Archer's paradox.
 

Interesting stuff!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7zewtuUM_0

Archer's paradox.
 

On 14/12/16 20:05, harry wrote:
Interesting stuff!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7zewtuUM_0

How does it work with alloy shafted arrows then?

Archer's paradox.
 

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 20:16:22 +0200, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 14/12/16 20:05, harry wrote:
Interesting stuff!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7zewtuUM_0

How does it work with alloy shafted arrows then?

I would have thought, 'the same'?

I have 30" Easton 1916 Lite (ally arrows) to go with my 36#, 68" Hoyt
Gold Medallist (interNature limbs) and they seem to work ok.

If you hold them at the ends and flex them I'd say they feel quite
'flexible' (for something outwardly rigid). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Archer's paradox.
 

On Wednesday, 14 December 2016 19:48:45 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 20:16:22 +0200, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 14/12/16 20:05, harry wrote:
Interesting stuff!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7zewtuUM_0

How does it work with alloy shafted arrows then?

I would have thought, 'the same'?

I have 30" Easton 1916 Lite (ally arrows) to go with my 36#, 68" Hoyt
Gold Medallist (interNature limbs) and they seem to work ok.

If you hold them at the ends and flex them I'd say they feel quite
'flexible' (for something outwardly rigid). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

I wonder how Robin Hood was so accurate just using bits if random twig for arrows?

Archer's paradox.
 

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 14 December 2016 19:48:45 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 20:16:22 +0200, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 14/12/16 20:05, harry wrote:
Interesting stuff!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7zewtuUM_0

How does it work with alloy shafted arrows then?

I would have thought, 'the same'?

I have 30" Easton 1916 Lite (ally arrows) to go with my 36#, 68" Hoyt
Gold Medallist (interNature limbs) and they seem to work ok.

If you hold them at the ends and flex them I'd say they feel quite
'flexible' (for something outwardly rigid). ;-)

I wonder how Robin Hood

There never was any such person.

was so accurate

You dont know that he ever was.

just using bits if random twig for arrows?

Even sillier than you usually manage.

Archer's paradox.
 

On 15/12/16 08:48, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 December 2016 19:48:45 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 20:16:22 +0200, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 14/12/16 20:05, harry wrote:
Interesting stuff!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7zewtuUM_0

How does it work with alloy shafted arrows then?

I would have thought, 'the same'?

I have 30" Easton 1916 Lite (ally arrows) to go with my 36#, 68" Hoyt
Gold Medallist (interNature limbs) and they seem to work ok.

If you hold them at the ends and flex them I'd say they feel quite
'flexible' (for something outwardly rigid). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

I wonder how Robin Hood was so accurate just using bits if random twig for arrows?

what evidence do you have to support this 'random twig' theory?

Archer's paradox.
 

On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 22:48:43 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

snip

I wonder how Robin Hood was so accurate just using bits if random twig for arrows?

There are often people (ignoring fictional ones of course) who seem to
have skills / abilities that sometimes defy logic or even science
(given that even when the science / theory behind it are known, others
still can't do it etc).

If 'found', these people often become world / Olympic champions and
stay at the top for many years.

These are the sort of people you could nearly put in any car on the
starting line and they will get on the podium if not win.

I love it when some bad workman blames their tools and someone who
knows what they are doing takes it off them and does what was assumed
to be the impossible. ;-) [1]

Cheers, T i m

[1] I race RC Lasers [ http://www.rclaser.org.uk/ ] and on one fun
sail a lady was always coming last. She suggested it was her boat so
for the next race I offered to swap my boat with hers. She still came
last and I managed to get her boat into the top three g. That said,
her boat *was* harder work than mine (not as well set-up) but the
experiment did allow her to see there was nothing major wrong with it.
;-)

Archer's paradox.
 

On Thursday, December 15, 2016 at 10:09:24 AM UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 22:48:43 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

snip

I wonder how Robin Hood was so accurate just using bits if random twig for arrows?

There are often people (ignoring fictional ones of course) who seem to
have skills / abilities that sometimes defy logic or even science
(given that even when the science / theory behind it are known, others
still can't do it etc).

If 'found', these people often become world / Olympic champions and
stay at the top for many years.

These are the sort of people you could nearly put in any car on the
starting line and they will get on the podium if not win.

I love it when some bad workman blames their tools and someone who
knows what they are doing takes it off them and does what was assumed
to be the impossible. ;-) [1]

Cheers, T i m

[1] I race RC Lasers [ http://www.rclaser.org.uk/ ] and on one fun
sail a lady was always coming last. She suggested it was her boat so
for the next race I offered to swap my boat with hers. She still came
last and I managed to get her boat into the top three g. That said,
her boat *was* harder work than mine (not as well set-up) but the
experiment did allow her to see there was nothing major wrong with it.
;-)

The one-off 1970 Questor Grand Prix was a mixed race for Formula 1 and Formula 5000 cars. Legendary (and curmudgeonly) Indycar racer AJ Foyt was struggling at the back of the field so, while Foyt was elsewhere, his team boss asked Jackie Stewart to go out for a few laps. Stewart set a middle-grid time and breezily suggested to the team that the car was OK, maybe it was the driver that was the problem. Foyt got to hear about it and came looking for Jackie...

Archer's paradox.
 

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 09:21:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/16 08:48, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 December 2016 19:48:45 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 20:16:22 +0200, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 14/12/16 20:05, harry wrote:
Interesting stuff!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7zewtuUM_0

How does it work with alloy shafted arrows then?

I would have thought, 'the same'?

I have 30" Easton 1916 Lite (ally arrows) to go with my 36#, 68" Hoyt
Gold Medallist (interNature limbs) and they seem to work ok.

If you hold them at the ends and flex them I'd say they feel quite
'flexible' (for something outwardly rigid). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

I wonder how Robin Hood was so accurate just using bits if random twig for arrows?

what evidence do you have to support this 'random twig' theory?

Well what else was there back in medieval times?

Archer's paradox.
 

On 15/12/16 13:57, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 09:21:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/16 08:48, harry wrote:

I wonder how Robin Hood was so accurate just using bits if random twig for arrows?

what evidence do you have to support this 'random twig' theory?

Well what else was there back in medieval times?

nearly as much pig ignorance as today?

Archer's paradox.
 

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 09:21:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 15/12/16 08:48, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 December 2016 19:48:45 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 20:16:22 +0200, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 14/12/16 20:05, harry wrote:
Interesting stuff!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7zewtuUM_0

How does it work with alloy shafted arrows then?

I would have thought, 'the same'?

I have 30" Easton 1916 Lite (ally arrows) to go with my 36#, 68" Hoyt
Gold Medallist (interNature limbs) and they seem to work ok.

If you hold them at the ends and flex them I'd say they feel quite
'flexible' (for something outwardly rigid). ;-)

Cheers, T i m

I wonder how Robin Hood was so accurate just using bits if random twig
for arrows?

what evidence do you have to support this 'random twig' theory?

Well what else was there back in medieval times?

Even hunter gatherers make decent arrows. Much better than that in medieval
times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longbow#History

Archer's paradox.
 

On 15-Dec-16 11:57 AM, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 09:21:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/16 08:48, harry wrote:
....
I wonder how Robin Hood was so accurate just using bits if random twig for arrows?

what evidence do you have to support this 'random twig' theory?

Well what else was there back in medieval times?

An industry that could produce many thousands of arrows for any battle.

--
--

Colin Bignell

Archer's paradox.
 

On 15/12/2016 18:26, Nightjar wrote:

An industry that could produce many thousands of arrows for any battle.

Yea, but they don't really need to be accurate. Battle tactics was to
make it rain arrows.

Andy

Archer's paradox.
 

On 15/12/2016 08:32, Rod Speed wrote:

I wonder how Robin Hood

There never was any such person.

There must have been because they named an airport after him.

Bill

Archer's paradox.
 

On 16/12/16 05:16, Bill Wright wrote:
On 15/12/2016 08:32, Rod Speed wrote:

I wonder how Robin Hood

There never was any such person.

There must have been because they named an airport after him.

Bill

Yeah Heathrow. Wasn't that a character from a Bronte novel?

Archer's paradox.
 

On 15/12/16 23:50, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 15/12/2016 18:26, Nightjar wrote:

An industry that could produce many thousands of arrows for any battle.

Yea, but they don't really need to be accurate. Battle tactics was to
make it rain arrows.

Andy
Oh they were accurate allright.

Archer's paradox.
 

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:37:58 -0800 (PST), Halmyre
wrote:

snip

[1] I race RC Lasers [ http://www.rclaser.org.uk/ ] and on one fun
sail a lady was always coming last. She suggested it was her boat so
for the next race I offered to swap my boat with hers. She still came
last and I managed to get her boat into the top three g. That said,
her boat *was* harder work than mine (not as well set-up) but the
experiment did allow her to see there was nothing major wrong with it.
;-)

The one-off 1970 Questor Grand Prix was a mixed race for Formula 1 and Formula 5000 cars. Legendary (and curmudgeonly) Indycar racer AJ Foyt was struggling at the back of the field so, while Foyt was elsewhere, his team boss asked Jackie Stewart to go out for a few laps. Stewart set a middle-grid time and breezily suggested to the team that the car was OK, maybe it was the driver that was the problem. Foyt got to hear about it and came looking for Jackie...

Hehe. Doncha hate it when that happens. ;-)

It's funny though, whilst there are 'naturals' who appear to have a
gift re their ability to do something better than most (if not all) it
may be simply that 1) not everyone else has tried (or had the
opportunity to try) and so they can became the 'World Champion ... (of
all those who have given it a go') or 2) they apply more effort /
practice / money / time on it than most 'ordinary' people can or want
to. So, they *could* be champions, if they were bothered?

Like 'Miss Universe' ... how much notice did they give to all the
other life forms in this universe. ;-)

But it's like many of the current F1 drivers came up from karting and
how many parents today could afford (or be willing to afford) what it
costs to put their kid in a competitive kart at the right age?

We have given our kids the opportunity to try as many things as we
could (inc karting) to see if there is something they might either
enjoy as a hobby or be naturally good at. The frustration comes (as a
parent) when it's obvious they are good at something but aren't
interested in it themselves.

Cheers, T i m

Archer's paradox.
 

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 18:26:10 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Dec-16 11:57 AM, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 09:21:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/16 08:48, harry wrote:
...
I wonder how Robin Hood was so accurate just using bits if random twig for arrows?

what evidence do you have to support this 'random twig' theory?

Well what else was there back in medieval times?

An industry that could produce many thousands of arrows for any battle.

Plenty of twigs about.

Archer's paradox.
 

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 18:26:10 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Dec-16 11:57 AM, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 09:21:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 15/12/16 08:48, harry wrote:
...
I wonder how Robin Hood was so accurate just using bits if random
twig for arrows?

what evidence do you have to support this 'random twig' theory?

Well what else was there back in medieval times?

An industry that could produce many thousands of arrows for any battle.

Plenty of twigs about.

Useless as arrows, stupid.

Archer's paradox.
 

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 00:16:39 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 18:26:10 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Dec-16 11:57 AM, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 09:21:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/16 08:48, harry wrote:
...
I wonder how Robin Hood was so accurate just using bits if random twig for arrows?

what evidence do you have to support this 'random twig' theory?

Well what else was there back in medieval times?

An industry that could produce many thousands of arrows for any battle.

Plenty of twigs about.

I'd love to watch you loose a 'twig' in a 40 lb recurve bow. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Archer's paradox.
 

On 16/12/2016 06:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 05:16, Bill Wright wrote:
On 15/12/2016 08:32, Rod Speed wrote:

I wonder how Robin Hood

There never was any such person.

There must have been because they named an airport after him.

Bill

Yeah Heathrow. Wasn't that a character from a Bronte novel?

I wonder who JFK was?

Bill

Archer's paradox.
 

On 16/12/16 11:18, Bill Wright wrote:
On 16/12/2016 06:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 05:16, Bill Wright wrote:
On 15/12/2016 08:32, Rod Speed wrote:

I wonder how Robin Hood

There never was any such person.

There must have been because they named an airport after him.

Bill

Yeah Heathrow. Wasn't that a character from a Bronte novel?

I wonder who JFK was?

Bill
Didn't she write Harry Potter?

Gatwick papers - that was Dickens wasn't it?

Archer's paradox.
 

On 16/12/16 11:16, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 00:16:39 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 18:26:10 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Dec-16 11:57 AM, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 09:21:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/16 08:48, harry wrote:
...
I wonder how Robin Hood was so accurate just using bits if random twig for arrows?

what evidence do you have to support this 'random twig' theory?

Well what else was there back in medieval times?

An industry that could produce many thousands of arrows for any battle.

Plenty of twigs about.

I'd love to watch you loose a 'twig' in a 40 lb recurve bow. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

harry is a suburbanite, and anything that grows on a tree is a twig, or
a trunk.

Archer's paradox.
 

On Friday, 16 December 2016 09:16:11 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 00:16:39 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 18:26:10 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Dec-16 11:57 AM, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 09:21:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/16 08:48, harry wrote:
...
I wonder how Robin Hood was so accurate just using bits if random twig for arrows?

what evidence do you have to support this 'random twig' theory?

Well what else was there back in medieval times?

An industry that could produce many thousands of arrows for any battle.

Plenty of twigs about.

I'd love to watch you loose a 'twig' in a 40 lb recurve bow. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Obviously they worked. As at Poitiers, Agincourt and Crecy.
And the bows they used were over 100lb draw.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#The_arrow
Hazel is mentioned so that would be a twig.

Archer's paradox.
 

On Friday, 16 December 2016 06:01:57 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 05:16, Bill Wright wrote:
On 15/12/2016 08:32, Rod Speed wrote:

I wonder how Robin Hood

There never was any such person.

There must have been because they named an airport after him.

Bill

Yeah Heathrow. Wasn't that a character from a Bronte novel?

Heathcliffe.

Archer's paradox.
 

On Friday, 16 December 2016 10:28:46 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 11:16, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 00:16:39 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 18:26:10 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Dec-16 11:57 AM, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 09:21:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/16 08:48, harry wrote:
...
I wonder how Robin Hood was so accurate just using bits if random twig for arrows?

what evidence do you have to support this 'random twig' theory?

Well what else was there back in medieval times?

An industry that could produce many thousands of arrows for any battle.

Plenty of twigs about.

I'd love to watch you loose a 'twig' in a 40 lb recurve bow. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

harry is a suburbanite, and anything that grows on a tree is a twig, or
a trunk.

Tch, I have downsized from a 50 acre farm/forest to my present house. Which is in a rural area with fair sized garden.
NP4 8TT on Google maps.

Archer's paradox.
 

On Friday, 16 December 2016 06:01:57 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 05:16, Bill Wright wrote:
On 15/12/2016 08:32, Rod Speed wrote:

I wonder how Robin Hood

There never was any such person.

There must have been because they named an airport after him.

Bill

Yeah Heathrow. Wasn't that a character from a Bronte novel?

http://www.doncaster-sheffield-airport-guide.co.uk/

Archer's paradox.
 

On 16/12/16 20:38, harry wrote:
On Friday, 16 December 2016 06:01:57 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 05:16, Bill Wright wrote:
On 15/12/2016 08:32, Rod Speed wrote:

I wonder how Robin Hood

There never was any such person.

There must have been because they named an airport after him.

Bill

Yeah Heathrow. Wasn't that a character from a Bronte novel?

Heathcliffe.

Thats not an airport silly.

Archer's paradox.
 

On 16/12/16 20:43, harry wrote:
On Friday, 16 December 2016 10:28:46 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 11:16, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 00:16:39 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 18:26:10 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Dec-16 11:57 AM, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 09:21:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/16 08:48, harry wrote:
...
I wonder how Robin Hood was so accurate just using bits if random twig for arrows?

what evidence do you have to support this 'random twig' theory?

Well what else was there back in medieval times?

An industry that could produce many thousands of arrows for any battle.

Plenty of twigs about.

I'd love to watch you loose a 'twig' in a 40 lb recurve bow. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

harry is a suburbanite, and anything that grows on a tree is a twig, or
a trunk.

Tch, I have downsized from a 50 acre farm/forest to my present house. Which is in a rural area with fair sized garden.
NP4 8TT on Google maps.

yeah I used to own half of texas before I downsized to a small hovel in
Bermondsey

Archer's paradox.
 

On Friday, 16 December 2016 19:00:38 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 20:43, harry wrote:
On Friday, 16 December 2016 10:28:46 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 11:16, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 00:16:39 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 18:26:10 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Dec-16 11:57 AM, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 09:21:07 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/16 08:48, harry wrote:
...
I wonder how Robin Hood was so accurate just using bits if random twig for arrows?

what evidence do you have to support this 'random twig' theory?

Well what else was there back in medieval times?

An industry that could produce many thousands of arrows for any battle.

Plenty of twigs about.

I'd love to watch you loose a 'twig' in a 40 lb recurve bow. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

harry is a suburbanite, and anything that grows on a tree is a twig, or
a trunk.

Tch, I have downsized from a 50 acre farm/forest to my present house. Which is in a rural area with fair sized garden.
NP4 8TT on Google maps.

yeah I used to own half of texas before I downsized to a small hovel in
Bermondsey

You're the one that fantasizes round here.
Not everybody's a brain dead pauper.

Archer's paradox.
 

In article ,
harry wrote:
On Friday, 16 December 2016 09:16:11 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 00:16:39 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 18:26:10 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Dec-16 11:57 AM, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 09:21:07 UTC, The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/16 08:48, harry wrote:
...
I wonder how Robin Hood was so accurate just using bits if
random twig for arrows?

what evidence do you have to support this 'random twig' theory?

Well what else was there back in medieval times?

An industry that could produce many thousands of arrows for any
battle.

Plenty of twigs about.

I'd love to watch you loose a 'twig' in a 40 lb recurve bow. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Obviously they worked. As at Poitiers, Agincourt and Crecy.
And the bows they used were over 100lb draw.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#The_arrow
Hazel is mentioned so that would be a twig.

well, it depends on how you define a twig. Hazel is a plant that you can
coppice. Cut back to the stump and it will grow very straight shoots; ideal
for arrows

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

Archer's paradox.
 

On Friday, 16 December 2016 18:59:43 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 20:38, harry wrote:
On Friday, 16 December 2016 06:01:57 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 05:16, Bill Wright wrote:
On 15/12/2016 08:32, Rod Speed wrote:

I wonder how Robin Hood

There never was any such person.

There must have been because they named an airport after him.

Bill

Yeah Heathrow. Wasn't that a character from a Bronte novel?

Heathcliffe.

Thats not an airport silly.

No, it's the character in Bronte's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathc..._Heights)novel

Don't you know anything about English literature?

Archer's paradox.
 

On 16/12/16 21:11, harry wrote:
On Friday, 16 December 2016 18:59:43 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 20:38, harry wrote:
On Friday, 16 December 2016 06:01:57 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/12/16 05:16, Bill Wright wrote:
On 15/12/2016 08:32, Rod Speed wrote:

I wonder how Robin Hood

There never was any such person.

There must have been because they named an airport after him.

Bill

Yeah Heathrow. Wasn't that a character from a Bronte novel?

Heathcliffe.

Thats not an airport silly.

No, it's the character in Bronte's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathc..._Heights)novel

Don't you know anything about English literature?

Don't you know anything about English humour?

Archer's paradox.
 

On 16/12/2016 18:37, harry wrote:
Obviously they worked. As at Poitiers, Agincourt and Crecy.
And the bows they used were over 100lb draw.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#The_arrow
Hazel is mentioned so that would be a twig.

I need to coppice my hazel this winter. The "twigs" are 4 inches thick.

Andy

Archer's paradox.
 

On Friday, 16 December 2016 19:11:55 UTC, charles wrote:
In article ,
harry wrote:
On Friday, 16 December 2016 09:16:11 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 00:16:39 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 18:26:10 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Dec-16 11:57 AM, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 09:21:07 UTC, The Natural
Philosopher wrote:
On 15/12/16 08:48, harry wrote:
...
I wonder how Robin Hood was so accurate just using bits if
random twig for arrows?

what evidence do you have to support this 'random twig' theory?

Well what else was there back in medieval times?

An industry that could produce many thousands of arrows for any
battle.

Plenty of twigs about.

I'd love to watch you loose a 'twig' in a 40 lb recurve bow. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

Obviously they worked. As at Poitiers, Agincourt and Crecy.
And the bows they used were over 100lb draw.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#The_arrow
Hazel is mentioned so that would be a twig.

well, it depends on how you define a twig. Hazel is a plant that you can
coppice. Cut back to the stump and it will grow very straight shoots; ideal
for arrows

"Shoots" = twigs.

Archer's paradox.
 

On Friday, 16 December 2016 21:29:23 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 16/12/2016 18:37, harry wrote:
Obviously they worked. As at Poitiers, Agincourt and Crecy.
And the bows they used were over 100lb draw.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#The_arrow
Hazel is mentioned so that would be a twig.

I need to coppice my hazel this winter. The "twigs" are 4 inches thick.

Andy

Bit thick for an arrow.

Archer's paradox.
 

On Friday, 16 December 2016 07:37:37 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:37:58 -0800 (PST), Halmyre
wrote:

snip

[1] I race RC Lasers [ http://www.rclaser.org.uk/ ] and on one fun
sail a lady was always coming last. She suggested it was her boat so
for the next race I offered to swap my boat with hers. She still came
last and I managed to get her boat into the top three g. That said,
her boat *was* harder work than mine (not as well set-up) but the
experiment did allow her to see there was nothing major wrong with it.
;-)

The one-off 1970 Questor Grand Prix was a mixed race for Formula 1 and Formula 5000 cars. Legendary (and curmudgeonly) Indycar racer AJ Foyt was struggling at the back of the field so, while Foyt was elsewhere, his team boss asked Jackie Stewart to go out for a few laps. Stewart set a middle-grid time and breezily suggested to the team that the car was OK, maybe it was the driver that was the problem. Foyt got to hear about it and came looking for Jackie...

Hehe. Doncha hate it when that happens. ;-)

It's funny though, whilst there are 'naturals' who appear to have a
gift re their ability to do something better than most (if not all) it
may be simply that 1) not everyone else has tried (or had the
opportunity to try) and so they can became the 'World Champion ... (of
all those who have given it a go') or 2) they apply more effort /
practice / money / time on it than most 'ordinary' people can or want
to. So, they *could* be champions, if they were bothered?

Like 'Miss Universe' ... how much notice did they give to all the
other life forms in this universe. ;-)

But it's like many of the current F1 drivers came up from karting and
how many parents today could afford (or be willing to afford) what it
costs to put their kid in a competitive kart at the right age?

We have given our kids the opportunity to try as many things as we
could (inc karting) to see if there is something they might either
enjoy as a hobby or be naturally good at. The frustration comes (as a
parent) when it's obvious they are good at something but aren't
interested in it themselves.

Cheers, T i m

Can't imagine anyone being good at something they aren't interested in.

Archer's paradox.
 

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 02:02:41 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

snip

We have given our kids the opportunity to try as many things as we
could (inc karting) to see if there is something they might either
enjoy as a hobby or be naturally good at. The frustration comes (as a
parent) when it's obvious they are good at something but aren't
interested in it themselves.


Can't imagine anyone being good at something they aren't interested in.

I can imaging you couldn't. ;-)

Let me help you try to understand ... let's say I'm good at playing
cards. I have a good memory, I generally win, but I just don't enjoy
playing cards, I'm not 'interested' in doing so ... so I generally
don't.

I would imagine there are millions if not billions of people out there
who have stumbled into roles and jobs they aren't particularly
interested in but they happen to be good at, so they stay there
because (say) the money is good or they get a buzz out of some of it.

Another example for the hard of thinking g ... I was looking for a
change of career and after being it 'IT / Field Support' most my life
was offered the role of IT Instructor. I did it for 7 years, became a
CNI, MCT and A+CT and whilst I liked the money, I felt 'out of place'
from day one to day 2555. I seemed to do what they required of me. I
worked when I wanted. I only presented the subjects I felt comfortable
with and the people (management, co workers and delegates) were great,
it just wasn't 'me' (= so I wasn't interested). However, I was a
professional so I gave it my 100%.

In fact it was very frustrating for the other trainers who may not
have got as high a personal score on their critiques as me shrug as
most of them had always *wanted* to be a trainer / instructor. I just
fell into the role when looking for something 'different'.

Lastly, after 50+ years fixing stuff for other people (and myself for
that matter) I'm not 'interested' in doing most of it any more ...
but still do because I can and I know what it means to them.

The problem re my own stuff is most of the things I might be
interested in doing are (or really should be) so far down my 'to do'
list ... ;-(

HTH

Cheers, T i m

Archer's paradox.
 

On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 10:02:43 AM UTC, harry wrote:
On Friday, 16 December 2016 07:37:37 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:37:58 -0800 (PST), Halmyre
wrote:

snip

[1] I race RC Lasers [ http://www.rclaser.org.uk/ ] and on one fun
sail a lady was always coming last. She suggested it was her boat so
for the next race I offered to swap my boat with hers. She still came
last and I managed to get her boat into the top three g. That said,
her boat *was* harder work than mine (not as well set-up) but the
experiment did allow her to see there was nothing major wrong with it.

Archer's paradox.
 

"T i m" wrote in message ...

On Sat, 17 Dec 2016 02:02:41 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

snip

We have given our kids the opportunity to try as many things as we
could (inc karting) to see if there is something they might either
enjoy as a hobby or be naturally good at. The frustration comes (as a
parent) when it's obvious they are good at something but aren't
interested in it themselves.


Can't imagine anyone being good at something they aren't interested in.

I can imaging you couldn't. ;-)

Let me help you try to understand ... let's say I'm good at playing
cards. I have a good memory, I generally win, but I just don't enjoy
playing cards, I'm not 'interested' in doing so ... so I generally
don't.

I would imagine there are millions if not billions of people out there
who have stumbled into roles and jobs they aren't particularly
interested in but they happen to be good at, so they stay there
because (say) the money is good or they get a buzz out of some of it.

Another example for the hard of thinking g ... I was looking for a
change of career and after being it 'IT / Field Support' most my life
was offered the role of IT Instructor. I did it for 7 years, became a
CNI, MCT and A+CT and whilst I liked the money, I felt 'out of place'
from day one to day 2555. I seemed to do what they required of me. I
worked when I wanted. I only presented the subjects I felt comfortable
with and the people (management, co workers and delegates) were great,
it just wasn't 'me' (= so I wasn't interested). However, I was a
professional so I gave it my 100%.

In fact it was very frustrating for the other trainers who may not
have got as high a personal score on their critiques as me shrug as
most of them had always *wanted* to be a trainer / instructor. I just
fell into the role when looking for something 'different'.

Lastly, after 50+ years fixing stuff for other people (and myself for
that matter) I'm not 'interested' in doing most of it any more ...
but still do because I can and I know what it means to them.

The problem re my own stuff is most of the things I might be
interested in doing are (or really should be) so far down my 'to do'
list ... ;-(

HTH


Has anyone got a Tim extractor? He's so far up himself, he can't move on.