[AZ~ThunderDan]

I'm looking for some opinions on an idea I have. I just hope you all have a good imagination. If not, I'm going to lose you.

Imagine if you will, a riser that's a one-piece, 2/3 arc design, with a fixed pulley/wheel on the bottom of the riser, (where the bottom "limb" is currently located). If you can visualize this in your head, then bear with me.

Now, imagine on the top of this riser, a single (huge and powerful) limb, or, maybe even two, side-by-side upper limbs, with a center-shaft mounted cam. (Can you see it?)

Would that not alleviate the headache of timing two cams/wheels? Would it not also alleviate "timing" altogether?

What's to time, if there's only one limb, or two, side-by-side upper limbs?

Using the current geometry and designs of compound bows today, the top and bottom limbs/cams are supposedly designed to be working in synergy with each other, yet, in equal and opposite directions. Isn't the current goal to achieve identical timing/performance from each limb and cam at the moment of release? Wouldn't a bow using only one limb (or two side-by-side limbs) eliminate the timing grief?

I'm the furthest thing there is from being a scientist/engineer, but I can see some potential for this design. What's your thoughts?

 

[bowhuntinmaniac]

"Imagine if you will, a riser that's a one-piece, 2/3 arc design, with a fixed pulley/wheel on the bottom of the riser, (where the bottom "limb" is currently located). Can you see it in your head yet? (Bear with me.) "

Dan, you may have lost me....................."A fixed pulley on the bottom of the riser", to me means that it will not give (riser) when the bow is drawn back, so when in the drawn position, the only thing that will push the arrow upon release is the top limb.
This would produce energy from the top only and, in my mind, would work fine as a catapult, but not as a bow.
Tuning is not really a big issue when you get used to it.

 

[AZ~ThunderDan]

Dan, you may have lost me... Tuning is not really a big issue when you get used to it.

Garth, there would be nothing for the archer to "tune" or "time". Under my design concept, the only adjustments the archer could make is the tension adjustment on the top limb(s) through the limb bolt(s).

When a contemporary compound bow is drawn back through the draw cycle, the design objective is to have collectively made adjustments so that both limbs (by-and-through their cams/pulleys) are performing and releasing their collected energy identically to each other. Thus, the need to "time" the limb cams. Since both the top and bottom limbs are being flexed throughout the draw cycle, all the limbs are really doing is collecting energy through their flexion, right?

With the design idea that I have, that leaves all the energy collection up to one limb [or set of 2 parallel mounted limb(s)], which in this case, is the top limb(s). When you think about it, a catapult is exactly what the top and bottom limbs really are. Why is it mandatory that there be two catapults, mounted equally and opposite to each other from a fixed riser?

I say it doesn't have to be that way. This is where you must think outside the box. I know some of you may think I've finally gone over the edge, but I can see this working flawlessly through my design. Perhaps I just have a vividly wild imagination?

 

[AZ~ThunderDan]

One last jab. I just love nay-sayers. You know, the ones who say "it can't be done"?

I just wonder what folks will have to say, when someday, some brainiac engineer working for Hoyt designs the new - Hoyt Monotech? :wink: LMAO!

 

[creed]

Timing a bow is not that big of a deal. In fact it's easy. It's something most archers should know how to do.

I agree with Garth.

Unless you have a round wheel and not a cam, there will still be "timing" issues with what you propose. There will be a position where the cam will perform at it's peak efficiency. In effect, what you have is a single cam, one limb bow.

 

[dave]

Dan,

While you are thinking outside the box and in an inventing mood, this about this:

You must maintain level nock travel.

 

[AZ~ThunderDan]

See what I mean?

A bunch of naysayers, thinking inside the box.

Time for me get out my chalk board.

Hold on, I'll be right back.

 

[bowhuntinmaniac]

Dan,
It is encouraging to see yer enthusiasm.
In the 1970's, there was a bow called the Dynabow. It was a compound bow limb with wheel on the bottom if I remember right, and a recurve limb on the other end. Really cool looking but pretty inefficient.
What I am getting at, is it probly has already been tried, but who knows, do a patent search and if there isnt one, get yer idea patented.

 

[dave]

Let me expand upon level nock travel. From the point at which the arrow is released with the string in contact with the nock, the force and motion produced until the nock leaves the string should be perfectly level with no left or right tweaks.

If you could watch a slow motion video of every movement going on with the arrow from the time it is released until it leaves the string, it would look like and bee looking for honey and how can it ever find its way back to the hive.

Nothing like a bullet shot out of a barrel.

Think about this…Is the arrow nock centered top to bottom from limb tip to limb tip on modern bows? When you pull the bow, is your hand centered top to bottom in the bow? Are the top limbs actually the same deflection as the bottom limbs?

I just thought if your getting the chalk board out you should have something to erase when your done

 

[AZ~ThunderDan]

Well, shoot, I've spent half the evening looking for my chalkboard.

I can't seem to find anything since we've moved.

I must've put in the garage somewhere? Probably inside a box.

Oh well. Guess it's time to work on that center fletched arrow idea of mine.

 

[Coues84]

Sounds interesting. I gather by your typings above the lower limb would be replaced with a solid piece of metal and a pulley/cam. Would the bottom of the bow extend the same distance as the top? One of my concerns with this is, with all the energy focused on the top of the bow, how would you control recoil? Seems to me like the whole thing would spin pretty good in your hand upon release. And dump the bow into the ground/ your thigh, foot, bottom of your arm. etc. Now if you put the Limb on the bottom, maybe the recoil could be contained with a stabilizer to prevent the bow from launching into space. And just for the record I bet the fellow who came up with wheels for bows was scrutinized pretty harshly until the product was finished and worked .. Keep running with it and see what happens. if it works you can make all the name says eat crow. Then again if it dosent work, I hope you have a good receipe book yourself. LOL..

 

[dave]

I have heard that the new thing coming up in bow technology is metal limbs with hydraulic stabilization.

 

[AZ~ThunderDan]

There has never been an idea that worked exactly as it's conception. My design idea would be no different.

Things like level knock travel, recoil control, cams vs pulleys, etc., would have to be tweaked to acheive the desired rsults.

And to Bruce, I agree in that whatever set-up you have on the bottom end of the riser, yes, it's pulley/cam/wheel and the top cam would still have to be timed. What I am offering is that you aren't faced with timing two limb cams, but merely one limb and one cam.

I can actually see a mono-limb bow working in my head. How well it would perform is beyond me. Would it be better? I dunno. But then again, it could be?

It has been etched in all of our head that a bow must have two limbs and a riser. I say it doesn't. But then again, I'm thinking outside the box.

 

[dave]

Timing is really a simple thing and depending on how and what your strings are made out of must be done periodically. I like the old two wheel and two cam bows, so what if you have to time them. If you have a split yoke on the anchor end of the cables that attaches to the limb tips (like the top limb on a hoyt) you can control cam/limb tip lean much better than you can on modern bows. We would be better off going back to that design utilizing cams that produce the same energy curve as modern cams.

 

[creed]

Shall I further muddy the waters and mention synchronization as well as timing?

Gotta learn these things Dan or you'll never know if your bow is right :shock:

 

[AZ~ThunderDan]

Actually, I've had a lot of fun with this. I will always believe that with the right engineer(s), a bow of my design would work. How well? I couldn't care to guess.

I'll probably be long gone by then, but someday, somebody somewhere (who thinks outside the box), will design a bow of my idea. Maybe by chance they'll work for Hoyt and perhaps they'll name it the... ThunderTech? LMAO.

Oh, btw, I live in muddy waters... so none of you guys have to.

 

[dave]

Actually Dan, your idea sucks and would never work. Don't stop thinking of ideas. Keep your mind churning and maybe some day you will invent the ultimate bow.
Think of it this way, you are not that far from inventing the ultimate bow. 5 bazillion folks are working on it every day and we still do not have a bow that has level nock travel with no cam or limb tilt. You are as close as anyone to inventing the ultimate bow.

 

[dave]

Dan,

Have you ever seen an old Onieda bow? It had short recurve limbs that were operated by cams at the end of the riser. I guess they went away and are history now. I thought they sucked myself. Regardless of that, here is a couple things they had going for them, there was only one string like on a recurve, no need for a cable guard. The cable guard is the main reason for cam/limb tilt.

 

[AZ~ThunderDan]

I appreciate the vote of confidence. Let the record show 5 bazillion and one.

There's a fine line between bow designs that suck and stink. I have erased that line.

 

[ThomC]

How about a bow where you just take a long piece of flexible wood and attach a string at each end without any pulleys or adjustments or space age stuff. I think that it will work without much tinkering. What do you think? :idea: