quiksilver

I'd tend to think that it would take a pretty revolutionary cam to do it, and I'd think it would be more like a ratchet than a cam, but the more I mull it over, the more I think that it's possible. The physics are there, so really, all one would need to do is devise a simple machine to make it happen.

I know that draw-locking devices are illegal in many parts, but really, this wouldn't be a "draw lock" per se - it would be more of a potential energy storage device. Definitely something that the archery world has never seen.

Come on all you engineers out there, this is our shot to revolutionize bowhunting as we know it. Besides, it's Friday, and I wanna think about something other than work.

Sylvan

Well you've got me thinking about it. I think it's a great idea! I do think the "cocking" problem is a major problem to overcome though. At first glance it doesn't seem possible to me. I'm assuming (and maybe that's my badparadigm) that one would pull back and then "something" would have to hold the energy in the limbs while the tension goes to zero as the archer reaches forward for the next pull. I don't see how that wouldn't be considered "cocking". Of course it's hard to think "out of the box".

Wish I could hang around and see what other ideas come out here but I have to take off...

quiksilver

Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of a cam that has two "valleys" in the draw cycleand the string could be initially drawn to full draw (at the second valley), while a separate ratcheting mechanism takes the slack out of the cables, then, the string is let down, into the first "valley," while the "ratchet" holds the cables in place, keeping the limbs squeezed.

Then, the second draw would squeeze the limbs even further, and upon release, the "ratchet" would unlock somehow (centrifugal force, maybe?), and the limbs would snap back to their original position. So, you'd never be actually letting the draw down completely. You'd instead be doing a full-draw, then letting it halfway down, andcoming back to full-draw again.

Obviously, this would require unconventional thinking w/regard to string/cable setups as well.

Is this total craziness, or does this make sense to anybody else?
Thanks for agreeing with me there, Sylvan, even if you were just jokin' around, it made me feel like I wasn't losing my mind.

Bob H in NH

I think if you have a draw/letdown/draw motion, you will get serious uproar. How about some type of pulley mechanism, you know with certain pulleys you pull more than the object moves, but you pull with less force than needed (you know that pesky force*distance equation). what if you could reverse it somehow? Pull the same draw length you pull now, but at a HIGHER poundage, but imparts more stored energy into the limbs? Now that I just re-read that, not sure that's any different than just upping your draw weight, oh well... was a thought...[:'(]

sometimes the laws of physics just seem to get in the way

quiksilver

I agree Bob, the Draw/letdown/draw cycle wouldn't be very practical for hunting, but could be useful for target/3-d guys.

For hunting, you'd have to have a system devised that would allow you to take a full draw, and let it down. Then you'd need to be able to hang the bow up with the limbs still squeezed,where you could draw again later, to double the stored energy, and takeyour buck when he walks by.

Davoh

More forgiveness and quieter will go farther than speed.

OH by the way, ratcheting would not do much other than extend the distance traveled by the limb-tips during the shot. Creating alot more noise and vibration. Also pushing the peak weight of the 2nd draw cycle up even higher, while the energy exerted on the the arrow would be minimally effected. Afterall, the power stroke of the shot will remain the same. Find a way to extend the power stroke and you transfer more energy to the arrow. I will post a sketch tonight when I get home.

quiksilver

I don't know, Dave. The benefit wouldn't be inthe limb travel, per se. It would be that you'd be storing more energy in the limbs themselves, which would result in increased limb flexion - a side-effect, if you will. As you pointed out, the second draw cycle would be heavier, but it would stand to reason that could be eliminated or minimizedin the cam design. If nothing else, the first cycle could draw at #45, and the second cycle at 70#.

I get the feeling there are some dangerous minds at work here. LOL

LIke anything else, the initial design would probably be a rattle-trap, but over time, things get tweaked and modified. Henry Ford didn't build the GT40 on his first try, ya know.

mudd_dawg

i think all of this aside i just want a good quiet bow that can shoot my arrow fast enough to put some yummy food in my belly,and i have that. I am 34 and have been bow hunting since i was 10,compaired to my old recurve and my first pse compound i got that you just about need a tow truck to draw it back.i agree with most of you tho it's all about the $. stop spending 2 million a year trying to make a great bow just a bit faster or quieter and make it so everyone can afford to buy a great bow with out having to take out a loan or take food out of thier kids mouths

Davoh

mudd dawg, I 100% agree with you. Prices are OUTRAGEOUS! I commented to a guy at gander about it and his comment was "you pay for better technology and better equipment" Ol' Henry Ford started with the Model A not as a superior product, as there were many many better cars of the day. But his was affordable, and that is one of the main things keeping people from joining this wonderful sport. That and the cost of decent hunting grounds. I have a friend that was not raised in the outdoors but has sat through a few hunting shows at my house and even tried some venison I made. He decided that he'd like to try it. Only problem is that he has a family of 3 living on an income of 1400 A MONTH. He just doesn't have the cash. Luckily my family has land in west texas and gave me permission to take him on a hog hunt. So at least he'll get to experience it.

It's all business and its becoming corporate. Even the smaller companies are getting that way. People say about Remington for years that the bean counters have taken over... its the same thing for bow companies.

As for the dbldraw system we've been discussing. Unless you design a draw assist device(a lever or pully system), the felt weight will be the same as the actuall weight pulled. As someone stated earlier, energy can only be transferred, not created. 80# of force to the arrow = 80# of weight on the draw.Then the person still has to hold that weight. I still beleive that the best way is to extend the power stroke. Longer arrows it will require but I beleive it is possible.

I've got an Idea for the ratchet-cams. Something spring loaded like the clutch on an A/C compressor on a car.

jones123

Computerizedinternal gyroscopic stabilization with lock-in aiming and thought controlled release.