Visit the Ironworks Gaming Website Email the Webmaster Graphics Library Rules and Regulations Help Support Ironworks Forum with a Donation to Keep us Online - We rely totally on Donations from members Donation goal Meter

Ironworks Gaming Radio

Ironworks Gaming Forum

Go Back   Ironworks Gaming Forum > Ironworks Gaming Forums > General Discussion > General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-23-2004, 10:05 PM   #21
Dron_Cah
Horus - Egyptian Sky God
 
Defend Your Castle Champion Frogger Champion Monkey Diving Champion Summer Games Champion Donkey Kong Champion
Moon Lander Champion Space Invaders Champion
Join Date: March 2, 2003
Location: Kentucky
Age: 37
Posts: 2,637
Daikyus (sp?), are sweet.
Dron_Cah is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 10:38 PM   #22
Ilander
20th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: December 28, 2003
Location: Kentucky
Age: 38
Posts: 2,820
Newton's Second Law defines Force as the product of mass and acceleration

OR the product of mass and the first derivative of velocity

OR the product of mass and the second derivative of position

These examples of course are for NET Force, which is the resultant vector of all other forces.

Force could also be defined as Pressure per unit area, change in momentum, Impulse divided by time (which is really the same as change in momentum)

Dimensionally, Force is typically represented in units of kg*m/second squared

Note that if it was mass times velocity squared, then the units of what you term "force" would be kg*meters sqaured/seconds squared

Also, note that Newton's first law of motion, "Every body perseveres in its state of rest or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon"

Now, by your definition, a moving object would have to be undergoing a force, even if moving at a constant velocity. While this is true on the earth, as friction is always present, in vacuum, it is not true. Objects, when not experiencing force, are allowed to be "stationary" or "moving at a constant velocity" (which depends entirely upon ones reference frame). You don't allow for the latter with your definition of force.

As far as the physics of contacting swords goes...well, it's a good question, and I may invest soem quality thinking into it.
__________________

Is that what you really want to say?
Ilander is offline  
Old 11-23-2004, 11:45 PM   #23
SomeGuy
Unicorn
 

Join Date: May 14, 2002
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Age: 33
Posts: 4,238
*shakes head* You guys are making a huge deal about this... can't we all just shutup and drink our beer? [img]tongue.gif[/img]
__________________
\"I firmly believe that any man\'s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is the moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious.\"<br />-Vince Lombardi
SomeGuy is offline  
Old 11-24-2004, 11:45 AM   #24
Malthaussen
Manshoon
 

Join Date: May 10, 2001
Location: Horsham, PA USA
Age: 68
Posts: 151
I'll agree with you there, SG, but I do have to ask Ilander why he persists in discussing physics without showing the relevant equation. According to my ancient textbook, it is f = mv2.

-- Mal
__________________
\"Of two choices, I always take the third.\"
Malthaussen is offline  
Old 11-24-2004, 02:21 PM   #25
Dron_Cah
Horus - Egyptian Sky God
 
Defend Your Castle Champion Frogger Champion Monkey Diving Champion Summer Games Champion Donkey Kong Champion
Moon Lander Champion Space Invaders Champion
Join Date: March 2, 2003
Location: Kentucky
Age: 37
Posts: 2,637
LOL, this out of the under-aged kid!! [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Oh, and now you've done it, Mal. Here he goes... [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

BTW I think he said something about half the kinetic force, or some gobbledee-goop.
Dron_Cah is offline  
Old 11-24-2004, 02:33 PM   #26
Thoran
Galvatron
 

Join Date: January 10, 2002
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 56
Posts: 2,109
Quote:
Originally posted by Malthaussen:
I disagree. I have seen and hefted both katanas and longswords, and the quality of the former is far superior to the latter. And so far as I recall (it has been awhile) the typical, run-of-the-mill longsword (not damascened or made in Toledo) was NOT folded. That is precisely why the distinction of "damascened" was made. Since longswords were only made for knights and nobility, as katanas were also, your claim that it is comparing a "commoner's" weapon to a lord's doesn't hold water.

