Talk:Archer's paradox

message: :The term archer's paradox refers either to
:
:
# the phenomenon of an arrow traveling in the direction it is pointed at full draw, when it seems that the arrow would need to pass through the starting position it was in before drawn, where it was pointed to the side of the target.
# the bending of the arrow, when released, that enables the previous.
:
:The term was first used by E.J. Rendtroff…
The image would need to be removed or redone too.
I base this suggested change on
# 7 years of archery and arrow tuning experience.
# Article reference 6: Kooi, B.W. (1998).  "The Archer's Paradox and Modelling, a Review". The following paragraph and figure 1 in the referred document.
::"It would seem that the arrow should ﬂy far left of its target, since it passes on the left side
::of the bow (in the case of a right-handed bowmen), in the time the string (and therefore
::the rear-end of the arrow) moves in the median plane of the bow from full draw to the
::braced position. The ‘Archer’s Paradox’ consists in the fact that the arrow does ﬂy to its
::mark instead of along a line represented by its axis in braced position. The paradox is
::illustrated in Figure 1 (taken from Klopsteg1). A rigid arrow changes direction when the
::string is gradually let down. How is it possible for the arrow to pass the bow on its flight
::to the target without its striking against the grip during its discharge?"
Non-archers can judge for themselves by looking at a video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96KGWC0PB6s , which from 1:30 onwards shows several shots filmed from behind. It can be seen, that the arrow flies at the direction it is pointed at full draw.
-- Hagis  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.43.195 (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it OK with the authors of this article to change the first paragraph to start with 

message: This article is confusing and contradictory. For example:
:Less powerful bows require arrows with less spine
and
:[more] powerful bows need stiffer arrows, with less spine
Is an arrow with more spine more flexible, or more stiff?
:I reckon that less powerful bows need arrows with more spine, as mentioned in the text 
...spine (literally, the ability of an arrow to curve - like a spine)
:and
...the arrow must be "easier" to flex around the riser of the bow before settling to its path.
:Thus if the arrow needs to curve more it needs more spine.
:I've edited the text to reflect this properly.
:--60.49.68.73 (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The release of the string has first to overcome the inertia of the arrow, and does not do so down to the entire length of the arrow absolutely simultaneously - it flies down the arrow, causing a slight foreshortening which translates itself in bending as the nock is shifting marginally faster than the tip at any moment during the acceleration phase. This is augmented by friction from the arrow rest and air, and probably slightly reversed by the flick of the fletching passing the rest. A more powerful bow overcomes the inertia more quickly, and so needs less spine, as it has less time flexing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.65.178.177 (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

text: --Featheredfrog (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An arrow with more spine is stiffer. I have rewritten the article to reflect this, including sources. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Regrettably, the soundtrack is copyrighted. Maybe you can ask the creator of the video to post a version without music? Or better yet, to upload it on Commons? Paradoctor (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

text: The fact that it has been solved doesn't make it any less a paradox. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes it a paradox then? it seems to me to be just a quirk to physics, and contrary to intuition maybe. The door to my house faces south, so when exit to go north, I first have to go to the south. Is that a paradox as well? 85.24.223.146 (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had to find a name for it I wouldn't choose this one. But it's what reliable sources have used, so we're stuck with it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a late reply, I know, but I agree that the article should be renamed. Just because sources make incorrect use of the term "paradox" doesn't mean the article should follow suit. Since we're talking about a logical flaw here (the phenomenon is by definition, not a paradox, it was simply an unexplained quirk in archery), there's no need for a source that explicitly says "The Archer's Paradox is not really a paradox". The term paradox is reserved for situations or concepts that are logically contradictory with themselves, or lead to an impossible conclusion. This so-called "paradox" is actually referring to a phenomena that was unexplained for a period of time, then solved through simple experimentation and application of theory. The strange path of an arrow from incorrectly calibrated bows, was not however contradictory, before or after it was explained. Even without knowledge of the solution, one could easily postulate that the phenomena had something to do with the structure of bows and arrows, and not a physics defying quandary. In short, just because something is unexplainable, does not make it a paradox. In fact, a paradox is by nature explainable, and the distinctive aspect of it is that it seems plausible, while resulting in an impossible, or looping situation. As such, I'd say there's plenty of reason to rename the article to something like "Archer's Phenomena". Plenty of articles are titled differently than that of their sources. LiamSP (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

text: It is clear that the term in common usage for this phenomenon has been the "archer's paradox" for at least the better part of a century now. Suggesting that we rename the article to some made-up term strikes me as pedantic quibbling, making about as much sense as insisting that a ZIP code be added to the Gettysburg Address article. We are not here to re-write history. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Contradicts Itself 

message: A video of the archer's paradox in high speed videography can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzWrcpzuAp8  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.71.54 (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Regrettably, the soundtrack is copyrighted. Maybe you can ask the creator of the video to post a version without music? Or better yet, to upload it on Commons? Paradoctor (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

