, I'm certainly not publishing numbers with .02% accuracy, because I believe that's impossible....... so....who is?
swords are fun
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angus Trim
|
| Posted: Sat 08 Mar, 2008 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jared
On further reflection, don't answer that........
One caveat, since I'm not sure we're on the same page.......
But if by "COP" you mean the blade node, I use a tape measure. Its a very subjective measurement.
Holding the sword by the handle node, I get the blade vibrating {sometimes difficult}. Then its an eye and tape measure kind of thing. When I was doing the plywood testing back in the day, I'd do this several times, using a felt pen to mark the blade each time. Pretty soon, you get it to where most of the marks on the blade are within a 1/4 inch or so, and you pretty much have it. But its pretty subjective. Two people can differ a 1/2 inch or more real easy.
Its not a super accurate measurement.........
swords are fun
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Mar, 2008 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Jared,
I don't remember having seen CoP published with such precision either, but then I haven't been paying attention to this particular stat for a long time now  Ordinarily they are given to the 1/4in or to the centimeter. Of course a conversion from one to the other may give the false impression of a superior accuracy...
In all reviews that I have seen so far it is the blade node of vibration that is given under CoP. Gus has covered the description of the measurement already. On some blades it is easier than on others... But the essential point is that no one is doing any kind of computation based on this. You cannot compare swords meaningfully with the blade node, so the precision really does not matter.
If your definition of CoP is 'point of maximum cutting efficiency', then not only does it vary according to the target properties, but it is also rather meaningless to define it with a precision far smaller than the extent of the target. As far as I figure a sword is not really meant to target something smaller than ~3in, so there again precision is not a concern. In the end, as you say, training with the sword will give you that... And I think this is almost completely defined by tactical considerations and target properties.
If you take the definition of the CoP relative to rigid body dynamics, then it depends on what you wish to achieve. However, once you have decided on a pivot (reference) point, it is possible to get it with about the same precision as the node with the waggle test. It is possible to go beyond this precision when using the pendulum method, i.e. hanging the object by the pivot and timing its oscillation. Once you have one such measurement, along with the center of gravity, you can compute the CoP relative to any reference point, so you do not need to measure again if you decide to change your reference. These measurements give the moment of inertia, which allows to compare objectively different swords, so in this case, the precision could be important. But I worked only with the waggle test so far and the results are already interesting, so...
To reiterate my main point, if I were you I wouldn't worry too much about how manufacturers measure the blade node with precision, because chances are you cannot do anything particularly useful with the precision of this stat anyhow...
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
 |
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Mar, 2008 7:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | Hi Jared,
In all reviews that I have seen so far it is the blade node of vibration that is given under CoP.
If your definition of CoP is 'point of maximum cutting efficiency', then not only does it vary according to the target properties, but it is also rather meaningless to define it with a precision far smaller than the extent of the target. As far as I figure a sword is not really meant to target something smaller than ~3in, so there again precision is not a concern. In the end, as you say, training with the sword will give you that... And I think this is almost completely defined by tactical considerations and target properties.
To reiterate my main point, if I were you I wouldn't worry too much about how manufacturers measure the blade node with precision, because chances are you cannot do anything particularly useful with the precision of this stat anyhow... |
Whatever the number listed on most web sites as well as the reviews that are located on this good site as CoP = XX.XX" from the guard means, I simply have noted that it is being consistently listed everywhere I see it published with two decimal points in inches, which implies to me that it is known to within something like 1/100 of an inch. It is true that no one says CoP = Y +/- 0.0x"
I do not worry about it any more. I already know that the reputable makers that participate (and try to tolerate my unreasonably stubborn persistence on this point) make swords with supreme handling traits. I initially tried to refrain from commenting on this post. Then, something Craig said previously (about credibility) just bugged me too much. CoP in practical engineering application is really all about approximating a rotating object as being equivalent to a pendulum with length Y and mass X. If I told you that I was making a pendulum, we should both be interested in its length (requiring both a clearly defined pivot point, and an area equivalent to concentrated mass, lack of either definition makes it meaningless and indicates technical incompetence.) It would also be true that it would have vibrational nodes somewhere else, but, those nodes are not normally the things considered important to rotational dynamics of the pendulum and should not be the features of primary interest in that kind of context. We may decide to agree that approximating a sword as a pendulum is not a good idea. In such a case, I would recommend not misusing or incorrectly specifying the term "CoP."
