04-24-2009, 12:35 PM
Salve Derek!
You say you agree with everything Randi has said, so you are expressing an opinion and not a hypothesis or theory based on any published research. The only serious scientific research that I'm aware of has been done by both Eric Marsden and Alan Wilkins. Now this research was not subject to wild imagination, personal agenda or hairs on the back of their neck, this was research conducted from the ground up. They translated to original sources, designed, built and tested and re-tested working machines, not just drawings in a book.
As for the expansion of the springs, how do you then explain the Lyon machine frame with 3" holes? I have seen much opinion expressed here but no one has produced an interpretation of the source material to contradict Marsden or Wilkins. Now, as for torsion springs on a hand spanned machine, what in god's name would be the purpose of that
hock: Why in the name of Jupiter would somebody put spring frames on such a low power device when bow technology was far simpler and easily capable of providing the draw weight provided?
Are you seriously suggesting torsion machines we're hand spanned :? ?
Now you say it's deadly accurate and can be fired from behind a shield etc. What purpose would this have actually served on the battle field with no more penetrating power than a bow or similar cross bow?
Look, I would love to continue this debate but unless you can present a clear scientific argument using alternative verifiable arguments and test machines from the original sources I see little point. I have invited Alan to participate in a serious scientific argument should one be presented.
You say you agree with everything Randi has said, so you are expressing an opinion and not a hypothesis or theory based on any published research. The only serious scientific research that I'm aware of has been done by both Eric Marsden and Alan Wilkins. Now this research was not subject to wild imagination, personal agenda or hairs on the back of their neck, this was research conducted from the ground up. They translated to original sources, designed, built and tested and re-tested working machines, not just drawings in a book.
As for the expansion of the springs, how do you then explain the Lyon machine frame with 3" holes? I have seen much opinion expressed here but no one has produced an interpretation of the source material to contradict Marsden or Wilkins. Now, as for torsion springs on a hand spanned machine, what in god's name would be the purpose of that
hock: Why in the name of Jupiter would somebody put spring frames on such a low power device when bow technology was far simpler and easily capable of providing the draw weight provided? Are you seriously suggesting torsion machines we're hand spanned :? ?
Now you say it's deadly accurate and can be fired from behind a shield etc. What purpose would this have actually served on the battle field with no more penetrating power than a bow or similar cross bow?
Look, I would love to continue this debate but unless you can present a clear scientific argument using alternative verifiable arguments and test machines from the original sources I see little point. I have invited Alan to participate in a serious scientific argument should one be presented.
MARCVS VLPIVS NERVA (aka Martin McAree)
www.romanarmy.ie
Legion Ireland - Roman Military Society of Ireland
Legionis XX Valeria Victrix Cohors VIII
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.romanarmy.ie
Legion Ireland - Roman Military Society of Ireland
Legionis XX Valeria Victrix Cohors VIII
[email protected]
[email protected]
