Talk:Composite bow

message: The English in here is rather bad.  The article is choppy, sometimes repetitive, and is often vague in addition to having some grammatical errors.  Cleanup is required.
As noted above, there should be some sources, perhaps someone with knowledge of bows and a reference book could add additional information.
Micaelus 04:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the phrasing was mine and could certainly be improved. I was trying to express the idea that, on a horse, a shorter lower limb allows the archer to use the bow more freely. The overall bow length (and hence draw length and energy stored) can be kept up by having a longer upper limb. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  No worries. The reasoning is akin to the why the Japanese Yumi is asymmetric. However, the Manchus successfully used very large, symmetric composite bows (up to 1.7 m in length when strung) from horseback. It could be the Manchus developed an innovative horseback shooting technique suitable for large bows, but it also makes me wonder whether there's more to bow asymmetry than just horseback usage. Let me ask around and get back to this point later. - Jtma (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The main article on bows has this "modern reconstruction of a historical composite bow", if that helps.  --Grimhelm (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I peruse a forum that some horn bow makers regularly visit. If I asked one of them for permission to use a photograph of their work on Wikipedia, would that suffice? - Jtma (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the author gives their permission in the specific form required by Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission), I think that's fine, not that I'm a lawyer. Definitely not if they won't, and worth noting that it's not OK if they just say it's fine to use on Wikipedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, I'll ask. The guy in question is a bowyer named Gao Xiang. He doesn't speak English, so we'll see if it's successful. In the meantime, let me give you a preview of the photos he posted on the forum: unstrung Kaiyuan bow and strung Kaiyuan bow. - Jtma (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

text: So I have replaced the initial photo with one of a genuine horn, bamboo, sinew composite. I obtained permission from Gao Xiang himself, and have submitted an email to the OTRS team for verification. - Jtma (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responding to Image request 

message: Does anyone have a reliable source for the claims of high poundage in the lede: Some Mongolian composite bows are known to have been able to produce a draw weight of nearly 160 lb (72.5 kg).? - CompliantDrone (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the claim since no one has provided a source for over six months. - CompliantDrone (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

text: This is a to-do for the future, but Stephen Selby's "Chinese Archery" contains historical sources that state Chinese horn bow draw weights were typically in the 70 kg range. I'm sure composite bows from other cultures had similar poundages. - Jtma (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Another reference: Adam Karpowicz's "Ottoman Turkish Bows: Manufacture & Design" discusses war bows in the 120 lb range. - Jtma (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for poundage 

message: Is it time for a nomination? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer my own question, I hope so, and I have added the nomination. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article? 

message: I have removed "The composite construction can be an asset in regions where suitable wood for self bows is on short supply, but woods which can stand either draw stress (such as birch) or compression stress (such as pine) but not both are abundant. Woods which would not make a decent bow on themselves can be successfully combined to make a bow." which seems to apply to laminated bows rather than to composite bows made with horn. 
The word "raids" was added to "incursions"; I can't see that this adds anything. 
A list of possibly or definitely Turkic peoples who did indeed use composite bows has been added; we don't need a complete list here and the sentence already mentions Turkic peoples. 
Finally, the arms of Savonia have been added, featuring a drawn recurved bow. I don't see any reliable evidence that it was in fact composite and while this image might possibly be of interest, I'd suggest that a good reference for the fact of it being a composite bow, and for some comment about its use in the area, might be better. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  multiple changes 

message: I am surprised that there is no mention of the increased energy storage potential in composite limbs.  The effect is well described in Clarence Hickman's 1935 patent 2,100,317.  In short, if you take a 2x4 piece of wood, cut it into 2 1x4's, bend them circularly to the point of almost breaking, and glue them together, here's what happens: the laminated 2x4 will support 50% more weight before breaking while supporting a load that is trying to un-bend it (it breaks easily in the other direction).  It will also bend 50% further (in one direction only) before breaking.  The laminated 2x4 will store up to 2.25X more energy.  Hickman achieved over 2X energy storage in reality.  Here's a great article that was pointed out to me on a message board: .
The 1997 article by Kooi and Bergman http://www.bio.vu.nl/thb/users/kooi/kobe97.pdfis not a reputable source for the claim that there is little practical benefit to composite bows, other than smaller size.  They only mathematically modeled non-composite bows, and from the text, they are clearly unaware of the effects of laminating highly stressed layers.  They attributed the flight distance records of composite bows only to improved materials, and show a clear lack of understanding of composite materials.  On the other hand, they never claimed to be experts in laminated materials.  Taking their quote in their conclusions as evidence that there is little benefit to composite bows is a poor choice, IMO.
Recently, archery forums have talked a lot about "Perry reflex", as well.  As an example, user avcase  describes a 6-lamination limb, where two sets of three layers are first laminated in low stress, but high curvature.  These two curved limbs are then forced straight and laminated together, creating a straight limb with 2X the energy storage potential (in only one direction) compared to a self-bow of the same wood.  This shows that beneficial stress in composite bows can be used in any desired shape.  Hickman's patent described this very well.  I would recommend citing Hickman and describing this important benefit of composite bows.WaywardGeek (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that patents are reliable sources in our sense, even if they specifically described composite bows which this one doesn't. The lamination example you mention is interesting, but we would need a better source for that as well. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on advantages section 

message: http://www.manchuarchery.org/did-qing-ban-archery-mongolia This site seems to be arguing that the idea that the Manchus banned archery in Mongolia is just a myth.
:It may be. But it is supported by a moderately-respectable reference.Munkhtsetseg. INSTINCTIVE ARCHER MAGAZINE. Up-dated 18 July 2000  accessed 4 April 2015. And the site you quote is not usable for Wikipedia, nor are its arguments which are circumstantial and would be the worst kind of original research if presented here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: They're very difficult to build without good saws for the horn. We aren't asserting that they definitely didn't exist, we are following our sources and saying that horn bows are not recorded before contact. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  More comments 

message: composite bows are depicted far earlier than the 2nd millennium, e.g. Uruk Stele, c. 3500 BCE.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C2:23C2:F201:E8BE:BE94:6A5E:8FC3 (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: We would need reputable secondary sources to say so here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Far earlier

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Composite bow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709110150/http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/millwarj/website%20images/centralasiaimages.htm to http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/millwarj/website%20images/centralasiaimages.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060823003915/http://www.ashmolean.org/gri/9bow.html to http://www.ashmolean.org/gri/9bow.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This seal is from NW Afghanistan indus site and displayed in schoyen gallery MS 2645.
indus civilization composite bow 202.188.53.210 (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. The drawn bow on the left does seem to show significant reflex. The two strung bows on the right do not. To include this in the article, however, we would need a reliable source guessing that it does indeed depict a composite bow - it's possible to make a self bow with considerable reflex - and I'd guess that an actual dated relic would be useful. Also, what can be said about the dating of this seal? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  mature harappan 2600-1900 BC 202.188.53.210 (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  composite bow depicted on indus civilization seal 

message: The disadvantages section could use better citations. There are basically no citations backing up the claims about certain humid areas using the composite bows less— the only cite is the Strategikon reference. All the other links are just precipitation charts. Having a direct cite for these claims would be really helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B116:4F6B:98D:7E78:507D:CA98 (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disadvantages section 

message: This article contained a reference to the so-called "Silk Road Foundation", also known as "Silk Road". It's an online publisher. The website can be found here:
https://www.silkroadfoundation.org
This publication sometimes refers to itself as "Silk Road Journal", but should NOT be confused with Silk Road Journal Online, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
The Silk Road Journal in question is based primarily around  Asian archaeology and history. It typically publishes theoretical articles written by researchers who appear to mostly hail from Russia and China. The sole editor of the publication, an American man named Daniel Waugh, has candidly stated that it has no formal peer review:
http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/newsletter/vol15/srjournal_v15.pdf
So, the Silk Road Foundation is a speedy publishing mill for primary research that is not formally peer reviewed. The editor describes himself as someone who often sees "'gold in material that would never find its way in to a standard academic publication'". A lot of researchers don't want to be published by Silk Road Foundation, and those that do are disproportionately from non-English speaking countries, who struggle to get their theories published in standard English-language journals. 
To my mind, this is very near to the definition of predatory publishing, with the exception that the Silk Road Foundation does not even provide the benefits of high-end predatory puboishers, like DOI. It's really more like an internet blog. 
The Silk Road Foundation is cited on various ethnical and archaeological articles on Wikipedia, often advancing pet theories, which is out of touch with WP:RS, which says that Wikipedia should prioritize high-quality, peer reviewed secondary research over this kind of stuff. 
Although I'm not aware of any controversial material in this particular Wiki article related to its Silk Road Foundation reference, and I have no enmity for the Silk Road Foundation or its publisher, or its authors, this source does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, and should not be cited. Hunan201p (talk) 08:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: The Scythian section speaks much about a "working tips" phenomenon, but I'm not seeing this mentioned in the source given:
http://www.atarn.org/chinese/scythian_bows.htm
I am unable to verify Otto Maenchen Helfen, but even so, his work can only purely theoretical and not based in archaeology, as the only forensic and experimental research on these bows dates to the very recent 21st century.
I don't doubt that earlier authors theorized about a "lift-off" effect from working tips, but strong doubts have been cast on this hypothesis. For example:
https://atarn.org/chinese/Yanghai/Scythian_bow_ATARN.pdf
and,
Also, the Wiki says that lathes are totally absent in Scythian bows. Again the source predates the forensic examinations of Scythian bows, which did reveal wooden grip lathes:
So the article needs a bit of clarification here and there - Hunan201p (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Working tips