One of my aging friends (Bob Levine, knife maker and gunsmith, 3rd generation cutlerer of German descent) has one glass eye, and is nearly blind in the other. Despite this, he continues to make exquisite work primarily operating by feel rather than by sight or measurement, and performs every step of production from raw material to presentation along with an impressive certificate of credentials. I have several pattern welded, folding pocket knifes made recently from billets produced in his earlier decades when he was still capable of that kind of work. One of the things I have always respected about him, is that he never misuses a technical term. If he does not know what it is or does not care about it, he will tell you so and refuse to speak further about it. If he does speak about something, he has done his homework on it and there is little I can add (despite having multiple degrees) to his understanding of it. This is a standard worth emulating, in my opinion.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Mar, 2008 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jared Smith wrote: |
Whatever the number listed on most web sites as well as the reviews that are located on this good site as CoP = XX.XX" from the guard means, I simply have noted that it is being consistently listed everywhere I see it published with two decimal points in inches, which implies to me that it is known to within something like 1/100 of an inch. It is true that no one says CoP = Y +/- 0.0x"
|
Actually, we use fractions for the vast (vast) majority of our reviews. A few really old ones may use decimals, but those were done before we implemented more consistency across our reviews. The collection galleries do use decimals and they go two or three decimal places simply because we are typically converting fractions from a tape measure into decimals (3/8" equals .375" for instance). I wouldn't read any farther into it than that. 
Our reviews use what people now call the blade node and are measured from the guard. At the time we started including this stat, everyone thought of the CoP as the blade node and pivot points weren't really being discussed. In the last few years, the understanding of handling and mass distribution has changed dramatically and will probably continue to evolve. In three years people might be discussing how pivot points aren't relevant it's really ___________ that determines handling.
For the record, we use the whack-the-pommel method and measure to the center of the place where vibrations seem to be less present. Yes, the area where vibrations aren't as present is indeed an area (nota single point), but we look for its center where the vibrations are the least. It's a stat many people still want to see, so we include it. It's also a stat that isn't determined by where you grip the sword and what kind of motion it is in. So it's a little more concrete than some user-determined stats. As with all our stats, people can decide what (if anything) to make out of the numbers. We've tried to say many times that the numbers don't tell the whole story.
We have exactly 200 published reviews as of this moment and, for consistency, I imagine we'll keep our same nomenclature/format. Going back and changing our Understanding Blade Properties article (which reflected the most current thinking at the time it was published) and terminology for 200 reviews probably won't happen anytime soon, if ever.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
 |
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Mar, 2008 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Chad,
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | At the time we started including this stat, everyone thought of the CoP as the blade node and pivot points weren't really being discussed. In the last few years, the understanding of handling and mass distribution has changed dramatically and will probably continue to evolve. In three years people might be discussing how pivot points aren't relevant it's really ___________ that determines handling. |
I think we have already discussed this (as well as the point about the significance of numbers), so I'll refrain from falling into another "Science, it works" discussion Let me just say that I'd be very surprised if someone came up saying that the physical laws of dynamics are suddenly irrelevant to handling (but then they haven't been considered at all for a good number of years in the sword context, so I suppose we could go on in obscurity, or fall back into it).
So, what results exactly swould you like to see from a "sword theory", that would finally convince you that a significant step forward should be accounted for? Without waiting for another hypothetical next step, that is 
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | Going back and changing our Understanding Blade Properties article (which reflected the most current thinking at the time it was published) and terminology for 200 reviews probably won't happen anytime soon, if ever. |
Does that preclude in any way the writing of a new article about other aspects? Again, what would you consider a strong enough motive to correct or complete some of the things wrote in the past?
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angus Trim
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Mar, 2008 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Jared Smith"] | Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | In such a case, I would recommend not misusing or incorrectly specifying the term "CoP."
|
I could make a really good case for the continued use of this term in sword terminology, because of its use well over a century. I could also point out that every discipline has its own terminology and own jargon, sometimes at odds with other disciplines.
But I'm not married to the terms.......
This current push to change the terminology isn't the first. Its the third since I've been involved with this. The sword community is a very dynamic thing, and folks that were here "in the beginning", and are still here, are very much in the minority. Most folks have "gone on".......
The terms blade nodes really came into vogue about 6 or 7 years ago, as they're more accurate to describe things. However, the people that come thru these forums "turned over", and the term cop came back into vogue........... After all, its been in use much longer than nodes or pivot points as a descriptive term on swords.........
Not everyone that reads these posts, or buys swords is "technical" in the mechanical engineering field. They are likely very technical in their own fields, be it law, medicine, computer science, music, what have you........So, the easier terms keep coming back into vogue.
For a WMA student, you're likely to find that things like "lively in the hand", "resists displacement", "naturally tracks in the cutting arc", "follows the point naturally in a looping thrust", means more than arcane discussions about pivot points and, nodes, and other techie terms.........
You'll find that the swordmakers that are still willing to occassionally get involved in things like this are not married to any specific terminology. The terminology can change and evolve, but it doesn't change the actual physics of the blade. Nor our understanding of it.
You're also likely to find less depth in a lot of the discussions today, and onwards, as a few of the more experienced folks are not really "up" for the continued aggravation of being subtly insulted by folks of other disciplines for using terminology differently than they do. In the 10 years that swords have been discussed on the internet, the terminology has changed with the evolving understanding of the sword on the one hand, and the changing of the personalities that want the discussion of the physics of the sword. Its two very dynamic things in play here, the increasing knowledge, and the changing personalities..........
As far as terminology changes? Vincent's getting his way, things are changing....... but on the other hand, there will always be a lot of folks that view the "blade node" as the center of percussion........
swords are fun
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Mar, 2008 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | I think we have already discussed this (as well as the point about the significance of numbers), so I'll refrain from falling into another "Science, it works" discussion Let me just say that I'd be very surprised if someone came up saying that the physical laws of dynamics are suddenly irrelevant to handling (but then they haven't been considered at all for a good number of years in the sword context, so I suppose we could go on in obscurity, or fall back into it). |
All I'm saying is that this study is ever-changing and much that we knew several years ago has changed. Don't be surprised if it changes again. Don't be surprised if we have to totally rework our understanding of handling and dynamics.
Science does work (I never said otherwise), but science is a study. We can't assume we now know everything. Based on how much our thinking has changed on this in the past few years, I think it's safe to say it might change or be refined significantly going forward. We know more than we used to, but there is more to learn.
| Quote: | | So, what results exactly swould you like to see from a "sword theory", that would finally convince you that a significant step forward should be accounted for? Without waiting for another hypothetical next step, that is |
I'm not saying there's been no step forward (significant or otherwise). Please tell me where I said that. In fact, I've said our knowledge has evolved a lot. Personally, the numbers mean little to me. Looking at a set of numbers prior to handling a sword has never told me anything appreciable about how the sword handles. In fact, there are plenty of examples where I measured the numbers after handling and was surprised because my perception of the numbers and my experience handling it had little in common. I don't care about the numbers as much as some people do.
| Quote: | | Does that preclude in any way the writing of a new article about other aspects? Again, what would you consider a strong enough motive to correct or complete some of the things wrote in the past? |
I have precluded nothing. It's a simple question of man-hours. You're welcome to write an updated article for us to publish, as is anyone else. People often act as if myArmoury is our job and we have gobs of extra time to write new stuff and rewrite and revamp everything we've already done. Not the case.
If there were enough hours, people, and money, we could revise/update/correct many, many things as well as get back to publishing new stuff every two weeks. However, there isn't enough of any of those things to make that happen. We've called repeatedly for more team members and articles with less success than we would have preferred. So we have to prioritize our efforts.
We welcome people to submit well-researched articles. If there's an article or review that you think needs to be updated, consider doing more than telling us to update it. Chances are, we already know what articles we want to revise. We simply lack the manpower to do everything we'd like to do.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Mar, 2008 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Angus Trim wrote: | | Jared Smith wrote: | | In such a case, I would recommend not misusing or incorrectly specifying the term "CoP." |
|
I got surprised at the beginning 'cause I did not remember saying this But since I more or less share this point of view...
I get your point Gus, and I'm not married to terms either, as you may have noticed over the years... However I do see the advantage now, of avoiding the creation of terms or changing their meaning. It makes for a more "public" discussion, and allows for an easier flow of knowledge between fields of study.
Then the discussion about pivot points or whatever they should be called is a different thing: it's something that had not been really considered before. There terminology is not the problem, we are not changing it but adding to it. It does not change the actual physics of the object but it does further our understanding, by allowing us to discuss them in more ways, more accurately. It's not just about brandying fancy words. I know it has changed my understanding of sword use a good deal over the past few years. It has some very practical meaning to the martial artist.
I'm sad that you say that some experienced folks are feeling insulted. But then I don't know what to do about it...
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Mar, 2008 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | Quote: | | Does that preclude in any way the writing of a new article about other aspects? Again, what would you consider a strong enough motive to correct or complete some of the things wrote in the past? |
I have precluded nothing. It's a simple question of man-hours. |
Oh, OK. I misunderstood your original post. I thought you were saying that even if the man-hours were there, there would be no changes, because somehow you did not consider them significant enough...
Well if it was just terminology, and if it was just me  , I'd replace CoP by "blade node" everywhere, and that settles it. But I don't think the majority of people are ready yet for such a change.
If we want to add pivot points or some such, then it's a lot more work. A work I'm trying to do at the moment... I don't think what I'm writing will fit the format of myArmoury, though. Perhaps a simplified version, later...
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Mar, 2008 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | Well if it was just terminology, and if it was just me , I'd replace CoP by "blade node" everywhere, and that settles it. But I don't think the majority of people are ready yet for such a change.
If we want to add pivot points or some such, then it's a lot more work. A work I'm trying to do at the moment... I don't think what I'm writing will fit the format of myArmoury, though. Perhaps a simplified version, later... |
You're welcome to message Nathan and tell him that there are over 270 pages where the phrase "Center of Percussion" might need to be changed to "blade node."
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Mar, 2008 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: |
We have exactly 200 published reviews as of this moment and, for consistency, I imagine we'll keep our same nomenclature/format. Going back and changing our Understanding Blade Properties article (which reflected the most current thinking at the time it was published) and terminology for 200 reviews probably won't happen anytime soon, if ever. |
Yes, I don't blame you, it would be impractical to reinvent 200 reviews. I had looked at some older reviews (one that inspired me to buy my first sword) as well as some major manufacturers' and vendors' web sites when I commented about X.XX" practice in dimensioning. Hopefully, everyone does understand that with hand grinding and finishing, there will be variations, maybe as large as 1/4", in things like center of balance.
You could clarify on the definition of CoP that as determined within this community it is slightly different (assumed to be acceptably close, not worth the fuss of elaborate measurements when tapping the pommel or blade is so easily done?) than how most other fields define and locate it. Eventually you may have to contend with very stiff blades, drastically curved blades, very long blades, or something else that no one foresaw, and the disparity between this practice and what really matters to handling could become more significant.
I respect the opinions and preferences of others for "the blade node." This is no doubt very important, and few people want a quivering shock in their hand each time that they perform a test cut, or a blade that fails prematurely.
CoP has actually been most useful to me as a measure of free body handling behavior in rotation, not for impact devices. Given a system of defined pivot point assumptions (giant two handed sword grip pivot point might be in the center of the grip, hand and a half grip pivot could be something like 4" below the guard, etc.), published CoP's and weights have the potential to give us a fair dea of comparative handling agility of various swords that are similar in form and weight. As it stands now, I don't consider it something I would rely upon to make a purchase decision between two similar design sword models where handling was my priority. I do trust and rely upon the review comments when someone says something has "heavy blade presence", or "is agile in cut", "follows the point" etc. With one exception that I fell in love with for looks, I have always waited to read a review at myArmoury before deciding to purchase anything related to this hobby.
For now, I have no intention of drilling holes in any of my grips. But, I am contemplating some sort of hanging, rotating, clamp like fixture that could be utilized (big wishbone with pivot bushings threaded inside the bushings so that screws can be driven in to clamp the grip). I could see the difference affecting pommel weight decisions by as much as an ounce. I wonder how many people would really be able to feel the difference though!
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Mar, 2008 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | | Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | Well if it was just terminology, and if it was just me , I'd replace CoP by "blade node" everywhere, and that settles it. But I don't think the majority of people are ready yet for such a change. |
You're welcome to message Nathan and tell him that there are over 270 pages where the phrase "Center of Percussion" might need to be changed to "blade node." |
Yeah, I imagine it's not Nathan's idea of fun But think of it this way: if some day in the future everyone has switched to another name, there will be even more pages to update... Of course you're entitled to think this will not happen
Or there is the suggestion from Kyle that Craig quoted earlier: change just the definition and not the use. In my opinion it is postponing the problems but maybe it makes for an easier transition... I don't know, it seems to me that it is more an editorial choice than something technical. I'm only remotely useful as a technical guy
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Mar, 2008 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jared Smith wrote: | Yes, I don't blame you, it would be impractical to reinvent 200 reviews. I had looked at some older reviews (one that inspired me to buy my first sword) as well as some major manufacturers' and vendors' web sites when I commented about X.XX" practice in dimensioning. Hopefully, everyone does understand that with hand grinding and finishing, there will be variations, maybe as large as 1/4", in things like center of balance.
You could clarify on the definition of CoP that as determined within this community it is slightly different (assumed to be acceptably close, not worth the fuss of elaborate measurements when tapping the pommel or blade is so easily done?) than how most other fields define and locate it. Eventually you may have to contend with very stiff blades, drastically curved blades, very long blades, or something else that no one foresaw, and the disparity between this practice and what really matters to handling could become more significant.
|
The definition in our article Understanding Blade Properties matches what the reviews show as Center of Percussion.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Mar, 2008 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | Yeah, I imagine it's not Nathan's idea of fun But think of it this way: if some day in the future everyone has switched to another name, there will be even more pages to update... Of course you're entitled to think this will not happen
Or there is the suggestion from Kyle that Craig quoted earlier: change just the definition and not the use. In my opinion it is postponing the problems but maybe it makes for an easier transition... I don't know, it seems to me that it is more an editorial choice than something technical. I'm only remotely useful as a technical guy |
Yes, but any decision to change things takes time to implement. It's up to Nathan to decide if he has the time to do anything about it and wants to make the changes. Just because it's a good idea to make a chage doesn't mean there's time to do it.
We defined CoP in our article as the blade node. So hopefully people will read it and understand what we're referencing in reviews and gallery pages.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Mar, 2008 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jared Smith wrote: | | CoP has actually been most useful to me as a measure of free body handling behavior in rotation, not for impact devices. Given a system of defined pivot point assumptions (giant two handed sword grip pivot point might be in the center of the grip, hand and a half grip pivot could be something like 4" below the guard, etc.), published CoP's and weights have the potential to give us a fair dea of comparative handling agility of various swords that are similar in form and weight. As it stands now, I don't consider it something I would rely upon to make a purchase decision between two similar design sword models where handling was my priority. |
I did rely on exactly this kind of ideas when shopping for my first Albion. It's not perfect yet, and for very similar swords the actual difference might be hidden by the errors in the measures, but it helped me figuring out the differences between Yeoman and Squire in terms of handling, two swords I had no point of comparison with. As I have my Squire now, I can say that it is quite like I expected.
And of course it does not prevent from looking at the reviewer's comments either. Just more info to use to make the decision...
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Mar, 2008 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
My thoughts were that the Features Glossary of sword terms could be modified. If it were explained there that for the typical sword the node turns out to be reasonably close to the same as CoP when rotated somewhere about the grip you may satisfy the t"echnical police editor" types. Pointing out that pure rotational motion is not really how a sword is used and why this particular sweet spot is prized might not hurt either.
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Angus Trim
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Mar, 2008 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just to throw in another way of looking at things, yet again....... you personalities, which I'll try and leave out in this post, and you have art and science. You have the subjective, and physical reality. In both swordsmanship, and the making of swords.......... Our understanding of both is incomplete, and maybe that's one of the things that make things so interesting......
Sometimes in this, the art and the science clash. Not in reality of course, but in the way folks view them. Sometimes, they complement one another.....
As an example of how science can add to art, as a personal example I once sat in on a class on "tempo and measure of one of our better local sidesword and rapier instructors. My background is Tai Chi {Yang style}, which is "art" however, adding the part of rapier science, "tempo and measure" to my understanding helped me a great deal. At the time, I was involved in using my art, and modifying my use of it, to fence with various local Italian rapier folks........
It works the same in swords. Learning of the nodes, the pivot points, etc, all have added to what you see in finished product as far as swords go, and the process goes on. But, at the same time, experience and feedback with various martial arts and artists also has added to the understanding, but this last is more "art" {meaning subjective} than science. Yet, its very much a part of the continued improvement you see in the sword market. Swordmakers, then, deal with both "Science", and "Art". Physical reality, and the subjective. It becomes a part of ones being after a while........
Its likely the subjective part of this, why various swordmakers see things differently. The varying amount that we live in "Physical Realilty" vs "Subjective" universe. Our own personal prism to the world if you will......
If you take, lets say four prominent swordmaker/designers {prominent in the world of the internet}, and give them a rough spec for things.... and take out the requirement of having to make a buck........ you'd wind up with four different views. Lets say, a Type XIV for I.33. Blade lengths might vary between 27 and 30.5 inches......... weights between 2lbs even and 2lbs 12oz......... and the differences of various characteristics each favored would be different, as would the compromises made to get to the favored characteristics........{for the heck of it, the four might be Tinker, Craig Johnson, Peter Johnsson, and A Trim}
You'd find that some sword handlers would have a good guess of who the makers were, even if not told........ because of the characteristics the swords had.......
If you now handed these swords to 8 different martial artists of various backgrounds, two experienced "backyard sword handlers", and maybe a couple other martial artists of similar but different backgrounds {katana, and Phillipine knife for instance}, you'd get different reactions on the likes and dislikes of each { subjective, purely}........
The end result? In my view, just that there would be quite a bit of variety in viewpoint....... add in passion and it could be quite a mix.........
Even throwing in Cad/Cam and CNC machining, there's still as much art in swordmaking as science...... just as there is in swordsmanship........ {this is before you add in passion}
caveat: there are several good swordmaker / designers that could be used in this example......... I just picked four out of the air......
swords are fun
|
|
|
|
|
Jared Smith
|
| Posted: Sun 09 Mar, 2008 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I believe you Angus!
The article at this link talks about differences in bells produced in medieval era. http://www.russianbells.com/acoustics/acoustics-intro.html
Whats interesting about it is that makers in different regions prized different properties (Russians wanting more dependable rhythm..CoP weighted approach, Western makers wanting more pure tone). If you dig down further within the site, you will find that all of the technical issues (structural and acoustic harmonics, CoP, etc) were being manipulated in very exacting ways despite not really having (as far as I know of) today's technical language for what they were doing. What craftsmen sometimes achieve astounds me!
Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic