PDA

View Full Version : Bow tuning: what does Accurate Sights do?


James Park
04-05-2003, 10:12 AM
I have often been asked how the bow tuning bit works:
In tuning either a recurve or a compound bow (fingers or release device), it is a matter of matching up the time it takes for the arrow to flex with the time it takes for the arrow to get from full draw position to the position where the nock leaves the bowstring.
Initially, the arrow flexes immediately following release. At the time the nock leaves the string we want the arrow to be straight, so we need the arrow to flex through 3/4 of a cycle of its flexing.
So: the first thing to calculate is how long it takes for the arrow to go from full draw to brace height. To do this we need the force-draw curve and the arrow's velocity on leaving the bow (which of course we know from the calculated velocity in Accurate Sights). With a small amount of calculus (two stepwise integrations) we can quite readily calculate the time the arrow is on the string. I have used a number of representative force-draw curves from which you can select the nearest for your bow - in fact the exact shape does not matter much in the calculations, so while you might be using the curve for my PSE to do the calculation for your Hoyt it will be still quite accurate enough.
Next: we need to know the resonant frequency of the arrow so that we can calculate the time it takes to flex through the 3/4 of a cycle. This I have measured for a range of arrows, and also calculated from first principles (using quite a bit of fancy engineering and some complex modelling). What we need are some rules of how the frequency changes as we change the arrow size, point weight, arrow length, etc. Hence, not so easy to do. To complicate it further, the frequency changes depending upon whether the arrow is in free flight on on the bow string, and it is different for recurves and compound while on the string. All this modelling is included in Accurate Sights.
We also need to know where the arrows nodes are, both while it is on the strong and also in free flight. In free flight they are easy to locate, while it is on the string it is a bit more difficult (especially for compound bows with release devices).
From that, we can calculate whether or not the arrow is straight at the moment it leaves the string, and if it is not whether it has flexed too quickly or to slowly.
After the arrow leaves the string the nodes shift and the resonant frequency changes. What we now need to do is to calculate where the fletches and nock are as they pass the launcher. This node and frequency shift is difficult to model (and even more difficult to show grapgically as in Accurate Sights).
To look for arrow clearance from the launcher or arrow rest, it is simply a matter of seeing whether any part of the arrow is sitting where they are as it goes past. This is of course quite important for the rear of the arrow.
If the arrow is not exactly straight as it leaves the string, I calculate the bow weight at which it should be straight, simply by redoing the calculation for how long it should take from full draw to brace height. It is, of course, necessary for you to input your bow weight for this to mean anything.
How accurate is all this?
For recurves - I think it should be quite good, as the modelling seems to me to be reasonably straightforward.
For compounds - it is a much more complex thing to model for a number of reasons. I have modelled it for a flat nock travel, and for many bows this is not the case. Hence the flex will not be exactly as in the program. However, for bows such as my PSE's the nock travel is in accord with how the arrow wishes to flex (which is good, and allows the arrow to behave a bit more closely to its free flight situation than for a flat nock travel bow). This means that the resonant frequency while the arrow is on the string may not be exactly in accord with my calculations, which could change the results (but only by a quite small amount). Also, for the compound with release device there will be some sideways flex as well, and I have not modelled it.
So: overall, I think the modelling should be reasonably representative of what happens, but you need to use it with care, remembering that we have a quite complex system and things could be a little different in reality.

Marcus
28-05-2003, 11:19 PM
This is very interesting.
How does chaging point weight effect the modelling and thus the tune?

James Park
29-05-2003, 06:46 AM
The point weight changes the arrow's resonant frequency a little. Because the point is not at the front node, its weight does influence the frequency, and a higher weight means a lower frequency, and hence an arrow that suits having a little bit longer on the bow string (that is, a bit less bow weight).
To deal with this in AS I have measured the resonant frequency with one point weight and calculate it for different weights. I have checked the relationship between frequency and weight using a couple of arrow sizes and widely different point weights.
Note that the frequency does not change a lot as you change the point weight, so it will be a means of fine tuning only, and not a way to get a radically incorrect arrow to work.

archerger
24-12-2003, 06:48 PM
What effect does the type of point have on the calcs/flight, I am really thinking of inserts a la ace or solids. I would think that inserts some 50/75mm long would stiffen the arrow and effect the nodes Similarly it could effect the c of g of the point wt.

James Park
24-12-2003, 10:24 PM
My measurements show that changing the point weight does change the arrow resonant frequency, but only by a little bit, so it will not help with bow tuning to much extent.
The length of the point shank however does have quite a significant effect (a longer shank increases the resonant frequency for the same weight point).
Both of these do move the front node a little.

xphasor
08-05-2004, 09:34 PM
Front Node eh? Do arrows vibrate predominantly at higher frequency than their 1st (natural) harmonic then?
Is it possible to varify your modelling with high speed photography? What kind of rates are we talking here?

James Park
08-05-2004, 09:49 PM
Principally 1st harmonic, but some higher harmonics as well. Not easy to see in photography, however.
Typically around 40 to 50 Hertz.

vortex69
03-05-2007, 03:46 PM
After reading your thing on THE HISTORY OF ACCURATE SIGHTS, I would like to point out that the physics of any natural things I know of, have not changed since 1970! Still, I like what you are doing. Let me know when you get to V10.

Marcus
03-05-2007, 03:54 PM
I would like to point out that the pysics of any natural things I know of, have not changed since 1970!
What happened in 1970 that made physics change?

Jim Reid
03-05-2007, 04:11 PM
James Park is too smart, we shouldn't have to compete against him.
All this knowledge gives him an unfair advantage.

a can see another opportunity for another t-shirt success story

JAMES PARK
IS 2 SMART!

Marcus
03-05-2007, 04:14 PM
No, James Park needs to sleep more.

Archangel
03-05-2007, 05:07 PM
What happened in 1970 that made physics change?
The value of pi changed from 3.5 to it's current 3.14159 because it was deemed to be 'too simple' before.

Marcus
03-05-2007, 05:17 PM
Yeah, the 3.14159 is the converted form of pi from imperial to metric. 3.5 is pi in imperial measurements. ;)
Yet another example of why the metric system sucks.

Jim Reid
03-05-2007, 05:32 PM
The value of pi changed from 3.5 to it's current 3.14159

this dramatically affected arrow flight, especially over 90m.

also heralded the beginning of a drop off in interest in clout since calculating the radius or the arc became too difficult for most. Changing the scoring from 5 zone to ten zone didn't help either.

ililh
17-05-2007, 08:54 AM
http://humboldt1.com/~cbender/chris/Pi2.htm

There is only one pi. It's not metric or imperial.

Archangel
17-05-2007, 09:35 AM
http://humboldt1.com/~cbender/chris/Pi2.htm

There is only one pi. It's not metric or imperial.
I think you're taking this a little bit too seriously. In that spirit though, what if you're not counting in base 10? It's not 3.14159 then...

dilligaf
24-05-2007, 06:19 PM
Once apon a time i as a young electrical apprentice 20 years ago i understood PI and many other mathemagical stuff now DILLIGAF.
:silly: