[Patrick Kelly]

The sword is a mechanical and quantifiable instrument. Unfortunately breaking it down into absolutely mechanical and quantifiable terms on paper is a very difficult thing. No matter how many measurements you take you won't be able to gain an absolute grasp of any sword's dynamics by analyzing statistics on paper. There are far too many subtleties in shape, proportion, distribution of mass, etc. There's also the fact that no two swords are exactly the same, even if they are the same model made in a production environment. There will still be inevitable variances due to the necessary hand-work that's part of the process. In order to make any system of comparison by measurement meaningful and valid there has to be consistency within the test subjects. When dealing with swords there simply isn't enough of that to lend validity to any kind of fine numerical standard. Something like this can be an aid but only in the most general sense. There is simply no substitute for actual hand-on examination and comparison.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

OK, thank you for the valuable input...

Aaron,
I thought about making such an apparatus. What stopped me until now was precisely what you said, it's exploring "in an unlimited way". That is, I could design almost any balance, feel it in my hands, but I'd be hard pressed to say wether it's historical or not... This does offer an understanding of some of the physics involved, but doesn't allow for checking it against historical reality. Now, I think I will still do it, but it would be intended more as pedagogical tool (I'm part of an Aikibudo club here, and convincing people about pivot points is not easy when they don't want to hear the theory...).

Patrick,
I must make myself clearer here. I'm not looking for some numbers that would describe any and all details of the behaviour of any sword. I'm not even thinking about judging wether a given sword is good or not,based solely on the numbers. I firmly believe that the best method is hands-on examination, once you've got enough experience of course. What I'm looking for is a certain set of numbers, that would allow an individual to judge, with a certain level of confidence, that the sword would feel right for him. Either by comparison with historical pieces, or through his past experience with other weapons.
One could see the benefits, for example, when buying swords online (which is mostly what I've been doing, since I haven't found a maker I like around here...). The seller could measure easily 3-4 significant numbers, that would allow for a clearer choice... A lot clearer in my opinion, than "the sword feels just right", which is a matter of personnal taste in the end

I'm not saying either that there should be no variance in the numbers. But hey, statistics are just about that : controlling and inspecting that variance. To do this, the problem is that you need a representative sample... At any rate, more than just 5-10 swords...

To make an anology, I had a course in climatology this year, where statistics were used to reduce a 2345-dimensional problem (random number as well here, but the count of digits is about right...) to just a 3-4-dimensional problem. Climatologists do not say that this reduction is lossless, that the 3-4 objects they get in the end are the whole story. They just say that they are already a good part of that story (like, explaining 80% of the evolution), that studying these is already a huge step forward in the right direction.

Well, now I feel even more compelled to writing this article I was thinking of

Regards

[Mark Eskra]

For curved blades, they are usually swung downwards, so balance 1/3 forward is a good general rule. Straight edges with 1 and 1.5 hand grips i find handy balanced 1/5 blade length ahead of guard. Longer grips mean thrusting swords or bashing tools, so a good taper is ok, though a riccasso is a must for a real thrust situation.