Dry-firing (so to speak) a bow....Truth or urban myth ?
Peter S. Saly
Yet as an engineer, I have a problem putting my mind around it..
When you consider the weight of an arrow with respect to the forces exerted
by a bow, one has to consaider the effect of the arrow's presence aspretty
well meaningless.
Yet even so, people continue to claim that dry-firing a bow is a bad thing..
I am curious to discover any well-structured arguments to support a position
that I consider to be closer to an urban myth, than reality..
Tom Duncan
Well, I don't know. You got about $300/£200 to spare to buy a cheap
compound and find out?
Tom
--
These Five Words In My Head
Scream "Are We Having Fun Yet?"
And the answer is .... definitely!
A.Ron Carmichael
http://www.texasarchery.org
As an engineer, you must be very familiar with the concept of making
observations of an empirical nature, and then postulating mechanisms and
theories about WHY you observed what you did. If a bow is dry fired and the
limb delaminates, it COULD be that it would have delaminated any way. <G> But
if the limb has been fired (with arrows) countless times without delaminating
one would have to assess whether other factors come into play......
and by the way, have FUN with Joe's site - as an engineer, you will certainly
find ample things to ruminate on. :)
"Peter S. Saly" wrote:
--
TexARC
publicize the sport of Archery!
http://www.texasarchery.org
Outgoing messages scanned for viruses by Nortons AV 2002
Peter S. Saly
> "Tom Duncan" <tpd...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:3CEC3239...@york.ac.uk...
> > "Peter S. Saly" wrote:
> >
> > I hear all these warnings about the dangers of dry-firing a bow..
> > Yet as an engineer, I have a problem putting my mind around it..
> >
> > When you consider the weight of an arrow with respect to the forces
exerted
> > by a bow, one has to consaider the effect of the arrow's presence
aspretty
> > well meaningless.
> > Yet even so, people continue to claim that dry-firing a bow is a bad
thing..
> >
> > I am curious to discover any well-structured arguments to support a
position
> > that I consider to be closer to an urban myth, than reality..
>
> Well, I don't know. You got about $300/£200 to spare to buy a cheap
> compound and find out?
>
1) Fear is not any real evidence or argument to prove or disprove
anything
2) 1 bow used as a test will not prove anything
3) Have you ever even heard of the "cientific method"
But, feel free to address the points I made
Peter S. Saly
I fail to see where there is any real reference to actual documented
delaminations
2) This brings me to my point about this whole "delamination" thing being
an urban myth.
3) As to the theory that the presence of an arrow would in some way
prevent delamination...
It does NOT stand up to any rationale..
By the time the bow is absorbing the end result of a release, the
arrow is LONG gone
Also the send-off of the arrow, does NOT absorb a large portion of
the energy held and consequently released by the bow.
Also, bows created today, are designed to tolerate much higher
levels of vibration, and changes of kinetic energy.
4) Maybe in the old days, when bows were made of much more friable
materials, The useful life of a bow was much shorter, and therefore it made
sense, not to twang the bow unnecessarily
This was posssibly compounded by the fact that it required a far
greater investment of human time to create a quality bow. Making it's
relative replacement cost prohibitve.
"A.Ron Carmichael" <a...@arcarmichael.com> wrote in message
news:3CEC4769...@arcarmichael.com...
A.Ron Carmichael
don't have one of your own, else you would be sitting there already, stupidly
dry-firing it) and employ your own "cientific method"<SIC>.
Before I read your unkind reply to Tom I would have been glad to do the extra
mouse click or two, and a scroll or two, to HELP you find a VERY CLEAR AND EASY
TO FIND LINK, but you can bloody well find it yourself (or not) it makes not one
whit of difference to me now. sheesh. Tom answers your question and you tee
off on him. "Cientific<sic> method" my arse.
GO find the freakin' link yourself, or don't - I don't really care whut yew do,
pilgrim. If you are indeed an engineer, that term implies a certain logical and
functional capability. You either don't use it or don't have it. But do feel
free to address a note to Ms. Manners or perhaps Vanna, and perhaps she will
provide you with a clue about netiquette and especially the binaries.
Moving on to other, more palatable and congenial threads......life is indeed too
short.
TexARC
Foo
> I hear all these warnings about the dangers of dry-firing a bow..
> Yet as an engineer, I have a problem putting my mind around it..
>
> When you consider the weight of an arrow with respect to the forces exerted
> by a bow, one has to consaider the effect of the arrow's presence aspretty
> well meaningless.
> Yet even so, people continue to claim that dry-firing a bow is a bad thing..
If the sound is anything to go by, dry firing sounds pretty bad.
I know of two people who dry fired their bows recently. One was
practicing drawing back with a release aid (only just bought a
compound after recurve training) when the release when off by
accident. I have no idea what the other guy was doing.
In both cases, it sounded like an explosion going off. In both
cases, the normal sound after firing an arrow is a pleasant
"thump" sound.
Sound is energy. I figure the sound of bow being dry fired is
all that energy that has nowhere to go except into the (destruction
of) the bow itself.
But, lets take a look at some theory. Suppose an arrow speed of
250fps and an arrow mass of 200 grains. Many compound bows are
rated at 300fps so this is somewhat lenient, but then the weight of
the arrow may vary.
If I remember correcty, KE = 0.5*m*v^2.
traslate to SI units and plug it in and I get a figure of
~36 Joules. That's equivalent to the amount of energy released
when dropping a 1kg weight at a height of 3.6 metres.
Now, I figure if you were to drop a 1kg weight at a height of
3.6 metres onto your bow often enough, it'd do some damage.. :-)
Shawn
Jim Breckenridge
>
> 1) Do you have a more specific URL to that site
Here you go. It was soo hard to find.
Leintz
"Peter S. Saly" <Pe...@Saly.com> wrote in message
news:ueo9gfg...@corp.supernews.com...
Murray Elliot
>Yet as an engineer, I have a problem putting my mind around it..
Tell you what... don't try to get your mind around it.
>When you consider the weight of an arrow with respect to the forces exerted
>by a bow, one has to consaider the effect of the arrow's presence aspretty
>well meaningless.
Is that so? So why, in fact, does the simple act of adding one strand
to your string, or brass nocking points to your string dramatically
affect the speed of the arrow? In the case of mass, teh arrow is much,
MUCH greater than either.
>Yet even so, people continue to claim that dry-firing a bow is a bad thing..
Well, here's an experiment for you to carry out:
Beg, steal, borrow an accelerometer or two and attach these to the
riser. Measure the amplitude of the shot imparted to the limbs and the
riser with, and without the arrow.
>I am curious to discover any well-structured arguments to support a position
>that I consider to be closer to an urban myth, than reality..
No point in arguing. Well-structured or not... go for the facts and
keep postulation and speculation out of it.
Pete Samuels
I really must object to your use of the word "arse"
in this NG!
Where yew come from the word should be "ass" :)
Pete Samuels
"Pete Samuels" <Peter....@mansella.buggeroff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:_81H8.146$LHE6.2...@news2.randori.com...
Oh, BTW. I'm never going to knowingly dry fire my bow!
Murray Elliot
>riser. Measure the amplitude of the shot imparted to the limbs and the
Having written software for analysis of fatigue in mechanical
components, having designed data acquisition systems, having seen the
effect of simple damping on the frequency, amplitude and duration of
vibrations in a variety of mechanical systems I hereby formally
dispute your "myth" theory.
If you want me to go into it in great detail, I'm sorry - but I have a
life, and I have LOTS of shooting to do (WITH arrows) :o)
j tapley
Your Tequila account is growing <g>. However in this case it's a bum steer
as I make no comments on dry firing.
The risk associated with dry firing a modern bow is small (exept maybe the
risk from heart failure from the bang). There is a small increase in the
chance that the bow will fail on the shot and there will be a small
reduction in the 'life' of the bow -when it does actually fail. Of course if
the bow is near to failure anyway then a dry fire can be the straw on the
camel's back which is maybe why dry fires and bow failure become associated.
