[Patrick Kelly]

When human beings become involved in any kind of endeavor we tend to gain experience as we go. We grab onto small kernels of knowledge and cling to them as if our lives depended on it. We do this for several reasons.

Firstly, we're gratified that we've learned something and we want to share that knowledge, sometimes for the betterment of others, sometimes as a means of impressing others with our "expertise". Secondly, we cling to our bits of knowledge out of defense. All too often we tend to close our minds to new ideas in the fear that we will be proven wrong, or inadequate. We cling to our narrow ideas out of a sense of insecurity, because to admit ignorance is to admit defeat.

How does this relate to swords you ask? It does, in a very big way.

All too often we become fixated on the small individual details of a swords construction. We will have long debates on the proper points of balance for a given type. We will tirelessly discuss the proper weight of a certain design. We fixate on these specific details as if they were the be-all and end-all of a swords function. An excellent example is the concept of harmonic balancing. There's nothing magical about this aspect of sword making, yet it has created many debates over its existence. Recently an article was written by George Turner, an ARMA member, in which Mr. Turner discussed the concept of pivot points within a swords design. While there was much to be found of merit in Mr. Turners article it seemed to be written as a refutation of the principal of harmonic balance.

(This is not a criticism, or defense, of either concept. It is simply an example.)

The problem is that both of these phenomenons exist in sword design. They exist side by side, with one benefitting from the other. Neither are mutually exclusive. When we become fixated on proving the validity of our particular theory at the expense of the larger picture we loose sight of the real truth. Pivot points and harmonics cannot stand alone as the building blocks of sword design. We cannot fixate on a particular point of balance, a particular weight, or a particular edge geometry. After all, these factors are determined by the swords function not by personal wishes. One aspect of sword design that is rarely discussed, and is critical to our understanding, is that of mass distribution.

All of these smaller factors, weight, POB, pivot points, and harmonics, lie in the foundation of mass distribution. Overall weight isn't nearly as important as how that weight and mass is distributed. This will in turn effect points of balance, pivot points, and harmonic node placement. We need to ask ourselves, what is the swords intended purpose? How do the particular design elements achieve that purpose? By understanding the intent and purpose of a swords design we will be able to realize whether or not the interperation of that design is adequate. We have to open our minds and take in the broader view of what sword design really is. The study and handling of originals, or true recreations of originals, is crucial in this understanding. The sword makers of old possessed a deep understanding of the swords mechanics which we are still searching for today. They did it for real, it wasn't a hobby. Even if our tastes run to modern fantasy designs we must have a firm understanding of the original designs if we are to determine if our desires can yield a truly functional sword.

As sword enthusiasts we need to stop fixating on the mechanical particulars of a swords design when determining quality or desirability. When taken alone each of these features mean very little. We *must* take a more organic approach to our search for knowledge. The sword must be viewed by the sum of its parts, not by its details taken in microcosm.

Thoughts?

[Randal Graham]

Very, very cool....I am so glad to hear someone besides one of us makers talk like that, realize these things.
so extremely important to see the macro.

[Roger Hooper]

Great post, Patrick. I guess what it comes down to, is that you take all these diverse factors, which, when they get tweaked, will influence all the other factors in complex and maybe unexpected ways. So then you have to start using your intuition. Maybe you'll end up with something useless, or maybe something wonderful.

[Angus Trim]

Throw in static and dynamic balance, and your picture is getting more complete......

Particularly dynamic balance, as that fits into the total "organic" picture that much more....and is so much of what handling and function of any type of sword is........

[Björn Hellqvist]

That pretty much explains why one cannot develop some convenient mathematical formula, where the desired result is derieved from the input of length, POB, etc. into the equation. The subtleness of sword design results in so many variables, that it must be easier to go by feel and experience, than crunching a lot of numbers and getting something ahistorical.

[Angus Trim]

[Patrick Kelly]

I agree with Gus in that math is/was a part of the process. The point is that it's only a part of the process, not an end unto itself. The more you study the sword the more facets you discover in its construction. It's fascinating that an object can seem so simple on the surface yet can be so complicated. It really shows us that the ancient smiths really had more going on than we give them credit for.

The whole concept of looking at the sword in a bigger and more intuitive way is something that I've been thinking on for quite some time. Peter and I had many lengthly discussions on this last week, which really cemented my thinking on the subject.

Afterall, I'm just an ignorant flatfoot, but Peter Johnsson is a man who knows what he's talking about.

[Ciaran Flanagan]

While not as versed in the ways of antiques and sword reproductions as the likes Of PJ etc or versed in the maths of it all Like gus I to have questioned the obsession with "the little things". It is my personal belief that the smiths of old did not use as much math as some advocate they did. It all boils down to organic plain and simple. Take distil taper, this has been argued time and time again and I personally believe a lot of the arguments are regarding copying of distil taper as opposed to its existence or intended existence ( a certain forumite continually advocates it didnt exist because its not documanted). If you want to reproduce an origional you have to meticulously measure this taper but that doesn't mean nessisarilly that the taper was their by intended design rather its there organically. Smiths make things better as they gain experience and part of the forging process and blade shaping naturally creates distil taper. A sword with distil taper can feel more alive in the hand then one without. A smith with experience would know if a sword feels right or not and knows how to make it through experience. Id say ask him to explain it he'd answer, I don't know how or why but I know what feels good. So basically what i'm saying is I believe we give to much credit to the smiths of old in certain regards, They probably never even thought twice about the specific tapers or node placement, all they knew was how to make a sword feel "right" which is an organic thing that we have the technology nowadays to mathematically reproduce, Just like remastering an analouge (vinal) recording of a symphony orchestra and digitally putting it on cd..The trombonist has no idea of the maths of it all but can make beautiful music through experience and practise but the digital re-masterer does understand the math


Hope this makes some sense :-)

C

[Chad Arnow]

[Ciaran Flanagan]

LOL....Should have put in "random member of orchestra". My bro Used to play lead trumpet in the Irish National Youth Orchestra and had a similatr saying about trumpet playing..

C

[Björn Hellqvist]

[Roger Hooper]

[Angus Trim]

When discussing antique baskethilts, with a knowledgeable guy like Mac, it is ussually commented on how in many of the antiques {and the ones most of us like the best}, the "cutting areas of the blade", from the cop to the tip, are "really fine", meaning thin in crossection. Yet, there is a lot of variation, one also can find antique teastrainers that don't have a lot of distal taper {and feel like clunkers}.....

The guy widely renowned as the world's best modern teastrainer maker, makes his baskethilted swords, like what many of us consider the finest of the antiques, ie with a distal taper that makes for a thin crossection in the "cutting areas of the blade"....

Of course, most folks that plunk $2000 on the table for a Vince Evans masterpiece, aren't going to slam the sword into a helmet on a pole either.......*g*

Then we get to medieval and earlier antiques...... Peter Johnsson once stated on SFI that many of the antiques he had studied were roughly 3 to 3.5mm {.118 to .137 inch} thick at the cop, and distal tapered down from there. Talking to Peter's evil twin, Craig Johnson this morning, our discussion touched on how many of the antique cutting swords, got "really fine" out towards the tip, and how these would fare in today's world of test cutting chopping trees down, or cutting helmets on poles......

I don't have the extensive background in antiques these gents do, but I can think of a couple of antiques that wouldn't do that well today, one of them I have specs for provided by Bjorn. I type XIX that comes down to approx .08 inch {2mm} 4 inches from the tip, swells a bit from there, and behind the point is approx .08 inch again......

Another is the famous Moonbrand owned by Ewart Oakeshott. This sword is only about .125 inches thick at the base {approx 3.25mm}, distal tapers quickly, then "flattens out", and "behind the point" is only about .06 inches thick {approx 1.5mm}.

These last two antiques are likely military use swords, but neither would do well cutting trees down, nor on the now infamous helmet bashing test.........

So, when it comes time to design and make a sword, one has to think about not only the historical record, but what possible use a modern sword will get. Its lookin' to me more and more, like price point might have a lot to do with the potential use a sword'll get. And price point might also have a lot to do with the education someone might have on just what a sword really is.........

At my price point, I still need to design in a little ability to live thru some reasonable abuse.......

*g*

[Björn Hellqvist]

[Roger Hooper]

[Patrick Kelly]

[Chad Arnow]

Great post, Patrick.

I think many people get fixated on numbers because they appear to be black and white. But they don't tell the whole story.

Math and/or ratios are a starting point, but don't always lead to a great product by themselves. Just as feeling alone won't always produce a great product.

I'm glad Ciaran brought music into the discussion, as I think parallels can be drawn. The notes on the page are a starting point for us, a very black and white item. What we add from our own experiences, emotion, and intuition is what makes the final product. 10 different musicians will give you 12 different interpretations of the same page of music. The notes on the page alone are not the whole products.

As a sword lover, I get tired of people seeing a POB listed on a stat sheet and saying "That sounds too close" or "Wouldn't that make it slow?" The numbers don't necessarily tell the whole story. Combine it with feel, purpose, etc. and you can get the whole picture.

[Angus Trim]

Well Chad.......

I want to add to what you said, and what Pat said in his last post.

As a swordmaker, I've learned that there's more than one way to get to "harmonic balance", and that actually, there is more than one set of "rules". I lived by one set of rules for the first three years of my existence as a swordfabricator.....and it worked for me very well.

A year ago, I went to WMAW, and met Craig and Peter face to face. More importantly for this conversation, I got to handle and study X.10 {Records, part of the Oakeshott collection} that Craig had brought. I wanted to test it more, for harmonics, but there must be something about my character {*g*}, as Craig mother henned me, and wouldn't really allow what I wanted to do..... He was still watching me closely like that when I was studying an antique baskethilt {another kool sword, I'd swear the blade was a X}, he wasn't watching Tinker, and Tinker did what I wanted to do.....*g*

As I saw it back then, that sword was not harmonically balanced, but it had great dynamic balance. To my thinkin' at the time, it was quite an anomoly........I even told a couple people about this sword, and that in my view it wasn't harmonically balanced........

Well, a couple months go by, and Tinker tells me that the handle nodes were what the Auld Dawg considers "nominal".......
The sword was indeed harmonically balanced.

This meant a great deal of study and experimenting by both Tink and myself, to see just what was going on.........

The answer is fairly simple. If the blade has the right geometry, some of these blades have *at least* two *sweet spots* as far as the balancing goes. One can adds weight to the pommel, and screws up the node alignment. Add enough more, and all of a sudden, the nodes are there again..........

But the answer is more difficult, because not all blade geometry/ tang geometry combinations will allow this. Its actually kind of rare...........

Which brings me to Patrick's post. You have different ways of distal tapering even in the same types of blades. Lets take two very famous Xa's. Both approx 2.9lbs. The first, the St Maurice sword of Turin. This sword starts roughly .19 inches thick at the base, and has roughly 25 to 30% distal taper. Pretty close to linear distal taper. The center of gravity is "out there" 9.5 inches.

The second sword is the most perfect specimen of surviving medieval swords in the world {according to Oakeshott}, Xa.1 {Records}. It starts roughly .36 inches at the base {thickness}, and has something like 70% distal taper. The cog is something like 4.5 inches........

One sword is likely meant for long sweeping blows from horseback. The other could be used successfully that way, but also could be used on foot in a situation that a really fast recovering sword should be used in.

Which brings up back to folks that obsess on the numbers. I owe two of them on SFI a great deal, simply because the badgering they gave me, had me look into this odd thing of having a ton more weight on the ass end of the sword than I used to think reasonable, and coming up with a harmonically balanced, dynamically balanced, decent cutting sword. Without the accidental discovery of what X.10 had to show Tink and I, and without the badgering, I wouldn't have crossed that threshold, and learned more about the "balancing act".........

Back to Patrick's post. The fact that you see this kind of balancing in a few of the "better surviving antiques" tells me that Patrick is square on with the "fact" that the migration era and medieval swordsmiths and cutlers knew what they were about. The best of them were genius in more than one field......... Kinda like PJ today......... Folks that want to think that the medievals were just a bunch of dumb hammer jocks, really oughtta reconsider...... the evidence is overwhelming that they were "Giants"..........

Now I'm going to caveat this to the effect, I'm talking about the smiths that made the best of the antiques we have today, not the smiths that left the clunkers...........

[Ciaran Flanagan]

[Mike Fletcher]