08-10-2009, 05:17 PM
"My point in starting this thread was to challenge those who seek historical fidelity to step back and entertain the notion that some of the basic precepts we hold may be based on nothing more than opinion."
Thank you for the clarification, and as such, renders my input as nothing more than off topic gobbley gook. All that you are asking is a simple yes or no answer, and as one who designs and builds these machines (historically inaccurate of course) I would have to agree 100% with you as I find many assumptions or reasoning flawed and somewhat humorous. Thus, I have dismissed many (most) authors and books as flawed, and prefer to totally dismiss their work as flawed, prefering not to work under erronous information or instruction.
Your argument or post seems only to back up my thinking that they really dont know what they are talking about (up to a point and in SOME cases - not all) and have no business making these assumptions and tryng to pass them off as fact or truth. What looks good on paper has no real revelance as the proof must be in the pudding - results and outcome based.
I offer the performance history of Mista Ballista as proof of the danger of following such flawed assumptions and engineering,as well as the video demonstating the dismal performance of such flawed engineering in the youtube video "building the impossible". However, it is a triumph in that the machine did not explode or break on the first shot instead of the second.
I offer as proof of my argument the successful performance of Chucky1 and Chucky2 whose builders obviously threw these so called experts assumptions(erronious parts anyway) out the window, and changing/improving design by original thought, and outcome driven results. However, I have found it is an exercise in futility trying to change the mindset of those who blindly accept the works and flawed assumptions of these so called "experts" as undeniable truth. In as much, these builders are doomed to experience failure in their attempts until they come to grips with the main thrust of your argument.
Mardens work and those of (some) other authors form an excellent basis on which to build on through practical experience and experimentation(catapult or ballista construction), and cannot and should not be dismissed in entirety, but be taken with a grain of salt and with the acceptance that some calculations or assumptions are indeed flawed. - An incomplete template of which the artist or builder can use as an excellent starting point in the construction of these ancient masterpieces of technological innovation design and craftsmanship...
"As far as the troops marching "home" to Rome with their weapons on display, that seems unlikey unless the were Praetorians. For most Legions home was in some far-flung province. It is more likelythat the artistans carving the reliefs were working from sketches."
I note that you did not choose to agree with MY assumption or main point that the machines would not have travelled under full bundle tension as indeed it would be detrimental to its future performance capabilities and dependability to perform as designed, or, the artist misinterpreted the devices construction and erroniously interpreted and illustrated.
I thank you for assistance in supporting my argument that my machine is a "manuballista" by historical definition, and not just my reasoning or wishes - the main reason of my joining this forum. I thank you for your patience and grace in accepting and responding to my hijacking of a historical fact based thread.
Thank you for the clarification, and as such, renders my input as nothing more than off topic gobbley gook. All that you are asking is a simple yes or no answer, and as one who designs and builds these machines (historically inaccurate of course) I would have to agree 100% with you as I find many assumptions or reasoning flawed and somewhat humorous. Thus, I have dismissed many (most) authors and books as flawed, and prefer to totally dismiss their work as flawed, prefering not to work under erronous information or instruction.
Your argument or post seems only to back up my thinking that they really dont know what they are talking about (up to a point and in SOME cases - not all) and have no business making these assumptions and tryng to pass them off as fact or truth. What looks good on paper has no real revelance as the proof must be in the pudding - results and outcome based.
I offer the performance history of Mista Ballista as proof of the danger of following such flawed assumptions and engineering,as well as the video demonstating the dismal performance of such flawed engineering in the youtube video "building the impossible". However, it is a triumph in that the machine did not explode or break on the first shot instead of the second.
I offer as proof of my argument the successful performance of Chucky1 and Chucky2 whose builders obviously threw these so called experts assumptions(erronious parts anyway) out the window, and changing/improving design by original thought, and outcome driven results. However, I have found it is an exercise in futility trying to change the mindset of those who blindly accept the works and flawed assumptions of these so called "experts" as undeniable truth. In as much, these builders are doomed to experience failure in their attempts until they come to grips with the main thrust of your argument.
Mardens work and those of (some) other authors form an excellent basis on which to build on through practical experience and experimentation(catapult or ballista construction), and cannot and should not be dismissed in entirety, but be taken with a grain of salt and with the acceptance that some calculations or assumptions are indeed flawed. - An incomplete template of which the artist or builder can use as an excellent starting point in the construction of these ancient masterpieces of technological innovation design and craftsmanship...
"As far as the troops marching "home" to Rome with their weapons on display, that seems unlikey unless the were Praetorians. For most Legions home was in some far-flung province. It is more likelythat the artistans carving the reliefs were working from sketches."
I note that you did not choose to agree with MY assumption or main point that the machines would not have travelled under full bundle tension as indeed it would be detrimental to its future performance capabilities and dependability to perform as designed, or, the artist misinterpreted the devices construction and erroniously interpreted and illustrated.
I thank you for assistance in supporting my argument that my machine is a "manuballista" by historical definition, and not just my reasoning or wishes - the main reason of my joining this forum. I thank you for your patience and grace in accepting and responding to my hijacking of a historical fact based thread.
Torsion rules! - Joel from Ham. Ont. Ca.