IMO there is more damage risk to bow appendages like bowsights then to the
bow itself from a dry fire.
Tom Duncan
Well, I know that a single bow wouldn't do to be scientific, mainly as
there is no way of proving that it is not an anomaly - also, you have to
consider split vs. solid limb theories, and there is no way of providing
for them in a single bow test.
(I'm replying to this before reading the rest of this thread, so I'll
probably end up saying what others do) The main reason, from what I have
learnt, is that there is energy released when the string is released,
and as this has to go somewhere, it ends up being turned into vibration
which can (assuming it can get to a resonating frequency) damage things.
However, I read somewhere that when a magazine or something was testing
a new Golden Eagle compound, they used 300gr arrows on a 70lb bow, so
semi-dry firing it, but no damage was seen => "A testimony to the
strength of their design" was the quote, I think.
Tom Duncan
>
> 2 dry fire and my bows riser was broken.....
>
Mierda! I knew that dry firing did nasty things to the limbs, limb
bolts, and occasionally cams and cables, but breaking the _riser_? That
must have been a hell of a powerful bow!
Tom
Leintz
at the same time and both lims has chinks along it (it heard like a gun
shot)....i fixed it but after several weeks arrow was dropped again and
after that riser has deep chink....
(Draw weight): 60 lbs
(Draw lenght): 29"
(Brace height): (5,8")
(Axle to axle): (42")
(fury cams-agressive)
very nasty story...
"Tom Duncan" <tpd...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3CECAAB7...@york.ac.uk...
Tom Duncan
>
> first dry-firing broke cams (where the string fasten to the cam)....both cam
> at the same time and both lims has chinks along it (it heard like a gun
> shot)....i fixed it but after several weeks arrow was dropped again and
> after that riser has deep chink....
> (Draw weight): 60 lbs
> (Draw lenght): 29"
> (Brace height): (5,8")
> (Axle to axle): (42")
> (fury cams-agressive)
>
Hang on - Martin Fury, 1999 edition?
(http://www.martinarchery.com/bows1999/fur.htm)
Sounds like it, and as such, I'd better be bloody careful - I've got one
of those things as well. Fun, aren't they?
Tom
A.Ron Carmichael
Pete Samuels wrote:
--
Jonny Hodgson
Foo <s....@optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:3CEC7D0...@optushome.com.au...
> But, lets take a look at some theory. Suppose an arrow speed of
> 250fps and an arrow mass of 200 grains. Many compound bows are
> rated at 300fps so this is somewhat lenient, but then the weight of
> the arrow may vary.
>
> If I remember correcty, KE = 0.5*m*v^2.
> traslate to SI units and plug it in and I get a figure of
> ~36 Joules. That's equivalent to the amount of energy released
> when dropping a 1kg weight at a height of 3.6 metres.
... and I reckon my recurve stores about 45 Joules. Even allowing
for a compound storing twice that, the arrow still makes a
significant dent in the total energy equation.
Jonny
Henry Etteldorf
"Peter S. Saly" <Pe...@Saly.com> wrote in message
news:ueo9gfg...@corp.supernews.com...
> Yet as an engineer, I have a problem putting my mind around it..
>
> When you consider the weight of an arrow with respect to the forces
exerted
> by a bow, one has to consaider the effect of the arrow's presence aspretty
> well meaningless.
I think you may have to compare the weight of the arrow and string to the
weight of the string only. The weight of the limbs (or moment of the
working part) is likely minimal. A string is likely less that 100 grains.
An arrow somewhere around 500 grains.
Also since the arrow does not disconnect from the string when it reaches
brace height but the string continues past this point to its forward most
point of oscellation it may dampen the impulse to the bow from the string.
> Yet even so, people continue to claim that dry-firing a bow is a bad
thing..
>
> I am curious to discover any well-structured arguments to support a
position
> that I consider to be closer to an urban myth, than reality..
>
If you are really intested, you may want to contact a local university and
talk with a physics or dynamics professor. He may find it very interesting
and use it as a exercise.
Henry
Daz
What FOO said. (well i'm glad he did and I didn't have to, of course I could
have come up with all that) ROFL.
Daz
"Foo" <s....@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3CEC7D0...@optushome.com.au...
Daz
goes down the field, if theres any chance that dry firing damages your bow
(whether proven or not) why take the chance with £300 bits of kit. Of course
if you've won the lottery go for it, but i've seen limbs let go and if I can
suggest 1 thing wear a lot of protection whilst conducting your experiments.
Just shoot it and enjoy it,
Daz
"Peter S. Saly" <Pe...@Saly.com> wrote in message
news:ueo9gfg...@corp.supernews.com...
Peter S. Saly
Tom
==========================
When you add to that the amount of engineering that has gone into a modern
bow, to absorb the energy of a release, then the question of the supposed
effects of dry-firing,is a valid one..
Obviously the manufacturers, particularly in lawsuit-happy US, would not be
interested in sugesting anything that could in any way increase their
exposure to lawsuit-happy lawyers.
Particularly when, they would be facing having to disprove what is consdered
to be "common knowledge"..
One only has to look at the experience of those in human history who have
dared go against "common knowledge" which subsequently was proven to be
anything BUT "knowledge"
Famous names that come to my mind are Gallileo, Copernicus, Lister, to name
a few
Sadly that list is VERY long..
I feel that, in consideration of the evolution of the technology of archery,
my question is perfectly fair, and needs to be asked and looked into..
I realize that unfortunately, for many, I am questionning a sacred cow that
has been passed down through generations.
Peter S. Saly
2) I'm also wasting my time with an idiot who feels the need to glom on a
spoelling error to feel in any way superior..
But hey, wahtever makes you feel like a big boy is fine by me..
You are so obviously hard up..
3) Since I am not interested in "ruminating", I will leave that to you.
Flatulence befits you
(Do look up the word before you use it again)
4) Unlike you, I HAVE read the material in the link.
There is NO reference WHATSOEVER that I have seen, that even
approaches this subject
Maybe you should do your OWN reading before demonstrating your lack
thereof..
5) I do own a bow
As a matter of fact I do own more than one..
And guess what, I do use some of my older wooden recurves, to
practise form by dry-firing them
6) Tom Duncan's suggestion that I should go out and buy a new boy for
test purposes was neither the brightest response, nor the kindest.
I responded in the same style.
His subsequent response which you obviously have not read, was more
a-propos
7) As you so obviously have too much baggage and so little to offer,
you'll forgive if I use a lot of salt on your future posts..
"A.Ron Carmichael" <a...@arcarmichael.com> wrote in message
news:3CEC73E6...@arcarmichael.com...
Peter S. Saly
"Jim Breckenridge" <JBreckenrid...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:3CEC7FED...@shaw.ca...
Maybe you should read the COMPLETE response.
It was
1) Do you have a more specific URL to that site
I fail to see where there is any real reference to actual
documented delaminations.
That implies quite clearly, that I had found the site and looked it over..
By the way, I am so glad to know that I obviously had less trouble than you
finding the link.
I actually even got to read it..
Did you ?
Peter S. Saly
"j tapley" <joet...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:6C1H8.179$FZ4....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
I quite agree that like anything else that you use, a bow has a limited life
But the way, most people talk about dry-firing a bow, it sounds as if it
means instant death to the bow..
The point you raise about bringing about a failure sooner because of dry
firing, is part of the underlying question I am asking and which you
caught..
I am wondering, by what degree do you actually shorten the life of a bow by
doing so...
Peter S. Saly
"Murray Elliot" <murray_no_...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:md8peucm87vne1462...@4ax.com...
As I wrote, I am looking for material on the subject from those who, unlike
you have taken the time..
But thanks for responding anyway
Peter S. Saly
"Henry Etteldorf" <hette...@nfco.com> wrote in message
news:3ced4af5$0$3575$272e...@news.execpc.com...
Actually, that is why I raised the question.
In the hope that it may already have been done and documented...
Peter S. Saly
I dont' NEED to think about it..
But then, you've just eliminated the prinicpal reason for any advances in
science since man climbed out of the trees..
That is why, unlike you , I CHOOSE to think about it, and am looking for
others who have done so before me..
"Daz" <d...@nnndaz.worldonline.co> wrote in message
news:3ced5...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
Peter S. Saly
In actual fact Shawn, every time you release an arrow, you effectively drop
that weight.
It's just that the energy is put in a different place
I haven't had time to look up anything on the mechanical efficiency of a
modern bow.
I would suspect it is quite high
Nonetheless, in a dry fire, most of the enrgy would be transferred into
sound and heat.
And I wonder to what degree most bows can be assumed to be great heat
dissipators
Which means that in actual fact very little of that energy would be left
over to cause serous damage to the bow..
But as I wrote earlier, it appears that no one has actually done any kind of
real study of the subject.
Foo
Peter S. Saly wrote:
> "Foo" <s....@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3CEC7D0...@optushome.com.au...
[snip]
>>But, lets take a look at some theory. Suppose an arrow speed of
>>250fps and an arrow mass of 200 grains. Many compound bows are
>>rated at 300fps so this is somewhat lenient, but then the weight of
>>the arrow may vary.
>>
>>If I remember correcty, KE = 0.5*m*v^2.
>>traslate to SI units and plug it in and I get a figure of
>>~36 Joules. That's equivalent to the amount of energy released
>>when dropping a 1kg weight at a height of 3.6 metres.
>>
>>Now, I figure if you were to drop a 1kg weight at a height of
>>3.6 metres onto your bow often enough, it'd do some damage.. :-)
> In actual fact Shawn, every time you release an arrow, you effectively drop
> that weight.
> It's just that the energy is put in a different place
> I haven't had time to look up anything on the mechanical efficiency of a
> modern bow.
> I would suspect it is quite high
> Nonetheless, in a dry fire, most of the enrgy would be transferred into
> sound and heat.
> And I wonder to what degree most bows can be assumed to be great heat
> dissipators
> Which means that in actual fact very little of that energy would be left
> over to cause serous damage to the bow..
Note, however, that the calculation I did was for the energy
required to propel an arrow of given weight at a given speed.
i.e. all that energy is going into the arrow. The bow would
actually store more energy.
> But as I wrote earlier, it appears that no one has actually done any
> kind of real study of the subject.
Probably because there wouldn't be any practical benefit to
doing that kind of study. There is no reason to dry fire a bow
hence there is no reason to find out how many times a bow can
be dry fired. Manufacturers may conduct tests for their own
research, but they'd be unlikely to publish the findings except
as part of a marketing exercise.. (but I imagine that would be
a legally dangerous marketing exercise)
As an engineer working in a research orgainsation, I've realised
pretty quick that:
no practical reason = no money = no research.
Funding science for the sake of the science (or conjecture)
is pretty rare nowadays..
Shawn
Murray Elliot
>my question is perfectly fair, and needs to be asked and looked into..
WHY?
Murray Elliot
>you have taken the time..
out some tests in the past. Not specifically to investigate dry
firing, simply because, IMHO, that would be a pointless academic
exercise with no practical benefits, but to investigate the effects of
vibration absorption of a variety of materials, where the practical
benefits are more obvious (i.e. improvements in shot feel, reduction
in the potential for archer injury).
I'm genuinely interested in why you feel this information is going to
be useful to you, personally, or archery generally?
To perhaps be of more help, I know that many modern recurve bows can
withstand 1000's of dry fires before failing. Perhaps you would
benefit from a visit to a manufacturers workshop (I'd recommend Border
archery). When I went to visit the workshop when Robin Robson was in
charge he showed me his Dry Fire rig, and the marks around the walls
where things had come to bits unexpectedly... usually the string! If
you can't manage that, then Win&Win have a message board to which some
representatives of the manufacturer will hapilly post details. Whether
the details are accurate, or perhaps coloured by marketing hype, who
knows?
Tom Duncan
>
> When you add to that the amount of engineering that has gone into a modern
> bow, to absorb the energy of a release, then the question of the supposed
> effects of dry-firing,is a valid one..
> Obviously the manufacturers, particularly in lawsuit-happy US, would not be
> interested in sugesting anything that could in any way increase their
> exposure to lawsuit-happy lawyers.
> Particularly when, they would be facing having to disprove what is consdered
> to be "common knowledge"..
> One only has to look at the experience of those in human history who have
> dared go against "common knowledge" which subsequently was proven to be
> anything BUT "knowledge"
> Famous names that come to my mind are Gallileo, Copernicus, Lister, to name
> a few
> Sadly that list is VERY long..
>
> I feel that, in consideration of the evolution of the technology of archery,
> my question is perfectly fair, and needs to be asked and looked into..
> I realize that unfortunately, for many, I am questionning a sacred cow that
> has been passed down through generations.
Dry-firing bows is dangerous in certain situations. There are numerous
people about who have injured themselves and others by accidentally
doing so. However, there have been cases where bows have been dry-fired
and not disintegrated - this was, IIRC, one of Hoyt's reasons to move
over to split limbs - "we dry-fired it 1000 and it didn't break", or
something similar. (The actual quote is on Hoyt's webpage somewhere.)
While dry-firing may now be possible, it is in no way to be considered
even vaguely an acceptable practice due to the possibility that you are
in fact dealing with a bow that does not fall into the category of
having design features that minimise this. I know if I was to dry-fire
mine, I'd be neck-deep in it. Equally, a lot of other people are in the
same situation.
Finally, re: comparing yourself to Galileo/Copernicus, etc. They got
locked up for their theories. You haven't and will not be. They set
about proving their theories, and even when the theories were proven
right, they were still not believed. I have seen sweet F-all in the way
of proof from you, just an assertion that you can dry-fire modern bows.
This may be the case, but as you mentioned in one of your other posts,
we need scientific evidence. I have neither the time or money to go out
and dry-fire a bunch of bows, perhaps if there is someone reading this
thread who has they could do so and enlighten us? Presumably, Peter, you
have a bow of some description. Would you like to try to attain the
status of a modern Lister and prove us wrong?
Tom Duncan
Anyone else getting Deja vu? I feel we are experiencing the return of
our favourite High Country Archery supporting webTV users. Coming soon
to theaters near you: "MACD99 - this time it's personal"? ;-)
Tom
shadyshark
you think the arrow takes out of the limbs? 70%? 80%? I'd call that
significant. The limbs may be able to take it, but it's probably
outside the design parameters...
Jim McPhail
(and I'm not claiming anything below to be scientifically based)
1) Having an arrow on the string prevents that big, loud, nasty sound (that
is made by dry firing) from occuring.
2) The big, loud, nasty sound is made by the string hitting the limbs, isn't
it?
3) Draw your own conclusions as to whether dry firing is damaging (duh!)
-Mac
PS. Why is acceptable to call it "dry firing" when we tell people that we
"shoot" arrows, we don't "fire" them? Hmmmm.
"Peter S. Saly" <Pe...@Saly.com> wrote in message
news:uer3pin...@corp.supernews.com...
Zolan
"shadyshark" <shady...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44c4881b.0205...@posting.google.com...
> I'm joining this discussion rather late I know; but how much energy do
> you think the arrow takes out of the limbs? 70%? 80%? I'd call that
> significant. The limbs may be able to take it, but it's probably
> outside the design parameters...
> "Peter S. Saly" <Pe...@Saly.com> wrote in message
news:<ueo9gfg...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > I hear all these warnings about the dangers of dry-firing a bow..
> > Yet as an engineer, I have a problem putting my mind around it..
very reasonable question and gets beaten up by the "in crowd" on this
newsgroup, (gentle Pete and even our dear ARC!) even Joe had to admit there
was some doubt. He was right to compare his query here with that of
Copernicus...you have all proved that.
Lets hope he finds some evidence from research....I understood the
explanation lay in magnitude and frequency of the oscillations produced on
dry firing...the frequency is surely subject to massive variation between
with arrow and without, so if the limbs "buzz" at the non-designed
(shadyshark) rate, it damages them...no?
Daz
It seems to me that the only correct opinion is yours and no matter what
others say, whether flippant or scientific, there opinion is treated by you
with derision. Maybe instead of trying to prove scientific and/or mechanical
principles you should try learning tolerance and manners. Forgive me for
going off the principle of the thread but if you treat people in this group
with a little respect you'll find nothing but help and encouragement.
If all you have to respond is insulting remarks please keep them to
yourself.
Daz
"Peter S. Saly" <Pe...@Saly.com> wrote in message
news:uer3mlo...@corp.supernews.com...
A.Ron Carmichael
have not had a kneejerk reaction when your gentle Pete torched on Tom with what
I saw as a very hostile response:
------------------
1) Fear is not any real evidence or argument to prove or disprove anything
2) 1 bow used as a test will not prove anything
3) Have you ever even heard of the "cientific method"
But, feel free to address the points I made
I shoulda aughta coulda been a whole lot less sensitive in reacting. For one
thing, Tom's a big guy and could have responded here for himself - My bad. I
did regret it the next morning, just not enough to bother jumping in again,
once I read some of his further posts.
This does not in any way approach a M**99 moment, and I'll go a long way to
avoiding any semblance of such. My apologies, ok? let's just not speak the
name of the "unspeakable" again - don't want to risk awakening him/it. :)
TexARC
Zolan wrote:
--
Peter S. Saly
"Murray Elliot" <murray_no_...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nnrreuca3ou0q7olr...@4ax.com...
Go read the rest of what was written...
Peter S. Saly
My interest is
1) Simple curiosity
I've always been fascinated by the survival traits of urban myth and
other creatures of "common sense"..
I believe we are dealing with one here
2) It's also a valid question, in the context that it's much easier to
practice correct form with a real bow, than an imaginary one
That I also why I use a couple of old, low weight, wooden recurves
for such exercise..
(The wood is more apt to give you warning before any kind of radical
failure)
So far the strings have failed before the bows.
3) I don't see myself in Scotland in the near future to visit Border
Archery :-(
4) I'll have a look at Win&Win (thanks)
Peter S. Saly
My use of such as Gallileo or Copernicus, was a reminder of the more extreme
cases.
I really don't see where I compared myself to them,
Nor did I claim that you need anything at all..
But I'll allow that since English is my third language, that may not
have been clear.
As to being as stupid as you have suggested from the first.
Too bad that I'll disappoint you..
I prefer leaving that type of stupdity to such as you..
And considering that you have such a need to get personnal.
My response to you is to sit on it and rotate..
Then get back to us about it..
(Don't forget to mention whether you went clockwise or not.)
Peter S. Saly
Obviously, you and your bud have a hard time with people who give you change
when you shovel crap..
A.Ron Carmichael
I'm seeing nothing but flame from him and disdain for anyone that opens their
mouth, no matter what they are saying. Regardless of my apology, it seems
that poor Peter is wont to insult everyone<RBG>....even Murray, which is a real
surprise to me. Who in the world would want to flame Murray? sheesh. He
makes me think that my initial take on his attitude wasn't so far off after
all. What is a guy to think, reading ALL of his posts?
Zolan wrote:
> .poor Peter asks a
> very reasonable question and gets beaten up by the "in crowd" on this
> newsgroup, (gentle Pete and even our dear ARC!) even Joe had to admit there
> was some doubt. He was right to compare his query here with that of
> Copernicus...you have all proved that.
> Lets hope he finds some evidence from research....I understood the
> explanation lay in magnitude and frequency of the oscillations produced on
> dry firing...the frequency is surely subject to massive variation between
> with arrow and without, so if the limbs "buzz" at the non-designed
> (shadyshark) rate, it damages them...no?
--
Peter S. Saly
mechanincal efficiency of modern bows..
As to bows designed in the US, I would suspect that they are seriously
over-engineered, to keep the lawsuits at bay.
So I would suspect that the the efficiency would be closer to 50%.
"shadyshark" <shady...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44c4881b.0205...@posting.google.com...
Peter S. Saly
"Zolan" <StudioB@(spamfree)beeb.net> wrote in message
news:acm2og$v42$1...@news.beeb.net...
Thank you Zolan..
I'm not too worried by the "in-crowd".
My experience with in-crowds" is that they generally are the less
intelligent birds in the coop..Also they're far too busy being "in" to get
really "clued in"..
I agree that there is damage to a bow wether released with or without an
arrow
My question is about the degree of difference beween the the two situations.
Peter S. Saly
But if you keep working on it, maybe sometime in the future, it will
happen..
"A.Ron Carmichael" <a...@arcarmichael.com> wrote in message
news:3CEEEC43...@arcarmichael.com...
Peter S. Saly
be true for a compound
It most definitely is not true for a Magyar bow or their equivalents where
a) the string contacts the riser at every release
b) there is an elbow specifically to keep the string away from the
riser.
"Jim McPhail" <m...@jmcphail.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aclp41$prm$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Peter S. Saly
The rest get treated less well..
If you don't like it..
Tough noogies
As to your lessons in manners
Since they have nothing to do with the subject of the thread
Keep it to yourself or shove it.
I really don't care
"Daz" <d...@nnndaz.worldonline.co> wrote in message
news:3ceeb...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
Tom Duncan
>
> My use of such as Gallileo or Copernicus, was a reminder of the more extreme
> cases.
> I really don't see where I compared myself to them,
> Nor did I claim that you need anything at all..
> But I'll allow that since English is my third language, that may not
> have been clear.
Genuinely impressed. Newsgroup posting in a third language!
>
> As to being as stupid as you have suggested from the first.
> Too bad that I'll disappoint you..
> I prefer leaving that type of stupdity to such as you..
> And considering that you have such a need to get personnal.
> My response to you is to sit on it and rotate..
> Then get back to us about it..
> (Don't forget to mention whether you went clockwise or not.)
OK. Here is my argument as short as I can make it. Dry-firing modern
bows, like you suggest, may be OK. However, we cannot say this without
proof. I do not have the money to try and prove it, and do not think
that anyone else here has the money to try and prove it to any kind of
scientific standard. It has been proven that dry-firing certain older
bows is bad, and in general, an assumption is made that this is the same
for modern bows. _No-one_ is prepared to take the chance of dry-firing
an expensive compound to find out.
And re: clockwise, I haven't decided yet. I'll let you know. ;-)
Tom Duncan
> This does not in any way approach a M**99 moment, and I'll go a long way to
> avoiding any semblance of such. My apologies, ok? let's just not speak the
> name of the "unspeakable" again - don't want to risk awakening him/it. :)
>
My fault. I shall never mention the name that shall not be spoken again.
(Kinda like Star Wars, that bit, isn't it)
Two Ravens
modelling of Archery/bows in variuos Journals: Journal of the Society
of Archer-Antiquaries, European Journal of Physics, Computational
Mechanics, are those of which I am aware. These may give a start point
for further research.
--
Two Ravens
Remove $'s for valid address.
Dieter Schabirosky
"Peter S. Saly" <Pe...@Saly.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ueu0mn8...@corp.supernews.com...
> As I wrote elsewhere, I have not come across any figures about the
> mechanincal efficiency of modern bows..
> As to bows designed in the US, I would suspect that they are seriously
> over-engineered, to keep the lawsuits at bay.
> So I would suspect that the the efficiency would be closer to 50%.
>
and found out by measuring an efficiency number of 80%.
Thats what shadyshark stated already.
It is not a big secret, however. If you measure the energy that
goes into the bow while drawing it (force - draw - curve, the area
under it) and compare that to the energy that comes out of
the bow and sits in the arrow (.5*m *v*v, velocity of arrow
and mass measured) you can calculate the efficiency.
For my bow: I put 81.83 Nm in and the energy of the arrow
at 75.4 m/s and 0.023 kg being 65.5Nm gives an
efficiency of 80%
Dieter
Norm
in this "bow efficiency" question. I don't have a mechanical engineering
background (science is my vocation) so reading the technical journals would
not be feasible for me. If I were to really jump on the question I think I
would e-mail George T., Werner Beiter or Joe Tapley (to name a few) with my
questions (and, no, I don't know any of them personally, but many companies
are notorious for not responding to e-mails). From a newbies perspective,
these folks could either answer the questions or could direct you to a
reliable source. Though the questions may very well be "rocket science",
finding the answers to them should not be.