Bo versus dirk? Give me the bo every time. Heck, I'll take a bo over a longsword (although I'd rather have a quarterstaff).

-- Mal
I think it unlikely you've hefted a period longsword, unless you're a museum curator or inordinately wealthy and a collector. Those who have hefted period pieces have weighed and measured those weapons and found them to be similar in weight to period katana's. Another indicator that you probably have not handled a period piece is your misstatement regarding the center of balance. Typcial center of balance for a period longsword is perhaps 5-6" forward of the guard, these were finely balanced weapons, well suited for parry.

We all need to keep in mind that modern reproductions of these weapons are far from the origonals, the European Martial tradition ended with the advent of gunpowder over half a century ago, wheras the Japanese tradition ended relatively recently... leaving excellent data regarding techniques and weapons. Most of what we 'conclude' regarding European technique... is at best theory.

I don't think it's plausable to believe that European knights used simple bash tactics. For one thing there are depictions of these blades being held and applied in many different configurations (like two handed, one on the hilt and one on the blade at the center of balance), and guards were designed to be useful components of the sword, not something a purely offensive blade would need. Additionally, the armor of the day made knights fairly invulnerable to bash tactics, and this necessitated the development of weapons and tactics specificaly for defeating such armor. Finally, the martial arts that came down through the years from the lost early European tradition (Modern Fencing) are the most highly evolved form of unarmored blade combat in existance. I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that such forms would evolve from a "bash em till their dead" combat approach, quite the opposite I think.

It's the very loss of the European tradition that makes this discussion fairly useless... since all we can do is guess regarding the capabilities of the European Knight at their zenith. As I said before, I believe the result would come down to which combatant was the more competent (armored it would be tougher on the samurai but still come down to skill). No doubt many knights were not highly skilled with the sword, but the same can be said of the Samurai. The Katana was not even their primary weapon until after the 17th century. The samurai called their code of chivalry "Kyuba no michi" which means "the way of the horse and bow", not "the way of the sword".

I like the guy who used an Anime program as proof... it's about as accurate a conclusion as the rest of us could possibly come up with.

[ 11-24-2004, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]
Thoran is offline  
Old 11-24-2004, 03:01 PM   #27
Thoran
Galvatron
 

Join Date: January 10, 2002
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 56
Posts: 2,109
Just doing some browsing and found a decent discussion of the topic from guys who know a lot more than myself:

http://www.netsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002192-2.html

There are a couple nutbags who claim one side or the other is "da bomb", but most of those guys have great respect for both martial traditions.
Thoran is offline  
Old 11-24-2004, 03:49 PM   #28
Ilander
20th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: December 28, 2003
Location: Kentucky
Age: 38
Posts: 2,820
Quote:
Originally posted by Malthaussen:
I'll agree with you there, SG, but I do have to ask Ilander why he persists in discussing physics without showing the relevant equation. According to my ancient textbook, it is f = mv2.

-- Mal
Malthaussen, I'll be civil about this, though the above seems mildly disrespectful. My above post includes a quote from Sir Isaac Newton's Principia, specifically the first law of motion, which I already used to disprove your F=mv^2.

Newton, fairly early on, defines "the motive force" (the force that causes motion). Definition IV in Book I of the Principia is: "An impressed force is an action exerted upon a body, in order to change its state, either of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a right line"

Again, F=mv^2 is inadaquate, as it have a force when the object is moving at constant speed in constant direction.

Now, the orignal wording of the second law is "The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed."

Now, note that "the alteration of motion" is the change in momentum. Change in momentum is defined asthe product of mass and the change in velocity (the derivative of velocity for calculus-based methods). The motive force in this case would be equal to mass times acceleration, not velocity (mass times velocity is defined as momentum).

Newton goes on to state, again in the Principia, Book I, that "If any force generates a motion, a double force will generate double the motion, a triple force would generate triple the motion, whether that force be impressed altogether and at once or gradually and successively. And this motion (being always directed the same way with the generating force), if the body moved before, is added to or subducted from the former motion, according as they directly conspire with or are directed contrary to each other; or obliquely joined, when they are oblique, os as to produce a new motion compounded from the determination of both"

Well, this is prinicpally concerned with forces acting over very small instances, but nevertheless, it refutes the idea that F=mv^2, as it tells, in clear wording, that the force causes DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL CHANGES in velocity. Not directly proportional to the square of the velocity.

I would like to note that four hundred years of physics has upheld this, at least at speeds low relative to that of light, and macroscopic scales, meaning the "everyday world."

I suggest you do more research on this, as it is always a good idea to dispel ones misconceptions of the way the physical world works. It broadens one's horizons.
__________________

Is that what you really want to say?
Ilander is offline  
Old 11-24-2004, 04:15 PM   #29
Lucern
Quintesson
 

Join Date: August 28, 2004
Location: the middle of Michigan
Age: 42
Posts: 1,011
Quote:
(Malthaussen) A question you might ask yourselves: if the armored knight was the acme of the foot soldier, why were rapiers and foils developed? Why did an unarmored style emerge in the Renaissance? A good man with a foil could beat an armored knight, because he could put his point in a vulnerable spot, and was light enough to dance away from the knight's smashes.
By all indications I've read, seen, and been lectured about, 'an unarmored style' emerged because it was soon discovered that even the most archaeic of firearms could penetrate the finest of armors. One documentary indicated that the average force of the swing of a knight would have been around 60 Newtons in a slash. Enough to kill, sure enough, but the armors of the day had a good chance of withstanding it. The first firearms hit with about 12 times as much force at ranges they might have been fired, or roughly 720 N.

I don't think deadly rapier wielders were the result of an significant change of the face of war during and after the Renaissance. Besides, the majority of combatants, given the feudal system of midieval Europe, would not have been well armored. Many would not have been armored at all. These would not have been professional soldiers, but a pike-wielding peasant is a threat to anyone. The development of the rapier might have been more of a civilian weapon, and don't forget that European gentlemen had a habit of killing eachother with them in 1 on 1 combat over women and other matters of honor until the mid-late 1800's.

I have also read, seen, and been lectured about what a knight is and isn't. Often 'knight' simply refers to a man who rides a horse into combat - cavalry. But we RPG buffs sometimes forget about that, and think instead of Galahads, Percivals, and Rolands. Men on horseback would have been well off of course, and well practiced in battle. Of course, men on horseback sometimes become footmen mid-battle, but not by any choice of their own.

And until Dungeons and Dragons and Anime combined them for us, I don't think this ever came up in history lol. Both would have adapted to better kill their opponents who use tactics different from what they're used to. For those attempting to use your own experience as guides, Thoran had a good point about modern reproductions. I'd add that we are also modern reproductions; we're quite different from our middle ages counterparts. We're probably taller, and I can only speak for myself, but I totally lack the martial discipline of a warrior that I would credit all Samurai with, and I totally lack the physical strength and horseriding ability of your average knight. My experience with any weapon so old would not be the same as their experience.
Lucern is offline  
Old 11-24-2004, 08:04 PM   #30
Q'alooaith
Emerald Dragon
 

Join Date: December 10, 2003
Location: UK
Age: 40
Posts: 961
I'd like to point out that crosbow's also had the punch to go though plate armor, and longbows also had this capablity before gunpowder came into the equasion.
__________________
-Jenn
Q'alooaith is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A katana needs help... seriously! Annatar Baldurs Gate II: Shadows of Amn & Throne of Bhaal 45 04-12-2003 12:26 PM
katana fight tower Baldurs Gate II: Shadows of Amn & Throne of Bhaal 3 03-19-2003 02:11 PM
Best Katana Willard Neverwinter Nights 1 & 2 Also SoU & HotU Forum 4 08-05-2002 08:15 PM
Does anyone get a magical katana? mannukio Baldurs Gate II Archives 4 10-09-2001 05:54 AM
Magic Katana(s) Neal Baldurs Gate II Archives 3 11-13-2000 10:08 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved