This is what I'm talkin about!

[BT]

On the chart the lighter arrow has more going for it due to the fact that it doesn't touch the ground till somewhere in the neighborhood of 110 yards.
The heavier shaft is outperforming at 10 yards because of the gravity effect beyond the paradox.
Off paper it has hit the ground at around 12 yards

[michihunter]

I see you evading the point BT. Neither are realistic from a archery standpoint. But the chart clearly shows that both START with the same momentum. But that doesn't remain the same for either now does it? So it stands to reason that your theory of the "meatball vs. truck" may take on different results huh?

[BT]

michihunter said:

I see you evading the point BT. Neither are realistic from a archery standpoint. But the chart clearly shows that both START with the same momentum. But that doesn't remain the same for either now does it? So it stands to reason that your theory of the "meatball vs. truck" may take on different results huh?

No....the heavy shaft is falling and therefore gaining momentum due to weight.
The lighter shaft is having to overcome gravity and wind resistance at a far greater speed.

The chart clearly shows that fact.

[michihunter]

Hey!! Guess what? The light shaft is falling too!! But unfortunately due to being so light it will LOSE momentum when it does at a greater rate than the heavier one!! Thanks for understanding what it is I've been saying for how many years? ;D ;D

Here's some more startling findings: The lighter faster arrow (within the first 10 yards)loses:
5% of its speed
10% of it's energy
5% of it's momentum

How much loss it there with the heavier arrow in 10 yards?
NONE!!

[BT]

Yes...that is true

Unfortunately I can only reach out 1 yards with it ;D

In the real world of archery this is what I have been saying as well Michi but with a twist.
The fact is that for long range shooting the heavier shaft is superior but before the point of decent the lighter shaft has a tremendous advantage in making the shot in the first place.

Here is what I recently pointed to on another site (one that I do like alot )




The flatter shooting bow allows more room for error
At 260fps a bow will shoot flat to 23 yards
At 320fps a bow will shoot flat to 33 yards

Over that 10 yard difference the 260fps bow will have a 13" window of elevation change which will translate to a miss/wound at 5 yards of range estimation error.
The 320fps bow on the other hand will hit dead on through those error windows and past...out to 36 yards

The average shooter is not that good at range estimation and even the best shooters are not that great when under pressure

[michihunter]

Those numbers I just posted are reflected at 10 yards BT. Only an 18" drop for the heavier/slower setup. You need more practice if you can't get passed 1 yard with that hypothetical setup. ;D ;D

The average shooter is not that good at range estimation and even the best shooters are not that great when under pressure

Isn't that why there are multiple pins on most sights? And isn't one of our responsibilities as hunters to be able to get good at range estimation? Should we excuse those that do NOT get proficient by allowing them a way to circumvent practicing? Seems countrproductive to me. Another thing can be said as well for the faster bow. Any small error in shoooting form will be greatly axagerrated with an increase in speed which cancels out the "room for error" contention.

But that's a moot point. The point is that by your contention KE is the better way to determine penetration. I disagree and point out the facts as they are calculated. The examples I used are exagerrated for a reason. To show that there is a direct relation to momentum when it comes to pentration. Why? Because that is the work "BEING" done!! Not the "Potential" for work being done. I contend that you need both(and more) to make a proper determination and that there is a middle ground (which I contend is around 6.2 gpp) that will give you the best of ALL worlds.

[BT]

The average shooter is not that good at range estimation and even the best shooters are not that great when under pressure

Isn't that why there are multiple pins on most sights? And isn't one of our responsibilities as hunters to be able to get good at range estimation? Should we excuse those that do NOT get proficient by allowing them a way to circumvent practicing? Seems counterproductive to me. Another thing can be said as well for the faster bow. Any small error in shooting form will be greatly exaggerated with an increase in speed which cancels out the "room for error" contention.

I wont agree with that at all
I have seen (and you have seen) people that shoot deer for a living getting the fever and blowing a shot due to nothing more than range estimation.
Tom Miranda is one person that does this alot and also hunts alot.

I believe anyone can make a mistake and thats one of the reasons that there are people who only use one pin , because of errors in having held the wrong pin on target.

A better way to avoid this is to have a bow that will reach out through those potential error yardages if possible.
You know this .... you have a bow that will do this when compared to the majority out there today.

Error is in the human nature of us all and I am looking for the best way to eliminate error.
Form errors happen but not as much to people who practice
The brain is a machine and for someone who is developed , accidents in form are rare because it becomes an instinctive reaction rather than a continuous process.
Skipmaster is a perfect example of this process.
His draw and release and everything in between are the dark area of the mind in action.
He rarely remembers the bow between the decision to shoot and the shot.

This is not uncommon and so , the speed of the bow has nothing to do with it ... the form is always there.

The speed only hurts those who are not proficient to begin with.

The point is that by your contention KE is the better way to determine penetration.

I never said that

I said that the need for a momentum based set up does not apply unless shooting long ranges or below modern standards with a base of 60# & 28"

I disagree and point out the facts as they are calculated. The examples I used are exaggerated for a reason. To show that there is a direct relation to momentum when it comes to penetration. Why? Because that is the work "BEING" done!! Not the "Potential" for work being done. I contend that you need both(and more) to make a proper determination and that there is a middle ground (which I contend is around 6.2 gpp) that will give you the best of ALL worlds.

This is just what 2chucks 2 had stated some time ago when he came up with the 400gr. theory.

I didn't disagree with that at all

What I said/implied was that with K.E. measured at (lets say) 60# , there was no need to go any further in search of momentum or K.E. and it was at a certain value below a particular number where these numbers and calculations became very important.

As I have said....in youth and traditional equipment the need for momentum is very real but once we enter into the modern adult compound of 60# or better momentum is only a primary consideration in distance shooting.

The advantage with high K.E. is that it translates into high speeds which increase the ability to increase the distance when out shooting the string jump as well as eliminating errors in close conditions.

High K.E. would be best for woods applications whereas momentum would be better in the open spaces.

This has always been my contention

[michihunter]

High K.E. would be best for woods applications whereas momentum would be better in the open spaces.

Why have a need for 2 (or maybe even 3) setups due to the area you are hunting when there is a middle ground that allows for all? KE and Momentum go hand in hand and one should not be favored over the other but rather embraced as a team. I have found through extensivce practice, reading, and observation, that 6.2 gpp is the best median available REGARDLESS of what pound you are shooting. Anything less decreases KE as will anything greater. And don't forget, KE is only PART of the team!!


BTW- BT, not too many posts ago you were proclaiming that Momentum couldn't even be expressed in mathematical terms. Can't have it both ways big guy!!

That is to say that you can go to a large number of Ivy league schools which have dumped millions of dollars and hours into the K.E. verses Momentum debate and you will find that in each case documentation it is clearly stated each and every time that momentum can not be derived in mathematical form and therefore cannot be expressed to a value that can be used in science.

[BT]

michihunter said:

BTW- BT, not too many posts ago you were proclaiming that Momentum couldn't even be expressed in mathematical terms. Can't have it both ways big guy!!

That is to say that you can go to a large number of Ivy league schools which have dumped millions of dollars and hours into the K.E. verses Momentum debate and you will find that in each case documentation it is clearly stated each and every time that momentum can not be derived in mathematical form and therefore cannot be expressed to a value that can be used in science.

True...but I cant continue with a theoretical discussion if I refuse to except a premise
This statement that I grabbed off a student site was the only thing I had ever seen that I felt could be grasped to express the true meaning of the diversity of the two schools of thought.

[BT]

Here is how the stated mathematical expression has changed from the past.

[yellow]The expression of momentum in a mathematical equation is impossible,so a mathematical expression to the assumed equivalent is used.
This does not equate to a known but rather expresses an assumption of fact based on newtons law.[/yellow]

I remember way on back when Ashby was wrestling with this same question.

So this is why I say that there is no true science behind the momentum equation.
The actual truth may well be the same or near to the calculations but this math is not based on a proven theory as has been stated many times in years past.
** not that many years ago either because I remember a big discussion on Bowsite some years past where the argument hinged on the fact that there was no way to prove out the momentum argument.