Note, for the record: I called no one Stupid; nor did I challenge anyone's
comparison to historical figures <BG>
Norm
"Peter S. Saly" <Pe...@Saly.com> wrote in message
news:ueu0mn8...@corp.supernews.com...
A.Ron Carmichael
> Note, for the record: I called no one Stupid; nor did I challenge anyone's
> comparison to historical figures <BG>
I'm not sure that is relevant in this partiyewlar thread<RBG>
howdy, btw....from the north shore of Lake Travis :)
Peter S. Saly
Now you finaly got where I was coming from in my first response to your post
which I felt was totally beside the point
I suspect that some bow manufacturer, most probably in the US, may have done
exactly that, to satisfy their legal eagles, as to their low level of
exposure to lawsuits in case of bow failure..
I was just curious to know if any one was aware of the existenceof such
data..
But as usual on usenet, the signal to noise ratio is perfectly proportional
to what you get in the real world...
Peter S. Saly
An interesting lead
Thank you..
There seems to be quite a bit of online material referencing B. W. Kooi
"Two Ravens" <two.$ravens$'$@daki$ngs.fs$net.co$.uk> wrote in message
news:acnneh$ogt$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Peter S. Saly
Unfortunately some, can only participate by talking about eveything
but..
Not being a "mechanincal" nor a purist myself, I do not care much to wade
through the detailed minutiae of scientific papers.
But I am curious about any research that may have been done and published on
the matter.
"Norm" <beec...@austin360.com> wrote in message
news:3cef...@news.tisd.net...
A.Ron Carmichael
cannot be bothered to read a published paper's details, and on the other that
you want to know about the "research" published.
Unless you are willing to READ the details, you relegate yourself to accepting
the opinions of others.
Yet, when anyone ventures their own opinion, you are quick with disdain and
abuse, as you most predictably will do with this message.
hmmm. From your body of work up here, one can deduce that you have an opinion
and refuse to accept anyone else' that conflicts with yours. What is the point
of your exercise, Mr. Saly?
Peter S. Saly
else.
You haven't had one thing to say about the subject in the thread..
But to raise your level of intelligence, I will address the points you
made..
1) I am not "contradictory".
It is you who suffer from a reading defficiency..
But then that is clearly associated with an inteligence defficiency.
2) Most coherent papers have exective summaries and conclusions.
One can gather the gist of the material from reading those without
having to delve into the fine detail
3) Wanting to know about research published is NOT exclusive of not
reading ALL the detail in ALL the research published..
If you do't understand this, please find an adult to explain it to
you
4) I don't have a problem of reading the opinions of people
In many cases, their opinions can be demonstrated to be based on
factual evidence
Too bad you don't understand this concept either
Which explains why you don't practice it either
5) Generalisations are the resort of fools (like you) to justify their
biases and prejudices
Such generalisations are worht at best a goog giggle at the expense
of the fools (like you) who make them..
6) My point was to get responses from intelligent people.
I also accept that on usenet,m one also attracts the attention of
idiots such as you, who from the get-go have to projhect their problems on
others..
7) As to the point of YOUR exercise, you have made it very clear from
your very first post.
In effect during ths thread you have had nothing of either import or
intelligence to say about the subject matter
You have only proven yourself to be a useless twit of a Miss
Grundy..
And in conlcusion, you are most welcome to continue your attacks
In the future, I will most happily take pleasure in slapping you down every
time that you do so..
It's up to you to decide to what degree you desire to take your public s
panking and humilitation.
"A.Ron Carmichael" <a...@arcarmichael.com> wrote in message
news:3CEF989A...@arcarmichael.com...
Sven T. Reichelt 'Home'
>Obviously reading you about archery is more of a waste of time than anything
>else.
I have never thought that I would do this in this newsgroup,
but YOU are a pest!
Welcome to my killfile.
[X] Go and cross the bar!
Daz
fetish of insulting and degrading people, so I for 1 will be making this my
last post in the hope that he goes away and stays there,
Yours looking forward to being slagged off again by Mr. P Saly
Daz
"Sven T. Reichelt 'Home'" <s...@metrodix.de> wrote in message
news:MTRD76...@metrodix.de...
Paul Carlisle
ought to be easy, knowing the arrow's mass and velocity, and applying 0.5 *
m * v^2. The arrow, after all, absorbs energy not just at the moment of
release, but throughout the shot once the string is released. Now, does this
energy, which the arrow carries away from the bow, represent enough to bust
limbs if it's NOT carried away? Maybe - considering that the arrow, when
striking, say, a deer, can blow through more than one rib and rip enormous
holes after passing entirely through the animal.
Modern bows, made of modern materials, may not be as prone to damage, but
there's little doubt that older recurves and longbows could have their limb
tips snapped off when dry-fired.
--
--
Paul Carlisle
"Information: any difference that makes a difference" - Gregory Bateson
paulca...@ameritech.net
http://www.ameritech.net/users/paulcarlisle/Home.html
--
"Peter S. Saly" <Pe...@Saly.com> wrote in message
news:ueomo4n...@corp.supernews.com...
> 1) Do you have a more specific URL to that site
> I fail to see where there is any real reference to actual
documented
> delaminations
> 2) This brings me to my point about this whole "delamination" thing
being
> an urban myth.
> 3) As to the theory that the presence of an arrow would in some way
> prevent delamination...
> It does NOT stand up to any rationale..
> By the time the bow is absorbing the end result of a release, the
> arrow is LONG gone
> Also the send-off of the arrow, does NOT absorb a large portion of
> the energy held and consequently released by the bow.
> Also, bows created today, are designed to tolerate much higher
> levels of vibration, and changes of kinetic energy.
> 4) Maybe in the old days, when bows were made of much more friable
> materials, The useful life of a bow was much shorter, and therefore it
made
> sense, not to twang the bow unnecessarily
> This was posssibly compounded by the fact that it required a far
> greater investment of human time to create a quality bow. Making it's
> relative replacement cost prohibitve.
>
>
>
> "A.Ron Carmichael" <a...@arcarmichael.com> wrote in message
> news:3CEC4769...@arcarmichael.com...
> > try the link to Joe Tapley's site - it's on the tsaa archery links page
> > http://www.texasarchery.org
> >
> > As an engineer, you must be very familiar with the concept of making
> > observations of an empirical nature, and then postulating mechanisms and
> > theories about WHY you observed what you did. If a bow is dry fired
and
> the
> > limb delaminates, it COULD be that it would have delaminated any way.
> <G> But
> > if the limb has been fired (with arrows) countless times without
> delaminating
> > one would have to assess whether other factors come into play......
> >
> > and by the way, have FUN with Joe's site - as an engineer, you will
> certainly
> > find ample things to ruminate on. :)
> >
> > "Peter S. Saly" wrote:
> >
> > > I hear all these warnings about the dangers of dry-firing a bow..
> > > Yet as an engineer, I have a problem putting my mind around it..
> > >
> > > When you consider the weight of an arrow with respect to the forces
> exerted
> > > by a bow, one has to consaider the effect of the arrow's presence
> aspretty
> > > well meaningless.
> > > Yet even so, people continue to claim that dry-firing a bow is a bad
> thing..
> > >
> > > I am curious to discover any well-structured arguments to support a
> position
> > > that I consider to be closer to an urban myth, than reality..
> >
Paul Carlisle
from the bow system by the arrow. If you dry fire, the energy transported by
the arrow is left in the bow. Mostly - there are some losses to other
effects, of course. However, imagine two identical bows. Fire an arrow from
one. Clamp the other one rigidly to a target, where the arrow from the first
will hit it. Make suitable adjustments to this thought experiment - suspend
target bow from tips and aim at the handle, blunt the arrow tip to maximize
energy transfer, etc. - and you've got a good model of the dry-fired system,
perhaps with a few more losses. All in all, not a good idea.
--
--
Paul Carlisle
"Information: any difference that makes a difference" - Gregory Bateson
paulca...@ameritech.net
http://www.ameritech.net/users/paulcarlisle/Home.html
--
"Peter S. Saly" <Pe...@Saly.com> wrote in message
news:uer3pin...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Foo" <s....@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3CEC7D0...@optushome.com.au...
> > Peter S. Saly wrote:
> >
> > > I hear all these warnings about the dangers of dry-firing a bow..
> > > Yet as an engineer, I have a problem putting my mind around it..
> > >
> > > When you consider the weight of an arrow with respect to the forces
> exerted
> > > by a bow, one has to consaider the effect of the arrow's presence
> aspretty
> > > well meaningless.
> > > Yet even so, people continue to claim that dry-firing a bow is a bad
> thing..
> >
Frank Logullo
Years ago I watched a friend accidently dry fire his bow - an old Jennings -
and it pulled the "T" anchor out of the cable.
I had made a string jig and we were making Kevlar strings. It was hot and we
had also drank a 6 pack while doing the work which probably contributed to
him firing the bow when all he meant to do was test draw the new string.
Fortunataely it was 2 weeks til bow season and he was able to get repaired
by then.
I'm not an engineer but I would think in terms of taking that 50 ft/lbs or
so that would have gone into the arrow and tossing it back into the limbs
when dry firing.
Frank
Peter S. Saly
No problemo..
You oubviously have a tolerance for someone who does nothing but personnal
attacks against a poster
But you have a problem with the attacked person responding..
Being kill-filed by such as you is an honor.
Peter S. Saly
started.
But usenet entails all kinds of idiots,,
Even such as you and sven
"Daz" <d...@nnndaz.worldonline.co> wrote in message
news:3cefd...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
Peter S. Saly
Also the arrow's energy was addressed elsewhere
But that has really nothing to do with the built-in vibration tolerances and
energy-absorption abilities of the various forms of modern bows availavble
today
What exactly is your point..
"Paul Carlisle" <paulca...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:rvSH8.13737$gk.18...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Peter S. Saly
dry-fired bow is NOT rigidly clamped to anything
It is hand-held
As a matter of fact your body is quite a good shock and vibration absober.
That very quality is also the source of variance in the results obtained
when firing a bw.
If people could bench-clamp their bows when firing them, competition scores
would be close to perfect..
"Paul Carlisle" <paulca...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:jQSH8.18027$jm.18...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Peter S. Saly
"Frank Logullo" <frank....@dol.net> wrote in message
news:kUUH8.477$%k1.1...@monger.newsread.com...
No question that what you describe is true.
The real question now is, are modern bows over-engineered enough where such
a practice is not necessarily harmful to a bow..
In your personnal example, there is mention of multiple factors that could
have been the cause of failure
The age of the bow
ther use of Kevlar strings
the 6-pack..
Stories of bow failure, like all other such tales, are fun to tell and tend
to grow with age.
Let it grow long enough and you start having a myth or legend.
I am trying to stick to the facts..
By reading the responses of some in this thread, that appears to
threaten them and is not to be allowed.
A.Ron Carmichael
be actually, ill. You need to get help.
I'd have to reluctantly say that this newcomer is the type of person that cannot
endure life without causing discord and conflict among other.
ANYONE that answers him must either kiss his ass or he will be flamed. I guess
some people cannot go through life without validating that they exist in this
way.
We can pity them but we cannot do much else, but perhaps recommend that he go
get his jollies on the alt.psychology.twisted binary.
How do I know this? It was at first a conviction I arrived at prior to doing the
following. But then I actually did the following:
------------------------------------
GO to http://www.groups.google.com , and do a search on Peter Saly. Use
quotations around this sicko's name, like this: "Peter Saly" .
HERE IS THE VERY FIRST HIT (of many) THAT COMES UP: Someone posted this in the
soc.culture.canada binary. Did this guy have Saly's number or what?
=============================================================
All Peter Saly likes to do, during debates on this news group, is hold up
dissenting view points for ridicule instead of actually refuting them because
he can't and wants to convince himself and others that he is always in the
right.
Peter Saly doesn't want anyone to E-mail him, because it is easier to avoid
unrefutable points or points that refute his contentions that are merely posted
on the newsgroup then ones e-mailed to him.
The impetus behind Peter Saly's actions is his realization of self inferiority
and the desire to build up a false sense of worthiness, which depends on
whether or not he feels and falsely looks like a winner of the debates in this
newsgroup and in life.
Peter Saly is a loser and knows it. During his time on earth he has
accomplished and achieved little or nothing except take up his share of space
and consume his share of resources.
Peter Saly therefore must build up a false sense of self worth and his
reputation to an enthroned level by belittling the acomplishments and
achievements of others (such as my 3.5 GPA) and attempting to chew up and spit
out their self esteem.
In the newsgroup, Peter Saly's sense of self worth depends on whether or not he
can falsely convince himself and others that he is a winner of debates in the
newsgroup and is always in the right. Peter Saly does this via the puerile
disparagement of dissenting points which refute Saly's mumbo jumbo. This often
exasperates those who state them.
Peter Saly will never admit any of this.
But he doesn't have to for us to know this. The facts speak for themselves.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Saly, I call you for the loser you are.
"Peter S. Saly" wrote:
--
A.Ron Carmichael
reasonable.
Your posts are from the same IP node as Sicko Saly's so it's clear. Zolan
doesn't exist.
So sorry, you ARE the weakest link, Saly. Get help. go away. we are on to you
and you are a useless conniver.
EVERYONE CHANT : loser. Loser. LOOOO-SER....... put an L on your
forehead....
Zolan wrote:
> I'm joining in even later..but it has been fun reading...poor Peter asks a
> very reasonable question and gets beaten up by the "in crowd" on this
> newsgroup, (gentle Pete and even our dear ARC!) even Joe had to admit there
> was some doubt. He was right to compare his query here with that of
> Copernicus...you have all proved that.
> Lets hope he finds some evidence from research....I understood the
> explanation lay in magnitude and frequency of the oscillations produced on
> dry firing...the frequency is surely subject to massive variation between
> with arrow and without, so if the limbs "buzz" at the non-designed
> (shadyshark) rate, it damages them...no?
--
Peter S. Saly
I really have to call you that
You are such a little snot
You came across as a Miss Grundy from the get-go, and you didn't like being
slapped.down..
Every newsgfroup has it's little resident creep..
I guess you're the one on this one..
Too bad you STILL haven't posted ANYTHING AT ALL about the subject matter..
Why don't you come back when you have something to say about archery..
"A.Ron Carmichael" <a...@arcarmichael.com> wrote in message
news:3CF0370D...@arcarmichael.com...
A.Ron Carmichael
for now and for all future.
The word is:
loser.
That's all you will hear from me and hopefully all other members of this forum.
loser.
loser.
loser.
Peter S. Saly
You really are a screwed-up and ingorant little fuck
Not to mention your usenet detective skills whcih stink worse that week-old
roadkill
..
This is the header from one of Zolan's posts..
=======================================
== Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-
==
spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.icl.net
!
== kibo.news.demon.net!demon!news.beeb.net!not-for-mail
== From: "Zolan" <StudioB@(spamfree)beeb.net>
== Newsgroups: alt.archery,rec.sport.archery
== Subject: Re: Dry-firing (so to speak) a bow....Truth or urban myth ?
== Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 20:01:20 +0100
== Organization: A Beeb User
== Lines: 23
== Sender: stu...@host-74a-1.dial.beeb.net
== Message-ID: <acm2og$v42$1...@news.beeb.net>
== References: <ueo9gfg...@corp.supernews.com>
== <44c4881b.0205...@posting.google.com>
== NNTP-Posting-Host: host-74a-1.dial.beeb.net
== X-Trace: news.beeb.net 1022266960 31874 62.56.20.1 (24 May 2002 19:02:40
== GMT)
== X-Complaints-To: ab...@beeb.net
== NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 May 2002 19:02:40 GMT
== X-Priority: 3
== X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
== X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
== Xref: sn-us alt.archery:61177 rec.sport.archery:31929
========================================
This is the header from my post
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++ Path: sn-us!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
++ From: "Peter S. Saly" <Pe...@Saly.com>
++ Newsgroups: alt.archery,rec.sport.archery
++ Subject: Re: Dry-firing (so to speak) a bow....Truth or urban myth ?
++ Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 18:46:22 -0500
++ Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
++ Message-ID: <uf099e7...@corp.supernews.com>
++ References: <ueo9gfg...@corp.supernews.com>
++ <kUUH8.477$% k1.1...@monger.newsread.com>
++ X-Priority: 3
++ X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
++ X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
++ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
++ X-Complaints-To: news...@supernews.com
++ Lines: 39
++ Xref: sn-us alt.archery:61225 rec.sport.archery:31973
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Feel free to demonstrate the supposed common IP node..
By the way, stupid, maybe you should do a whois in beeb.net and Saly.com.
But knowning what an ignorant little fuckhead you are, I did it for you..
This is for beeb.net:
http://www.netsol.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=beeb.net&SearchType=do&STRI
NG2.x=28&STRING2.y=10
This is for Saly.com:
http://www.netsol.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=saly.com&SearchType=do&STRI
NG2.x=29&STRING2.y=8
Feel free to explain how a site in Surrey England has the same IP node as my
site in Minnesota USA..
You are proving to be so stupid as to only deserve pity
Obviously you have problems..
But you should remember that as long as you continue this personnal attack,
I will continue slapping you down..
"A.Ron Carmichael" <a...@arcarmichael.com> wrote in message
news:3CF038B2...@arcarmichael.com...
A.Ron Carmichael
Peter S. Saly
Why don't you stick your tongue out and go "Nyaah, nyaah,nyaah.." while
you're at it..
By the way, to see a loser..
Look in your mirror..
"A.Ron Carmichael" <a...@arcarmichael.com> wrote in message
news:3CF03EB7...@arcarmichael.com...
Peter S. Saly
============================
== Message-ID: <3CEC73E6...@arcarmichael.com>
== From: "A.Ron Carmichael" <a...@arcarmichael.com>
== Subject: Re: Dry-firing (so to speak) a bow....Truth or urban myth ?
== Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 04:48:21 GMT
== NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.200.38.31
== X-Trace: news.onr.com 1022129301 207.200.38.31 (Wed, 22 May 2002 23:48:21
CDT)
== NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 23:48:21 CDT
==
== <snip more stupidities>
==
== Moving on to other, more palatable and congenial threads......
== life is indeed too short.
==
== TexARC
=============================================
Obviously, you have the attention span and memory of an onverused sponge..
As for intelligence, even a stupid sponge out-classes you..
But feel free to come back for more spankings..
You obviously are in need...
"Peter S. Saly" <Pe...@Saly.com> wrote in message
news:uf0ikr3...@corp.supernews.com...
A.Ron Carmichael
"Peter S. Saly" wrote:
--
Peter S. Saly
Been shown up again to be an ignorant fuck....
In the meantime, since YOU have been UNABLE to demonstrate your claim as to
how a poster in Surrey England, can share an IP node with another poster in
Minnesota, USA.
We now know who the REAL LOSER is..
Just look in a mirror
And you will discover it is YOU..
"A.Ron Carmichael" <a...@arcarmichael.com> wrote in message
news:3CF0449D...@arcarmichael.com...
Peter S. Saly
compliment..
"A.Ron Carmichael" <a...@arcarmichael.com> wrote in message
news:3CF05023...@arcarmichael.com...
Nemesis
"Peter S. Saly" <Pe...@Saly.com> wrote in message
> I hear all these warnings about the dangers of dry-firing a bow..
> Yet as an engineer, I have a problem putting my mind around it..
>
OH! and now you are an "engineer" too?
MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You sorry lame as liar, must you be rembered the world over as a lAAmE 4SS
sucka!
> When you consider the weight of an arrow with respect to the forces
exerted
> by a bow, one has to consaider the effect of the arrow's presence aspretty
> well meaningless.
> Yet even so, people continue to claim that dry-firing a bow is a bad
thing..
>
You have a real problem with this since you always relate it to your own
"dry fire"!
Get over it, go back to you sorry as froup in Minnesota! Did you say you
live in Minneapolis?
Did you say you are not a U.S. Citizen?
Didn't you say your quite a ladies man? What till we post your piccie with
the big ass ears!
What a joke that is!
Get it?? GO HOME!
Peter S. Saly
"Nemesis" <bit...@nospam.itsgreektome.com> wrote in message
news:fSZH8.19853$R_4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> "Peter S. Saly" <Pe...@Saly.com> wrote in message
> news:ueo9gfg...@corp.supernews.com...
> > I hear all these warnings about the dangers of dry-firing a bow..
> > Yet as an engineer, I have a problem putting my mind around it..
> >
> position
> > that I consider to be closer to an urban myth, than reality..
> >
>
> OH! and now you are an "engineer" too?
>
> MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
> You sorry lame as liar, must you be rembered the world over as a lAAmE 4SS
> sucka!
>
> > When you consider the weight of an arrow with respect to the forces
> exerted
> > by a bow, one has to consaider the effect of the arrow's presence
aspretty
> > well meaningless.
> > Yet even so, people continue to claim that dry-firing a bow is a bad
> thing..
> >
>
> You have a real problem with this since you always relate it to your own
> "dry fire"!
>
> Get over it, go back to you sorry as froup in Minnesota! Did you say you
> live in Minneapolis?
> Did you say you are not a U.S. Citizen?
> Didn't you say your quite a ladies man? What till we post your piccie with
> the big ass ears!
>
> What a joke that is!
>
> Get it?? GO HOME!
Oh look, something crawled out of the cesspit..
Still following me around I see..
Haven't been able to get treatment for your stalking problems yet have you ?
So sad..
Nemesis
"Peter S. Saly" <Pe...@Saly.com> wrote in message
Can't think on your feet yet? Hey brainy boi thought u wur college trained?
A prodigy?
Still doing the same ol stoopid stuff.
Think I shuld invite your Dad? Or are you man enough to take it too the
correct group?
Didja want me to post the truth about ur stalking, and ur dirty talking to
the women?
Did j00r mind git so screwed up that you can't reply to the post that j00
don't dare read without your meds?
Kjetil Kilhavn
When Peter Saly wrote "come back when you have something to say about
archery" many here understood that this is a person who does not pay
attention to what is going on in the group.
Such people need not be taken too seriously. And when they insist that
everyone should pay attention to their opinion, while they themselves don't
care about reading other threads than their own, they are best ignored.
As for the engineering part. Everything is constructed with a certain
tolerance limit. Today many constructions have a smaller safety margin than
20 year old constructions had, because it is cheaper to manufacture and
because one has better measuring equipement to establish the thresholds.
Whether the improvement in material technology makes up for it, I don't
know. But I don't want to spend 1.000 Euro to find out either.
--
Kjetil Kilhavn
Peter S. Saly
"Kjetil Kilhavn" <Kjetil....@online.no> wrote in message
news:YJ%H8.5405$_15.1...@news4.ulv.nextra.no...
"many"
Since when do you speak for the "many" ?
Maybe, before passing judgement so quickly and superficially, you should go
back and review the participation of ronny in this thread..
The closest he came to addressing the issue was in his very first post.
Where he basically pointed me to a link that proved to be empty of
pertinenent material
When I asked if he had anything more specific..
He got miffed
Also, he apparently did not like my curt response to Tom Ducan, after
Tom had suggested that I go out and buy a bow to test with.
That's when ronny decided to be a net-nanny..
And went downhill from there.
Interesting that Tom was less miffed than Ronny
Considering Ronny's behavior, I feel that my comment about him coming back
when he's over his snit and ready to talk archery is perfectly valid..
But sadly, I'm not surprised at your response..
It's typical of an in-crowd when one of theirs gets whacked..
Tom Duncan
>
> loser.
>
Hang on, ARC. You showed up the IP trace or something similar with the
nameless one - did you do something similar here, or what?
Tom
> "Peter S. Saly" wrote:
>
> > Boy
> > You really are a screwed-up and ingorant little fuck
> > Not to mention your usenet detective skills whcih stink worse that
> > week-old
> > roadkill
> > ..
> > This is the header from one of Zolan's posts..
> > =======================================
> > == Path: sn-us!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-
> > ==
> > sp
> > r1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.icl.net
> > cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=beeb.net&SearchType=do&STRI
> > NG2.x=28&STRING2.y=10
> > This is for Saly.com:
> >
> > http://www.netsol.com
> > cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=saly.com&SearchType=do&STRI
--
These Five Words In My Head
Scream "Are We Having Fun Yet?"
And the answer is .... definitely!
Tom Duncan
>
> Interesting that you are a blind pillock who cannot see where the attacks
> started.
> But usenet entails all kinds of idiots,,
> Even such as you and sven
>
This isn't intended to start another flame thread, but you have checked
up on who Sven is, haven't you?
Tom
> "Daz" <d...@nnndaz.worldonline.co> wrote in message
> news:3cefd...@mk-nntp-1.news.uk.worldonline.com...
> > By responding to this pillock we are just encouraging / catering to his
> > fetish of insulting and degrading people, so I for 1 will be making this
> my
> > last post in the hope that he goes away and stays there,
> >
> > Yours looking forward to being slagged off again by Mr. P Saly
> > Daz
> >
> >
> > "Sven T. Reichelt 'Home'" <s...@metrodix.de> wrote in message
> > news:MTRD76...@metrodix.de...
> > > Peter S. Saly wrote:
> > >
> > > >Obviously reading you about archery is more of a waste of time than
> > anything
> > > >else.
> > >
> > > I have never thought that I would do this in this newsgroup,
> > > but YOU are a pest!
> > >
> > > Welcome to my killfile.
> > >
> > > [X] Go and cross the bar!
> >
> >
Tom Duncan
>
<snip>
> Still doing ur cut n paste crap eh?
> Can't think on your feet yet? Hey brainy boi thought u wur college trained?
> A prodigy?
> Still doing the same ol stoopid stuff.
>
> Think I shuld invite your Dad? Or are you man enough to take it too the
> correct group?
>
> Didja want me to post the truth about ur stalking, and ur dirty talking to
> the women?
>
> Did j00r mind git so screwed up that you can't reply to the post that j00
> don't dare read without your meds?
Hey! Someone who knows Mr Saly! This has the potential to sort out an
awful lot of things! Just out of interest, Nemesis, which group(s) did
you come from?
Tom
Tom Duncan
> Interesting that Tom was less miffed than Ronny
I was less miffed because I've had stupid fuckwits arguing pointlessly
with me for a _long_ _long_ time! The capacity to ignore logic is
something that I have had to learn to deal with, especially when people
seem more than willing to leave the topic to take the piss out of each
other. And yes, that is a bit of a criticism of ARC, but you definitely
made the problem worse. A.Ron apologised, and you just kept going and
going and going like the fucking Duracell Bunny! Now, at least someone
who appears to know a bit about you turns up (Thanx, Nemesis) and
suddenly a good group turns into a shitstorm. Do me a favour, get your
stinking skull out of here.
Peter S. Saly
"Tom Duncan" <tpd...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3CF0AC08...@york.ac.uk...
> Nemesis wrote:
> >
> <snip>
>
> > Still doing ur cut n paste crap eh?
> > Can't think on your feet yet? Hey brainy boi thought u wur college
trained?
> > A prodigy?
> > Still doing the same ol stoopid stuff.
> >
> > Think I shuld invite your Dad? Or are you man enough to take it too the
> > correct group?
> >
> > Didja want me to post the truth about ur stalking, and ur dirty talking
to
> > the women?
> >
> > Did j00r mind git so screwed up that you can't reply to the post that
j00
> > don't dare read without your meds?
>
> Hey! Someone who knows Mr Saly! This has the potential to sort out an
> awful lot of things! Just out of interest, Nemesis, which group(s) did
> you come from?
>
He doesn't know me..
He's just an anonymous stalker..
I just happened to stand up to him unlike his other victims..
He's been following me around ever since..
Peter S. Saly
(Hes' far too busy chanting to himself his favorite refrain..)
There is NO WAY except maybe with a "stargate" to have Zelon and me be on
the same IP node
But his response should be good for a giggle
In the meantime Tom, I suggest you follow up on the URLs I gave..
"Tom Duncan" <tpd...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3CF0AA8B...@york.ac.uk...
>
> Hang on, ARC. You showed up the IP trace or something similar with the
> nameless one - did you do something similar here, or what?
>
> Tom
>
> > "A.Ron Carmichael" wrote:
> >
> > loser.
> >
> > "Peter S. Saly" wrote:
> >
> > > Boy
> > > You really are a screwed-up and ingorant little fuck
> > > Not to mention your usenet detective skills which stink worse that
Peter S. Saly
So far, sven
1) has been silent on the thread
2) but he is the hypocritical git who called me a bloody-mother fucker
and didn't have the balls to spell it out or even say it to my face...
3) And he's also the moron who laps up the crap of a stalker like
nemesis..
So even if he shot group 20 arrows within a 3 inch, that would only make him
a flaming asswipe who can put arrows into a target, but has nothing
intelligent to add to the thread..
Not particularly impressive ..
But I'm glad I coculd clarify that for you
"Tom Duncan" <tpd...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3CF0AB0D...@york.ac.uk...
Sven T. Reichelt 'Home'
>
>This isn't intended to start another flame thread, but you have checked
>up on who Sven is, haven't you?
Why should he do that?
--
Sven
Peter S. Saly
> "Peter S. Saly" wrote:
>
> > Interesting that Tom was less miffed than Ronny
>
> I was less miffed because I've had stupid fuckwits arguing pointlessly
> with me for a _long_ _long_ time! The capacity to ignore logic is
> something that I have had to learn to deal with, especially when people
> seem more than willing to leave the topic to take the piss out of each
> other. And yes, that is a bit of a criticism of ARC, but you definitely
> made the problem worse. A.Ron apologised, and you just kept going and
> going and going like the fucking Duracell Bunny! Now, at least someone
> who appears to know a bit about you turns up (Thanx, Nemesis) and
> suddenly a good group turns into a shitstorm. Do me a favour, get your
> stinking skull out of here.
>
You must be confused..
The ONLY apology he made was for mentionning someone who signed in a
response M**99 to Zolan..
But If I missed his apology to me..
Feel free to point it out..
And no, nemesis knows nothing about me..
Although, some of what he wrote he gleaned the same way that ronny did.
Most of what he wrote was fabrication..
Nemesis is a little cockrach that goes around with different sigs harrassing
people..
When he tried that on me, he got stomped..
More than a year later he's still following me around..
Proof of that is in his last posts where in one posts he tells people to
kill-file me, and then returns under another sig to make another attack
As to when and where I go.
Last time I checked, this was NOT a moderated group..
You, sven or even something like nemesis don't decide that.
I do..
And if you can't be polite, then it's time you learned some manners
By the way, it takes 2 stupid fuckwits to argue "pointlessly with me for a
_long_ _long_ time".
So far you've only shown flashes of being a stupid fuckwit..
Try not to make a habit of it..
Jim McPhail
-Mac
Tom Duncan
Be aware of who you are talking about? General good principle to work
from, I think.
Tom
Peter S. Saly
> "Sven T. Reichelt 'Home'" wrote:
> >
> > Tom Duncan wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >This isn't intended to start another flame thread, but you have checked
> > >up on who Sven is, haven't you?
> >
> > Why should he do that?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Sven
>
> Be aware of who you are talking about? General good principle to work
> from, I think.
>
> Tom
Obviously wasted advice on sven..
He's quite happy calling people names behind their backs..
And I don't need to check up on people like that..