Robert: The Nuernberg Christkindlmarkt is the most famous in Germany. Can be quite the crowd. I am surprised Stassburg's was disappointing. We don't have Christmas markets like Europe has, Ours are usually privately funded and held in indoor venues. Can't have any governments (city, local, federal) supporting anything religious in the USA!I do not see anyway to add in smilies (not that I want to, I find them infantile but I am old and set in my ways) or to bold, underscore, manipulate fonts, etc. that one often finds in forum engines. That you appear to have that ability is frustrating (but I'm happy for you!).
Now to the meat:
Robert wrote>
I mention that when compare it to how a ball, a rock or a wooden branch fly through the air. Except for those basic that you mention (I throw, it flies and then it lands) a plumbata slows down when it rights itself after the throw. Slingshot and arrows don’t do that, nor all these modern objects that you’ve thrown. You cannot compare them where accuracy is concerned. Or when you state that ‘you throw a ball better OH, therefore a plumbata must be behaving in the same manner.
-----------------------------------------
You are missing the point. Whether thrown UH or OH the plumbata will have fletching impacting its flight. So, what makes a dart with fletching fly further when thrown UH than a dart with fletching when thrown OH as you claim? They both, when properly thrown will have identical launch attitudes, i.e, point forward, tilted upwards. In your tests did the darts thrown OH initially tumble (cartwheel) in flight? Is that what you mean by 'righting itself'? If so, the throw was poorly executed and would indeed greatly reduce the distance and accuracy. Did the UH throws not need to 'right' themselves???
BTW, I have to take back my statement about not having thrown plumbatae - while technically true, a sibling reminded me that we had 'Lawn Darts' as kids (plastic fletching, lead weight concentrated in the tip) and I've probably thrown them hundreds of times, if not a thousand. We used to throw for distance and at targets. Overhand gave us greater distance and better accuracy than UH. Funny that I didn't even think of that. So I claim directly comparable real world experience. In fact, I may have more experience throwing plumbata-like objects than anyone on this thread. (Wild conjecture of course, but if not here, then where? If not now, then when, lol?) Here is a link to modern, safe versions: https://www.dickssportinggoods.com/p/mar...ac13b19754
The ones we had as kids actually had real, sharp points on them! Too many Jimmy-kabobs caused the manufacturers to move to the soft rubber tip. I will use similar devices for my tests. Do you see something that would disqualify these darts as plumbatae proxies at least for a proof of concept test series?
Robert wrote: I mention that when compare it to how a ball, a rock or a wooden branch fly through the air. Except for those basic that you mention (I throw, it flies and then it lands) a plumbata slows down when it rights itself after the throw. Slingshot and arrows don’t do that, nor all these modern objects that you’ve thrown. You cannot compare them where accuracy is concerned. Or when you state that ‘you throw a ball better OH, therefore a plumbata must be behaving in the same manner.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Wrong and wrong. All objects on Earth will slow down once they are released from their initial source of impetus (caveat: Objects shot on a downward trajectory at a speed lower that the object's terminal velocity will accelerate due to gravity until terminal velocity is reached. Does not apply to objects generating their own propulsive force): An arrow is slowing down the second it is released from the string as its shaft absorbs and dissipates lateral and compressive forces. In slow-motion you can see that happening as I explained in my last post. Ask your physicist wife to try and find errors in my statements. (I'd ask mine, but her job as a lingerie model keeps her very busy. She's more into gene-splicing anyway.)
A bullet begins to slow down as soon as it leaves the muzzle. A thrown ball slows down the moment it leaves your hand. Yes, fletching adds drag but it also keeps the projectile aerodynamic in flight - one force slows it down while at the same time allowing it to fly true and far. You keep referring to the fletching as the decisive factor- how does the fletching make the plumbata react differently based on the method of throwing? You maintain that it does but give no description as to how. Not even a theory.
Brucicus Wrote:
"Because a hand grenade (even a Stielhandgranate) behaves differently from a plumbata?" What property does a plumbata have that allows it to differentiate between the throwing methods?
Robert wrote: Flights, which make sure the point is not overtaken by the tail. In a Stielhandgranate, that is no problem whatsoever.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still missing the point. See above.
__________________________________________________________________
Robert wrote: I’m not a physicist, my wife is. If you distrust the testing results without even having read them, might there perhaps be some problem with your initial assumptions?
Absolutely correct. Turns out I was basing it on extensive personal experience. But that doesn't mean I am necessarily correct, but it sure improves the odds. That's why I asked for more studies, which you have so generously provided. None of them are from Lysenko, are they? ;-)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert wrote: Well, that makes us even, because you seem to disregard my personal experience with throwing plumbatae, as well that or other people doing the same thing.
As I’ve said before (and below) - yes, throwing a ball is not the same as throwing a short dart with lead on one end and feathers on the other.
What is your experience throwing? Did you play a ball-throwing sport? Were you trained in proper overhand technique? Can you throw a ball 100 meters, or could you ever? Have you researched OH vs. UH throwing techniques? Are you aware that the fastest UH throw on record is 85 mph while the fastest OH throw on record is 105 mph? What is it about plumbatae that reverses that equation? Fletching? Sorry, smell test fail. I laid it out simply in my previous message. You didn't address that point in your response so I shall repeat it here:
I'll attempt to clarify my thinking, (not always a successful venture): A dart thrown overhand or underhand, with equal amounts of energy (forward, angular, lateral momentum), with equal environmental factors, and launched with the same trajectory will land in the same place. Basic physics supports my claim, I believe.
My position is that, in general, one achieves significantly more energy by throwing overhand than throwing underhand. There is much scientific evidence supporting this claim. I also maintain that dart could be thrown en masse, overhand, from formation to a distance farther than that attainable by spear/javelin.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Robert wrote: Brucicus response in parantheses.
Ah, there you’re making several wrong assumptions.
One, a modern horse is larger and faster than a horse in Roman times. (That's why I reduced the speed by 20%. What number do you find appropriate?)
Two, Roman cavalry carried a much heavier load, which would slow it down. (")
Three, most cavalry does get among the formation’ – horse archers remain out of range, light cavalry throwing javelins would keep away as far as possible, and the armoured cavalry would usually not charge at an infantry formation (they’d be killed unless the infantry was weakened already) but fight with lances stabbing the front. (Are you maintaining that enemy cavalry forces didn't attempt to break up formations? Roman squares, Wellington's squares, the enemy charged them both. If the Roman's formation cracks then the, say, Gothic cavalry wouldn't be in among them? Why not? Why even charge, then? Just saunter up and poke at the enemy with your long sticks! I am clearly missing something here. Are you saying that the Romans wouldn't try to engage the enemy at a distance? Not all the French forces attacked Wellington's squares at Waterloo, so does that make those charges not charges in some manner? Maybe their horses had fletching?)
None of those cavalry actions is doing the charges you have in mind – that’s Napoleonic stuff etc – hussars against unarmoured infantry. Incomparable to our period. (Not many horse charges here in the USA. May be different in the Netherlands.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert wrote: Indeed, we agree there. As I described in my earlier post, that would be the moment for the OH throw – directly at a charging enemy.
Me: OK, now I am confused, did the enemy charge or not charge? Perhaps these are Schroedinger's Cavalry?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Robert wrote: And yet you have not thrown a plumbata in your life. I’m not claiming all the tests have been exact science, but that approach could make you distrust every scientific test until you have replicated it yourself…
Me: Well, I have addressed that first part statement. Sorry for having passed on bad info initially. As to the second, when 'scientific' results conflict with my personal experience, yes, I will test them if it is in my power to do so. My ex BIL is a German professor in physics. He is also the Oberstudenterat where he teaches which, I am told, is a big deal. Visiting us last year he got all fired up about the Arctic snow cap melting and resultant global flooding that was sure to occur. When I pointed out that his concerns are unfounded as the Arctic is basically a floating ice cube and would not contribute at all to sea level rise, he laughed at me, rolled his eyes and started talking to me as if I were mentally defective. So I set up an experiment: I put a few cubes of ice in a measuring cup and then filled it with water to the 1 cup line and let it sit out a night. The next morning my physics professor bil came to me as soon as I woke up to apologize for being so wrong about something so basic. Yes, the ice had melted and the water level changed not one bit. He was embarrassed. I bet he still went home and continued to spout his unfounded opinion anyway, knowing him.
That's who I am. It's one of the challenges (and rewards) of being an auto-didact...dealing with those who commit the 'arguing from authority' error in logic. Do I need to put together a list of all those things 'science' has believed to be true and then turned out to be false?
You've got me really excited about testing on my own. Would you sponsor me for a PhD for doing so? Just kidding. I don't use any of the degrees I have anyway. Well, maybe psychology. I use it to torment my kids.
Hope I don't come across as too strident. One reason I joined this forum is because I watched all these videos on line showing plumbatae testing and I was entsezt (shocked? troubled?) at how they were being thrown. I am a pretty classic type-A. If I go over a line please attribute it to zeal and ignorance.
Soccer comes from the term 'association football' and, like the game itself, originated in Britain. "Association" was shortened somehow to soccer and was adopted In the USA to differentiate it from the already-invented American game 'football'. American football was banned for 3-4 years in the US because something like 20 college players a year were being killed in games. That ban was lifted when new rules eliminating certain formations (i.e. wedges) and allowing the forward pass were introduced. Kicking used to be a much bigger part of the game. All players in American football (the Original Football tm) do use their feet in the game. Using your feet is even popular in baseball. n I dare you to show me any crickets in cricket.
Thanks again for engaging with me.
Brucicus
Just read your report on your experience. I actually found this on-line a couple weeks ago. Didn't realize it is your product. Excellent documentation, Two issues: you reported a following wind (I didn't see wind speed in your report, I'll look again later). A following wind will carry a higher shot farther than a lower shot. I take advantage of that in golf whenever I can.
You also state that the UH method obtained marginally more distance that the OH...yet the farthest throw of DK1 was overhanded. I know...outlier.
It was great that you included your poor throwing technique as one potential influencing factor on your results.
In your report you stated that: 'No wobbling, turning over in flight or similarly unstable behaviour could be observed.' I must be mis-reading something because it seems that you maintained the opposite in your past couple of responses to me. Something about the fletching 'righting' the plumbatae.
What have I missed?
Maybe our exchange will result in more scientific tests. We have plenty of room for testing and accommodations at my ranch if you want to try it here! I don't think anyone has done any looking for roman artifacts here in California. Maybe you could get a grant?????
Thanks for putting up with my odd-ball humor.
Say hello to Sinter Klaas for me.
Best wishes,
Brucicus
The toughest steel goes through the hottest fire.
Now to the meat:
Robert wrote>
I mention that when compare it to how a ball, a rock or a wooden branch fly through the air. Except for those basic that you mention (I throw, it flies and then it lands) a plumbata slows down when it rights itself after the throw. Slingshot and arrows don’t do that, nor all these modern objects that you’ve thrown. You cannot compare them where accuracy is concerned. Or when you state that ‘you throw a ball better OH, therefore a plumbata must be behaving in the same manner.
-----------------------------------------
You are missing the point. Whether thrown UH or OH the plumbata will have fletching impacting its flight. So, what makes a dart with fletching fly further when thrown UH than a dart with fletching when thrown OH as you claim? They both, when properly thrown will have identical launch attitudes, i.e, point forward, tilted upwards. In your tests did the darts thrown OH initially tumble (cartwheel) in flight? Is that what you mean by 'righting itself'? If so, the throw was poorly executed and would indeed greatly reduce the distance and accuracy. Did the UH throws not need to 'right' themselves???
BTW, I have to take back my statement about not having thrown plumbatae - while technically true, a sibling reminded me that we had 'Lawn Darts' as kids (plastic fletching, lead weight concentrated in the tip) and I've probably thrown them hundreds of times, if not a thousand. We used to throw for distance and at targets. Overhand gave us greater distance and better accuracy than UH. Funny that I didn't even think of that. So I claim directly comparable real world experience. In fact, I may have more experience throwing plumbata-like objects than anyone on this thread. (Wild conjecture of course, but if not here, then where? If not now, then when, lol?) Here is a link to modern, safe versions: https://www.dickssportinggoods.com/p/mar...ac13b19754
The ones we had as kids actually had real, sharp points on them! Too many Jimmy-kabobs caused the manufacturers to move to the soft rubber tip. I will use similar devices for my tests. Do you see something that would disqualify these darts as plumbatae proxies at least for a proof of concept test series?
Robert wrote: I mention that when compare it to how a ball, a rock or a wooden branch fly through the air. Except for those basic that you mention (I throw, it flies and then it lands) a plumbata slows down when it rights itself after the throw. Slingshot and arrows don’t do that, nor all these modern objects that you’ve thrown. You cannot compare them where accuracy is concerned. Or when you state that ‘you throw a ball better OH, therefore a plumbata must be behaving in the same manner.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Wrong and wrong. All objects on Earth will slow down once they are released from their initial source of impetus (caveat: Objects shot on a downward trajectory at a speed lower that the object's terminal velocity will accelerate due to gravity until terminal velocity is reached. Does not apply to objects generating their own propulsive force): An arrow is slowing down the second it is released from the string as its shaft absorbs and dissipates lateral and compressive forces. In slow-motion you can see that happening as I explained in my last post. Ask your physicist wife to try and find errors in my statements. (I'd ask mine, but her job as a lingerie model keeps her very busy. She's more into gene-splicing anyway.)
A bullet begins to slow down as soon as it leaves the muzzle. A thrown ball slows down the moment it leaves your hand. Yes, fletching adds drag but it also keeps the projectile aerodynamic in flight - one force slows it down while at the same time allowing it to fly true and far. You keep referring to the fletching as the decisive factor- how does the fletching make the plumbata react differently based on the method of throwing? You maintain that it does but give no description as to how. Not even a theory.
Brucicus Wrote:
"Because a hand grenade (even a Stielhandgranate) behaves differently from a plumbata?" What property does a plumbata have that allows it to differentiate between the throwing methods?
Robert wrote: Flights, which make sure the point is not overtaken by the tail. In a Stielhandgranate, that is no problem whatsoever.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still missing the point. See above.
__________________________________________________________________
Robert wrote: I’m not a physicist, my wife is. If you distrust the testing results without even having read them, might there perhaps be some problem with your initial assumptions?
Absolutely correct. Turns out I was basing it on extensive personal experience. But that doesn't mean I am necessarily correct, but it sure improves the odds. That's why I asked for more studies, which you have so generously provided. None of them are from Lysenko, are they? ;-)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert wrote: Well, that makes us even, because you seem to disregard my personal experience with throwing plumbatae, as well that or other people doing the same thing.
As I’ve said before (and below) - yes, throwing a ball is not the same as throwing a short dart with lead on one end and feathers on the other.
What is your experience throwing? Did you play a ball-throwing sport? Were you trained in proper overhand technique? Can you throw a ball 100 meters, or could you ever? Have you researched OH vs. UH throwing techniques? Are you aware that the fastest UH throw on record is 85 mph while the fastest OH throw on record is 105 mph? What is it about plumbatae that reverses that equation? Fletching? Sorry, smell test fail. I laid it out simply in my previous message. You didn't address that point in your response so I shall repeat it here:
I'll attempt to clarify my thinking, (not always a successful venture): A dart thrown overhand or underhand, with equal amounts of energy (forward, angular, lateral momentum), with equal environmental factors, and launched with the same trajectory will land in the same place. Basic physics supports my claim, I believe.
My position is that, in general, one achieves significantly more energy by throwing overhand than throwing underhand. There is much scientific evidence supporting this claim. I also maintain that dart could be thrown en masse, overhand, from formation to a distance farther than that attainable by spear/javelin.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Robert wrote: Brucicus response in parantheses.
Ah, there you’re making several wrong assumptions.
One, a modern horse is larger and faster than a horse in Roman times. (That's why I reduced the speed by 20%. What number do you find appropriate?)
Two, Roman cavalry carried a much heavier load, which would slow it down. (")
Three, most cavalry does get among the formation’ – horse archers remain out of range, light cavalry throwing javelins would keep away as far as possible, and the armoured cavalry would usually not charge at an infantry formation (they’d be killed unless the infantry was weakened already) but fight with lances stabbing the front. (Are you maintaining that enemy cavalry forces didn't attempt to break up formations? Roman squares, Wellington's squares, the enemy charged them both. If the Roman's formation cracks then the, say, Gothic cavalry wouldn't be in among them? Why not? Why even charge, then? Just saunter up and poke at the enemy with your long sticks! I am clearly missing something here. Are you saying that the Romans wouldn't try to engage the enemy at a distance? Not all the French forces attacked Wellington's squares at Waterloo, so does that make those charges not charges in some manner? Maybe their horses had fletching?)
None of those cavalry actions is doing the charges you have in mind – that’s Napoleonic stuff etc – hussars against unarmoured infantry. Incomparable to our period. (Not many horse charges here in the USA. May be different in the Netherlands.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert wrote: Indeed, we agree there. As I described in my earlier post, that would be the moment for the OH throw – directly at a charging enemy.
Me: OK, now I am confused, did the enemy charge or not charge? Perhaps these are Schroedinger's Cavalry?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Robert wrote: And yet you have not thrown a plumbata in your life. I’m not claiming all the tests have been exact science, but that approach could make you distrust every scientific test until you have replicated it yourself…
Me: Well, I have addressed that first part statement. Sorry for having passed on bad info initially. As to the second, when 'scientific' results conflict with my personal experience, yes, I will test them if it is in my power to do so. My ex BIL is a German professor in physics. He is also the Oberstudenterat where he teaches which, I am told, is a big deal. Visiting us last year he got all fired up about the Arctic snow cap melting and resultant global flooding that was sure to occur. When I pointed out that his concerns are unfounded as the Arctic is basically a floating ice cube and would not contribute at all to sea level rise, he laughed at me, rolled his eyes and started talking to me as if I were mentally defective. So I set up an experiment: I put a few cubes of ice in a measuring cup and then filled it with water to the 1 cup line and let it sit out a night. The next morning my physics professor bil came to me as soon as I woke up to apologize for being so wrong about something so basic. Yes, the ice had melted and the water level changed not one bit. He was embarrassed. I bet he still went home and continued to spout his unfounded opinion anyway, knowing him.
That's who I am. It's one of the challenges (and rewards) of being an auto-didact...dealing with those who commit the 'arguing from authority' error in logic. Do I need to put together a list of all those things 'science' has believed to be true and then turned out to be false?
You've got me really excited about testing on my own. Would you sponsor me for a PhD for doing so? Just kidding. I don't use any of the degrees I have anyway. Well, maybe psychology. I use it to torment my kids.
Hope I don't come across as too strident. One reason I joined this forum is because I watched all these videos on line showing plumbatae testing and I was entsezt (shocked? troubled?) at how they were being thrown. I am a pretty classic type-A. If I go over a line please attribute it to zeal and ignorance.
Soccer comes from the term 'association football' and, like the game itself, originated in Britain. "Association" was shortened somehow to soccer and was adopted In the USA to differentiate it from the already-invented American game 'football'. American football was banned for 3-4 years in the US because something like 20 college players a year were being killed in games. That ban was lifted when new rules eliminating certain formations (i.e. wedges) and allowing the forward pass were introduced. Kicking used to be a much bigger part of the game. All players in American football (the Original Football tm) do use their feet in the game. Using your feet is even popular in baseball. n I dare you to show me any crickets in cricket.
Thanks again for engaging with me.
Brucicus
Just read your report on your experience. I actually found this on-line a couple weeks ago. Didn't realize it is your product. Excellent documentation, Two issues: you reported a following wind (I didn't see wind speed in your report, I'll look again later). A following wind will carry a higher shot farther than a lower shot. I take advantage of that in golf whenever I can.
You also state that the UH method obtained marginally more distance that the OH...yet the farthest throw of DK1 was overhanded. I know...outlier.
It was great that you included your poor throwing technique as one potential influencing factor on your results.
In your report you stated that: 'No wobbling, turning over in flight or similarly unstable behaviour could be observed.' I must be mis-reading something because it seems that you maintained the opposite in your past couple of responses to me. Something about the fletching 'righting' the plumbatae.
What have I missed?
Maybe our exchange will result in more scientific tests. We have plenty of room for testing and accommodations at my ranch if you want to try it here! I don't think anyone has done any looking for roman artifacts here in California. Maybe you could get a grant?????
Thanks for putting up with my odd-ball humor.
Say hello to Sinter Klaas for me.
Best wishes,
Brucicus
The toughest steel goes through the hottest fire.
