12.4.2 Dynamic Properties Combined |
||||||||
| Graphics to Show it All | ||||||||
First let's go through the basic parameters that determine your swords dynamical properties:
|
||||||||
| In essence, all these parameters result from the distribution of the materials defining your sword. In other words: It is the shape or geometry that counts - and details matter! Change something there and all the parameters above will change. Some more than others. | ||||||||
| What that means is simple. You cannot sit down, consider what you want with respect to the parameters given above, make a list with the resulting numbers and curves, and order your sword maker to produce a sword that meets your wishes. All these parameters are simply not independent. | ||||||||
| You must compromise. There is no "ideal" sword for you, only compromises. Swords may give you satisfaction with regard to some parameters while leaving something to be desired with respect to others. | ||||||||
| Peter Johnsson has
come up with a very attractive way to illustrate the sword properties that result from Vincen Le Chevalier calculations 1).
His pictures are mostly published in "The Sword - Form and Thought" 2)
and I use some of them here with the kind permission of Peter, Vincent and the Solingen museum. Here is what it looks like with some explanations added by me: | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| The text insets are from me and I used my nomenclature that on occasion is somewhat
different from that of Le Chevalier. Pictures like that are generated by a computer program that is available for everybody
in the Net 1). You must supply the basic data, of course, and that involves
some precise measurements. Le Chevalier has explained most of the math behind the calculations and, as far as I'm concerned,
it is sound. There is a lot of information in these pictures. Let me go through the pertinent points:
| ||||||||
| The power of these diagrams (from the Solingen book) becomes clear when you use them to compare swords. | ||||||||
| The sword on top is described as a hand-and-a half Sword from 1480 - 1500. It
is 105 cm long with a the blade length of 81.5 cm and weighs only 0.822 kg The sword on the bottom is actually an "Ulfberht" sword. Its length is 83.3 cm, with a 70.2 cm blade. It weighs in at 0.79 kg, quite low too. The "Solingen Swords" Link provides a lot of pictures like the ones discussed here plus some data. It includes very light and very heavy swords, long and short ones, and allows a lot of data extractions like the one below. Here are the two characteristics of these swords: |
| |||||||
| ||||||||
| The Ulfberht has a slightly better translational response, simply reflecting its slightly smaller weight. Its lower percussion point coincides with the vibration node but is a bit far from the tip. The effective mass at the node point is respectable but practically the same as that of the longer sword. The long sword has a far better rotation response. That means that you can get it to swing with a larger rotational speed than the Ulfberht. Its percussion point (also close to the node point) thus moves considerably faster that that one of the Ulberht and thus delivers far more punch (the power goes with effective mass and the speed squared!). It is just a much better sword - if wielded by an expert. It needs more room for swinging and that needs practice. | ||||||||
| I doubt very much that the longer sword was intended for "one-and-a-half" hands. There is actually ample space for two hands on the hilt but given its small mass I tend to believe that it is meant for one hand only. Why then the long hilt? The answer is simple: | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| The long sword obtains its superior properties to a large extent because its pommel is far away from the center of mass without taking too much mass away from the blade. The blade is actually thicker then the Ulfberht blade but more slender and cunningly tapered. There are many interesting pictures of people (including angels) wielding those swords always with just one hand, here is the link. | ||||||||
| Finding the best pommel mass and distance plus a fitting taper Is not easy because of all the parameter interdependence. There are no simple rules. I'll give you a few examples of what can be done. | ||||||||
| Optimizing Pommel and Taper | ||||||
| I'll show you two pictures, one from the "Solingen book" and le Chevalier's / Johnsson's work, the other one from Turner's seminal contribution. | ||||||
| ||||||
Unfortunately, the basic data of the sword are not given but it is quite obvious
that an optimized pommel will:
| ||||||
| We have a first quite instructive example for what can be done, and that you always must compromise. | ||||||
| Turner looks a the effect of pommel from many directions (read his book if you want details). What I will show you from his work is what a pommel will do to the effective mass: The pivot point here is assumed to be somewhere between your wrist and your elbow but that doesn't matter much. | ||||||
| ||||||
| You see the increase in mass and the shift of the center of mass towards the hilt.
You also see a large increase of the effective mass around your hand position (around 0.3. m) that will decrease the translational
response (you more or less feel the full increase in weight there). The rotational response, , however, is far less impaired
because the COM gets closer to the hilt. What you probably don't see is the 30 % increase in the effective mass at the tip of the blade for the 0.5 kg pommel! It is there, believe me, you just need to "enlarge" the tip region in a (precise) drawing to see it. In other words: Increasing the weight of your sword by 50 % by a substantial pommel will not impair maneuverability very much (far less then 50 %) while giving you 30 % more "punch" for hits close to the tip region. That might well be worth the effort. | ||||||
| We see once more the importance of optimizing the pommel or better yet, pommel and the rest of the hilt. | ||||||
| Far more could be said about pommel and hilt, followed by lengthy discussions of blade design (length, width, thickness, taper on thickness and width, number and length of fullers, cross-sectional geometry, ....) but I will have mercy on you (and me). I will just five your the results of extracting some data from the wonderful work in the "Solingen book". | ||||||
| ||||||
| What I did was to measure the angle of what I have called the "rotational
response" in the drawing above. Then I plotted the length of the sword versus
this angle; the result is shown above. I did the same thing for the relation between the "rotational response" and the mass, the result is shown here. |
||||||
When I started this I had no idea of what I would get. What we see is very little correlation.
For any given angle or length you care to select, there is wide range of length or angle values, respectively. The same
is true for mass and angle values. What that tells us is
| ||||||
Summarizing in a somewhat superficial fashion, let me say this:
| ||||||
| 1) | Vincent Le Chevalier; selected papers, all accessible via his home page or directly if links are given below:
|
|
| 2) | "Solingen book ""Das Schwert - Gestalt und Gedanke ("The Sword - Form and Thought"). Hrg.: Barbara Grotkamp-Schepers et al. The book to a special exhibition at the "Deutsches Klingenmuseum Solingen", Sept. 2015 - Feb. 2016. | |
© H. Föll (Iron, Steel and Swords script)