message: It's an interesting paradox, in that there appears to be nothing paradoxical about it. It's just a clearly explainable physical phenomenon. Worth mentioning? Centrepull (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it has been solved doesn't make it any less a paradox. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes it a paradox then? it seems to me to be just a quirk to physics, and contrary to intuition maybe. The door to my house faces south, so when exit to go north, I first have to go to the south. Is that a paradox as well? 85.24.223.146 (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If I had to find a name for it I wouldn't choose this one. But it's what reliable sources have used, so we're stuck with it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a late reply, I know, but I agree that the article should be renamed. Just because sources make incorrect use of the term "paradox" doesn't mean the article should follow suit. Since we're talking about a logical flaw here (the phenomenon is by definition, not a paradox, it was simply an unexplained quirk in archery), there's no need for a source that explicitly says "The Archer's Paradox is not really a paradox". The term paradox is reserved for situations or concepts that are logically contradictory with themselves, or lead to an impossible conclusion. This so-called "paradox" is actually referring to a phenomena that was unexplained for a period of time, then solved through simple experimentation and application of theory. The strange path of an arrow from incorrectly calibrated bows, was not however contradictory, before or after it was explained. Even without knowledge of the solution, one could easily postulate that the phenomena had something to do with the structure of bows and arrows, and not a physics defying quandary. In short, just because something is unexplainable, does not make it a paradox. In fact, a paradox is by nature explainable, and the distinctive aspect of it is that it seems plausible, while resulting in an impossible, or looping situation. As such, I'd say there's plenty of reason to rename the article to something like "Archer's Phenomena". Plenty of articles are titled differently than that of their sources. LiamSP (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

text: It is clear that the term in common usage for this phenomenon has been the "archer's paradox" for at least the better part of a century now. Suggesting that we rename the article to some made-up term strikes me as pedantic quibbling, making about as much sense as insisting that a ZIP code be added to the Gettysburg Address article. We are not here to re-write history. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a true paradox 

message: The archer's paradox specifically refers to the phenomenon where a (right handed) archer aims at a target with a non-centre-shot bow the arrow points to the left of the target. (Opposites hold for Left handed archers, of course.)
While 'spine' is part of the workings of the paradox, the article seems to focus entirely on spine without really explaining the paradox in any detail.
The "Details" section of the article completely neglects to address the issue of the paradox and discusses only spine, contact and competition archery.
Rather than being an article about spine, it should be an article about what the paradox is with details of how and why it happens the way it does.
I'm not sure I have the relevant knowledge to edit this article, but if I find the time to do so I'll make some changes. This could (and really should) be a much better article than it is.
Jack of Many (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and go for it. :)⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 15:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to use http://www.springerlink.com/content/r78122r4181n684r/ especially if you can get access to the full article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added a note to it right under the main first paragraph to underline that the effect occurs only when classically shooting bows. Using a release or a nock-pull will not cause the archer's paradox. --77.36.50.9 (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a reliable source for that claim? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

text: The article is impossible to understand. I read it three times and it does not even say what is this paradoxe. Your comment is even more confusing. Folks, when you try to explain a paradoxe, you must tell what the paradoxe is first, then you can go on with your 30+ year or more of experience or even often, 1 year of aquired mistakes repeated for 30 years ...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.104.185 (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

text: They made perfect sense to me. If you can suggest an actual improvement, please do so. Complaining is not constructive. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Article does not address the actual subject

message: On the director's commentary track for the animated feature Brave they talk about a scene where a slow motion close-up (animated, of course) of an arrow being fired is shown. The arrow has a significant amount of flexing, with an oscillating bend after leaving the bow. The commentary track says "This is known as the Archer's paradox; look it up on Wikipedia."  --Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Brave (2012 film)]] 

message: The opening paragraphs of this article are very poorly written and hard to understand. They are full of parenthetical asides, clauses, vague pronouns, unexplained technical jargon--overall, an obscure and opaque style. The second paragraph is a single, monstrous sentence that is almost 100 words long. I cannot even tell why the subject is called a "paradox" and whether that idea is being supported or debunked. The article sorely needs a plain-English rewrite to become intelligible. Jtcarpet (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of clarity and form 

message: during my 30+ years in archery I have come across numerous folk unable to understand what the archers' paradox is, and many who do understand have still struggled to explain it simply. This brave attempt does need some editing to make it clearer, although it is basically correct.  An early use of the word paradoxical or paradoxically might help, since, as others here have said - it is something which one does not expect to happen but paradoxically it does.  Ford, in his "Archery, its Theory and Practice" (1856)  tried hard to explain what - at the time - was inexplicable. He asks the reader/archer to hold up bow and arrow with string drawn, take the usual aim and then let down the string slowly, when  "it will be found that the arrow does not finally point to the object aimed at, but in a direction deviating to the left of it; in fact that its direction has been altering at each point of its return to the position of rest" He continues " If the same arrow, when drawn to its head, be loosed at the object aimed at, that is, if the passage of the arrow over the bow be impulsive and instantaneous, it will go straight to the object aimed at"  He then goes on to try to explain this phenomenon, although he does not call this a paradox; and we would today - with the benefit of high speed film - find his explanation incorrect. 
I do not think the heading should alter, as although we now know enough to explain this paradox, it is what enquirers will look for when seeking an explanation. Artemis Vee (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is impossible to understand. I read it three times and it does not even say what is this paradoxe. Your comment is even more confusing. Folks, when you try to explain a paradoxe, you must tell what the paradoxe is first, then you can go on with your 30+ year or more of experience or even often, 1 year of aquired mistakes repeated for 30 years ...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.104.185 (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  paradoxical 

message: Wow, this explanation is not very good. If someone actually wants to learn what the paradox is, the summary and diagrams will be virtually no help. 24.80.118.164 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: They made perfect sense to me. If you can suggest an actual improvement, please do so. Complaining is not constructive. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  cross eyed