If you think this post is about String Theory and its convoluted explanation of reality through vibrations and the contemplation of n dimensions, you are going to be sadly disillusioned. Bugger esoteric theory, for today's outpouring remains fully embedded in practical reality. Please note: There will be no mention of Hot Gypsies, Hola!
I am perplexed, and facing a problem of extreme befuddlement. As my general readership will no doubt be aware, I'm a rabid archer and the unrepentant owner of 36 bows spanning across cultural and historical bounds.
In order to use a bow for the purpose of propelling a yard shaft, at a suitable target, or annoying neighbour, there has to be a string to mediate the process. The purpose of the string is to act as an intermediary in the transfer of potential energy that is expelled at the time of release. This energy accumulates within the limbs of the bow as the archer transfers his/her muscular energy. This energy transfer is not 100% efficient; waste will accrue, and energy will dissipate, generally through heat loss, and thus will not be available to power the projectile's propulsion. The laws of thermodynamics are not to be violated or denied. Modern recurve bows, however, are very efficient at transferring energy, and thus energy loss is minimised. Paradoxically, modern compound bows, with all their clever design, and although considered the pinnacle of the engineer's skill, are less efficient in ceding the energy reserve for useful work than the humble stick. The reflex/deflex of the recurve bow and the ingenious use of laminations, wood, fibreglass, and sometimes carbon, are cleverly fashioned to exploit each material's strengths and, by combination, extol their synergistic alliance. The second law of thermodynamics, although never defeated, exacts a toll that remains within accepted and manageable limits. The compound bow beloved by the hunter loses a greater degree of stored energy to frictional heat loss than the humble recurve. This fine, machine, the wonder of the age, efficient energy transference, is superseded by another inbuilt priority. Its goal has been by necessity transformed. The pulleys, cams and cables inherent within the system are ultimately designed to enable a final, steady and unhurried release. 'Let Off' is the hunter's friend. 'Let Off' is the design default. And let's be clear and cogent: I'm not discussing Big Bill's colonic gaseous emissions that come forth after a heavy Saturday night's drinking in the 'Felching Ferret' and the obligatory consumption of a vindaloo. No, 'Let Orrf' in this context refers to the engineer's skill, through a thorough understanding of classical mechanics. Potential energy is stored within the totality of the system, not just in the limbs. This is where the engineer's skill in creating a machine with an intricate array of finely tuned and crafted parts comes into play. At full draw, the power is distributed within the 'workings' of the bow. Although the full draw weight of the bow is, let us say, 50lbs, the archer, at full draw, experiences a hold of no more than 5lbs; this is termed 90% let off. The compound bow holds the other 45lbs in abeyance, in the beguiling array of cables, composite material and double cams. The advantage is clearly seen. But Nature demands balance. All must bow/bow to the laws that will and cannot be violated or denied. The charlatan who peddles impossible, nay, implausable, perpetual 'free' energy engines can only thrive but for the want of a middle-grade understanding of the immutable laws of causal reality. The presence of the extra machinery that affords convenience is in itself a contradiction. The final benefit of comfort and accommodation is a chimaera of deceit. Energy trapped in the machine pays a toll for the inevitable multiplication of frictional loss, a consequence of the maze of complexity. The modern recurve, though deceptively simple, is the more effective machine, at least in terms of total energy transfer per pound of input. How can it be otherwise?
Anyway, I've managed to wend my way off the beaten track. The topic to be presented has been bypassed and left unattended. This is the dilemma I must face. The Muse that accompanies my soul, on occasion, is a capricious sprite that comes and goes without bidding and leaves me drained and used up. During her stay, she demands total obedience and expects frenetic typing on topics that fly through my brain unattended and bereft of control. I am a mere puppet and dance with the twang of the firings of neurons. I have little volition and must spew forth the froth and detritus that invades my mind. She is a cruel and compelling mistress- but I must obey. And when she leaves, oftentimes she is the herald of the 'Black Hound' that crushes my being.
