[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Sioux arrow #60119

Great photo, Jason, and a great example too. If one spends much time looking at the ‘primitive’ equipment used decades and centuries ago it’s amazing how many examples there are of the same features the Study is showing help maximize our arrow’s terminal performance. I’m pretty certain that we’re merely re-discovering what mandkind’s collective memory had lost as mankind supposedly ‘advanced’.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: 2 Blade double bevel and 3 blade vs single bevel #59939

Sharpster,

To understand why the thinnest, smoothest and sharpest edge works best requires a basic understanding of the processes involved in physologic responses that cause hemorrhaging and clotting. It’s a lengthy explination, but the upcoming article in TBM covers the full explination of the hemorrhaging cascade.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: 2 Blade double bevel and 3 blade vs single bevel #59923

John Carter wrote: There really is nothing new in this game,people that needed it to survive worked it out hundreds of years ago.
John.

John, you are SO correct. If you like seeing some of the ‘technical archery knowledge’ of so called ‘primitive bowhunters’ we’ve somehow lost, you’ll enjoy reading Papua New Guinea’s Bows and Arrows. Here’s the link.

https://www.tradbow.com/members/310.cfm

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Follow-up to EFoC and Carbon Arrows #58796

Mike and Tom, you have it right. Arrow efficiency (the application of as much of the bow-derived arrow force as possible to produce USEFUL work) is the goal in tuning. Bare shaft tuning tells you so much more than paper tuning does. If you’re getting rapid paradox recovery and straight, clean flight all the way to the target from a bare-shaft arrow there’s no room for improvement in the arrow’s flight.

Most paper tuning uses fletched arrows. With even the best paper tuning techniques fletching CAN (and usually does) mask some amount of flight-error TENDENCY; i.e. masking some arrow “inefficiency”. This makes it far more difficult to paper tune an arrow’s flight than to bare-shaft tune it.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: How much bow and arrow for hogs? #58728

kingwouldbee wrote: In my REAL world, stuff happens, regardless how good of a shot I am, or how good I pick my shots.:D

That’s the bottom line. If one is so gifted a shot that he/she can hit a flying gnat at 30 yards every time and clairvoyant enough to always know to aim where the animal will be when the arrow arrives on target it makes little difference what equipment is used. For us mortals, “Try for the best, but plan for the worst”.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Ultra-EFOC Barely Above The Heavy Bone Threshold #58102

Smiley1, your post is worth more to me than money, as a personal reward for all the years and expense invested!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: A Question of Draw Weight #58098

Thanks Michael. It’s been over 2 years now, since the back injury. Hopefully this next knee surgery will be the last surgery for a while and I can start trying to build back up again.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: A Question of Draw Weight #55504

RedTape wrote: Ultimately you should shoot the heaviest bow you can control and shoot accurately.

That, in a nut shell, is the very best answer on bow draw weight for hunting. The one overwhelming thing the Study has shown is that arrow design is a far bigger factor in terminal arrow performance in tissues than is the draw weight of the bow.

A penetration maximized arrow from a lower poundage bow out-performs a ‘typically used’ arrow from a bow of substantually heavier draw weight. Conversely, with arrows that are equally performance enhanced the heavier draw weight bow will out perform the lower draw weight bow (assuming the bows are of equal efficiency; and that’s a whole ‘nother issue).

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Ultra-EFOC Barely Above The Heavy Bone Threshold #55488

Mike, Ultra-EFOC is (Study defined) as being 30% and above. The reason being, it’s really difficult to reach 30% and above FOC without making a concentrated effort to attain FOC.

Just putting high tip weight on most light weight shafts will get you into the EFOC range, but the higher the FOC gets the more increase in tip weight it takes to make the same degree of FOC increase. As Ultra-EFOC is approached it is more ‘productive’ to be reducing weight at the shaft’s rear than adding additional tip weight. That’s because the rear leaver arm (the distance from the nock to the balance point) gets longer as the FOC increases, and the forward lever arm, from the arrow’s front to the balance point) gets shorter. The longer the leaver arm the more force a given amount of weight can exert.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Ultra-EFOC Barely Above The Heavy Bone Threshold #52710

As Steve suggest, building the arrow plate out is an important tool when one it trying to develop and tune arrows that are in the Ultra-EFOC range.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Ultra-EFOC Barely Above The Heavy Bone Threshold #52707

Yep, I’d like to get an FOC that high too, but I haven’t had the opportunity to even try yet. Lord willing I’ll be through most of the major medical stuff by year’s end. Then I’ll need to try and get my gear back together (and probably have to learn to shoot all over again) and start tinkering. As you can see in the new Update Ultra-EFOC offers a sizable penetration jump from even the EFOC setups tested. Everything suggest that the percent penetration gain per percent FOC increase increases progressively as FOC gets higher. There’s a whole world of opportunity to do some interesting testing at Ultra-EFOC levels … and I’m not all that certain that I’m going to be able to do much of it from here forward.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Ultra-EFOC Barely Above The Heavy Bone Threshold #51609

Knee op No.2 is tenatively scheduled for early November … immediately after I journey back to Texas to vote! 😡 The follow-up (that better Ron?) with the oncologist has been rescheduled to the 14th of Sept.

Thanks for getting the new Update posted so quickly. Sent to all locations at the same time, but available on Tradbow first!

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: Ultra-EFOC Barely Above The Heavy Bone Threshold #50566

Thanks King. I’m probably doing far better than I deserve to be doing. Have a F/U with the orthopedic surgeon tomorrow. Hope knee No.1 is doing well enough to start setting up the surgery for knee No.2. Back to the oncologist next week … and sure do hope all the test results will look good there!

The Part 6 Update will be on trying to quantify the Ultra-EFOC penetration effect. Rough cut on it is done already, but lots of re-checking (and re-re-checking) of the data and calculations to do before it will be ready to send out.

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: HOW SHARP IS SHARP ENOUGH? #50534

Sharpster has said it perfectly. An arrow need not be sharp at all to kill … when everything goes well. I was present (in camp) when one whitetail was killed with a field point, and have met and talked with a bowhunter who killed a moose with a metal blunt. That’s not surprising. Non-expanding (solid) bullets are widely used on big game (such as buffalo and elephants) and are very lethal, even on body hits. Many humans have been killed with ice picks (for those of us old enough to remember what an ice pick is).

That said, there’s no such thing as overkill with an arrow and no such thing as a broadhead that’s ‘too sharp’. Just as with everything else in the setup of a hunting arrow it’s the marginal hit where maximizing the overall lethality potential of your setup will make the greatest difference. Also, as Sharpster pointed out, the sharper the broadhead you use the less reaction one generally sees when an animal is hit (excluding when a heavy bone is impacted). Ever cut yourself with an edge so sharp you didn’t even know you were cut until you saw blood? Most have experienced that at one time or another.

The thinner and sharper your broadhead, the smoother the cut and the less disruption there is to the tissues severed. The more ‘perfect’ the cut the faster the blood flow from the incision and the longer the clotting time before bleeding slows and/or stops (see the ‘hemmoraging cascade’ in “Getting and Edge on Success” for a more complete explination).

Ed

[Ed Ashby]

in reply to: New Ashby update just posted; health issues #9134

Just a quick update. I had the initial post-surgery F/U on the right foot on June 1st, and all looks good so far. I’m down to a partial cast on that foot now, and it’s great to not have to spend all my time with my foot elevated, but I’m restricted to only “absolutely necessary” walking, and no prolonged standing for the next six weeks. I’m trying real hard to be as careful as I can. I desperately need those bones to fuse correctly enough for walking! Next F/U for the foot is July 13th.

With the foot well on its way (I hope) I’m moving on to the next problem – the left knee – and am scheculed for an initial visit on June 11th with an Orthopedic Surgeon who specializes in knees.

Late July will bring the 6 month F/U’s with both the radiation Oncologist and Urologist. From what what I can tell of the periodic lab work I have to get everything there looks encouraging so far.

I sometimes think I could have been pounded by a buff and not came out in much worse shape than this! The hardest part of the ‘recovery’ is most likely still to come … the long, long road to regaining all the strength and mobility that I’ve already lost during the last 22 months of forced total inactivity. Who knows how much more I’ll lose (and have to regain) by the time I can start the climb back? 🙄 On the other hand, it could be a whole lot worse!:D

Ed

[Author]

Posts