So, back to the Topic at Hand- for some reason, I have digressed
I have a surfeit of bow strings. Foolishly, I had placed a large number of strings, of various lengths, within a box. I confess, I wasn't particularly meticulous with their placement. However, I kept them separate, or so I thought. Moving forward a span, I needed a spare string for a bow and therefore rummaged through the box to see if a suitable replacement could be found. Imagine my dismay when I found a tangled mass befitting of the Gordian Knot. Unlike the problem Alexander faced over 2,000 years ago, a sharp blade was not the solution. In the time the strings had been allowed to nestle, they had mysteriously entwined, twisted, and interlocked, defying rational discernment. In fact, they were so interwoven that the separation of even one string defied my concerted effort. So, my question to the savants that deign to read this drivel: What is going on? How come strings, left separate and unattended for a while, become hopelessly interlocked? Now I am an unashamed rationalist and empiricist, completely immersed in the scientific method. My journey to this intellectual revelation and truth did not happen easily or overnight. Tis the product of many years of education and reflection. How come entities, abundant, have become interlaced in multifold ways that logic and rational understanding hold no sway? During the time of repose, the box containing said strings, left unabused, and without outside interference, as far as can be rationally determined, somehow experienced outside or internal interactions that require agency. Energy must have been expended, whether that energy came from outside or from within the confines of the system is to be determined. I am at a loss to offer a solution that jibes with sound induction. Surely, there is one, or a cohort, of my esteemed readers that can proffer an explanation that is in accord with what I hold sacred in my ordered and highly rational worldview. There has to be some energy source involved to move the strings in convoluted, interconnected ways. I am losing sleep as the problem denies any explanation that remains solid with my rational domain. Hopefully, there is a wise soul out in the vast expanse of the blogosphere who can come up with an explanation that beats my reliance on amitriptyline. Otherwise, I am doomed to awake at 4am, after a restless night of tossing and turning, to be fully immersed in this dreadful conundrum. It invades my waking hours also. It will not leave me and haunts both my days and nights in equal measure. In sheer desperation, I am pushed to utter despair and driven to contemplate the existence of a poltergeist named Rupert. Naughty Rupert, places odd socks in my drawer. He hides my car keys and sequesters my wallet when I need it. Will someone save me from incoherence and uncertainty? I have spent the last 50 years of my scientific professional existence building an edifice of rock-solid certainty and intellectual comprehension. Things made rational sense. Of course, not all of the universe's mysteries have been unravelled. But with time and scientific endeavour, all is within our grasp, eventually. The elements of the Supernatural need not intrude on my well-ordered scientific paradigm.
Is there anyone who can restore my confidence in an ordered universe governed by long-established rules based on irrefutable mathematics and logic? Surely, there is someone well-versed in physics, mayhap beyond my meagre knowledge, who has the wisdom to explain the cosmic quantum forces that befuddle my simple mind and can provide an explanation that doesn't evoke the mischievous sprite, Rupert.
My sanity is in your hands...
Clearly the strings believe they are Christmas Tree Lights which, no matter how carefully they are put away, have to be unpicked less than a year later.
ReplyDeletePerhaps there is a fourth law of thermodynamics where a tangled string is of lower energy than an ordered one?
'Light Bulb Moment'. I think you are on to something. I will now be dedicating my life to discovering this 4th law! It will be also known as 'Flaxen's Law'. I will publish it first on this very blog. Nobel Prize will be mine.
DeleteMy thoughts are; string, rope ( even wire rope ) or anything with a ply will move a little. If, for example, it has been under tension on release it will unwind a bit, quite quickly at first, but then much slower. We used to 'normalise ' glider launch cables by laying them out as straight as possible and leaving them alone for a couple of weeks. Difficult with nearly 2 miles of cable, remember to tell the grass cutters that the cables are there... If the cables were not normalised they often knotted up or threw a loop on winding in when the glider released the cable. Similar with rope or string, if you just bundle it up before putting it away it will try to relax to it's lowest state. To add interest, thermal changes will cause movement, and, if you have multiple strings bundled together, and if these strings are slightly hairy they will cheerfully knit themselves together. I don't know about bow string, but ropes are coiled so that they don't twist up when hung, non of that wrapping it around your elbow nonsense.
ReplyDeleteSorry no maths, as I am rubbish at sums.
Cheers!
Presumably the cables were made of steel and if the case I could understand that individual wire strands may contain unreleased potential after release. But could this extrapolate to bow strings? Mayhap slow release of energy over time causing entanglement. However, the degree of tangle seems too complex to be so easily explained- worthy of further contemplation, though.
DeleteFrom my experience with the towing of aerodynamic things with multi-mile long wire, a swivel link to connect wire and towed thing reduced this tangle tendency. A good old Scots word for an entanglement is a guddle.
Delete'Guddle' is a good word. Of course, when storing strings, I could wind them separately, and in good order, and prevent entanglement by apply an elastic band thus ensuring individual string integrity. However, I am a curious man and would like to conduct controlled experiments on this phenomenon.
DeleteMy money's on static electricity.
ReplyDeleteMy late aunt worked in the spinning mills as a lass. If she were still with us she'd be able to put your mind at rest. I'm sorry but as a lad I never paid any attention to such things.
Dave from Bolton.
An interesting thesis Dave. Static electricity is an ephemeral and unstructured beast at best. To work the static would have been present at time of string internment. The problem is that any static on the strings is likely to discharge to earth during transfer to the box. To hypothesise static to be present at a later juncture requires an intellectual leap of faith. Again, we face the issue of external agency, and we are led to ask, "how can the energy be transferred to the box, then to the strings and manifest as static electricity". Even if static electricity became transferred, how could it resolve and imbue energy to cause mass string discombobulation? The energy quotient required would be significant and sustained to eventuate the high degree of kinetic 'knotting' observed. This is not in accord to how static energy works. As things stand, the most plausible answer lies with my projection of our household poltergeist, quaintly referred to as Rupert. This not a solution that lies within my sphere of rational contemplation. And yet it remains compelling, and in accord with a subverted aspect of my psyche long buried within the folds of my cerebral cortex. Dave, I must resist this irrational notion with all the fibre of my being. There must be a rational solution to my problem. But the fundamental issue remains. That said, I appreciate your contribution to the 'Great Debate,' and this equally applies to others who have proffered their thoughts. There is a solution out there, but I must think outside the string box and proffer anew.
DeleteEsteemed Flaxon, you're not completely lost yet—especially as you've realized that string theory is pure esotericism, nothing but another piece of honeybread from the Big Bang bakery (of the Jesuit's Phantasialand à la Georges Lemaître).
ReplyDeleteYes, the universe is pretty well structured if you understand the hierarchy of dimensions and consider infinity to be five-dimensional (next above time as four-dimensional, space 3-d ...). Suggest Edvin Abbott's lovely essay "Flatlands".
A good approach to investing precious lifetime in playing with bowstrings.
Personally, I prefer to occupy myself with string thongs and their yummie contents—but one doesn't exclude the other.
Tally Ho,
dop Josh
Helo Josh, you Teutonic old reprobate. I'm getting way too old for the pics you sent. At this rate I'm going to go blind. I'll reply later! Toodly Pip.
Delete'Flatland' is, indeed, an excellent book, and the inspiration for my long-standing pseudonym. Abbott Abbott's sideswipes at Victorian society still possess resonance.
ReplyDeleteOne little quibble with the main blog: shouldn't it be potential energy rather than kinetic energy that is being converted?
If your string is blue, the Clangers know what to do with it.
I've heard of 'Flatlands' but haven't checked it out. I will rectify this gap in my education asap. You are right about the status of the stored energy. This error will be corrected in but a thrice, if not sooner. Cheers, FS.
DeleteEntropy dear boy. All order is being reduced to disorder.
ReplyDeleteI have long suspected that the most ingenious knots used by sailors, boy, and girl, scouts, tatters, knitters, macrame-ists, crotcheters etc. were discovered by the depositing of one or more lengths of cord in a box.
Schodinger's string theory.
A most ingenious hypothesis Mr. Doonhamer. Is the string knotted or left unstrung. How can we tell. Open the box and the string function collapses, and 50% of the time we are left with an unholy mess. If we are observing some form of entropic decay, we are still burdened with the issue of the application of energy from a source unknown. O woe is me, surely there is an answer to my puzzle that does not implicate forces that do not breach unimpeachable causality.
ReplyDelete