lmao

You are so going to have all the experts telling you that you are wrong. Archery 101 has two videos explaining this and they came out in comments with their engineering degrees saying the paradox was the fact the arrow appears to go through the riser, or that the spine was the paradox.

@@incorporeal3793 Thats what I always thought. That even though the arrow is pointing off target at full draw, the arrow flexes around the riser and travels in line with the string and the middle of the riser to hit the bullseye, hence appering to travel through the riser. Therefore even though the arrow is pointing to the left (or right depending), it still flies straight, hence the paradox. Now l don't know what's right or wrong anymore. It feels like my whole life is a lie.

Nu sensei i practice with my bow by my self and when i shot i use it inclinated to the right so i can aim better with the arrows tip is this wrong o affects the accuaracy in some way? Thank you for your time and the paradox video :)

@@incorporeal3793 i asked about these engineres ,no reply and not once was en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%E2%80%93Bernoulli_beam_theory mentioned neither was hooke en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke%27s_law or newton . not a mention that the archers paradox was an invented terminology , a simplification

@@mortenjacobsen5673 Here is a scientific breakdown of it, sorry no Illustrations. This is from 1910 btw. The Toxopholist's Paradox By E. J. RENDTORFF A PARADOX is a statement of fact apparently opposed to common sense. Why is it that an arrow will fly along its aimed course instead of several degrees toward the left, when it is held on the side of the bow with the string pushing it further to the left as the nock approaches the bow ? The fact that it does fly true, instead of shifting radically off its course, as we would naturally expect, constitutes the toxopholist's paradox. Ford, Butt and Walrond have explained this phenomenon to us, and for several decades their ideas have been accepted and passed unchallenged. It takes some little nerve for a novice to stale publicly his unbelief in the classical explanation. In order to explain my heresy I shall attempt to discuss the various phenomena that enter, give my conclusions, and then let our archery friends act as the jury. Figure 1 represents an arrow full drawn and ready for release. The center of gravity of the arrow is at G. On release the force F exerted through the agency of the string moves the arrow forward. The arrow starts from rest and accelerates in velocity until it leaves the string, after which it travels with a uniform velocity, except as it is slowed up by the friction of the air. Now, everybody at rest has a tendency to remain at rest. This tendency is called inertia. The existence and action of inertia can be illustrated as follows: Attach two strings with a breaking strength of about eleven pounds to the top and bottom of a ten-pound weight. Suspend the weight from one string, with the other one hanging loosely below. A slowly acting force of but one pound exerted on the lower string will suffice to break the upper one; but if the lower string be jerked rapidly the weight will remain hanging while the lower string breaks. Effect 1. When the arrow is released and the bow string moves forward, the angle D N G constantly increases. This gives the center of gravity an accelerated motion toward the left. The inertia of the arrow thus produces the force C, which tends to prevent the angular displacement. This force C becomes constantly greater until the arrow leaves the string, because, first, the arrow accelerates in velocity; and second, the angle of displacement constantly increases. The force C produces the two balancing forces B against the bow, and A against the string. While the center of gravity lies within the bow, the force C will produce a slight bending of the arrow, with the concave side toward the left. It is the force B which prevents the arrow from falling away from the bow, and not a problematical twisting of the string, as some of our English authorities have stated. In Figure 2 are illustrated the conditions applying when the center of gravity of the arrow has passed the bow. The forces C and B remain in direction as before, but they have increased in magnitude. The force A is zero when G is opposite the bow, and then changes in direction and increases in magnitude until the nock leaves the string. The force C now bends the arrow toward its aimed course, with the concave side of the flexure toward the right. This corresponds exactly with the statements of Walrond, Ford and Butt, with the following exceptions: They do not mention the forces A and C, but assume the existence of B only (which Ford calls a blow) and ascribe to it the various bendings of »the arrow. Now. as the force B always pushes the arrow directly against the bow, no turning moment can exist and the force is therefore not operative in any of the motions of the arrow as described. Effect 2. They also mention the effect of the feathers throwing the nock to the left, as the feathers pass the bow, thus helping the alignment of the shaft. Giving our English friends full credit for the two reasons so far deduced, let us proceed with our inquiry. The force A increases as the string approaches the bow. When the nock leaves the string, with the customary clearance of about 7 inches, the force C would be about 10 inches beyond the bow for my 29-inch arrows. The equation for equilibrium would be A x NE = C x GE At this moment the angle D N G is increasing at its most rapid rate, while the velocity of the arrow has reached its greatest value. In other words, the force C is now at its maximum value, while the force A is 10/7 times larger than C. What happens? Effect 3. The force A moves the bow string toward the left, thus relieving the bending of the arrow and decreasing the shifting of the arrow out of its aimed course. These three effects are operative, but are they sufficient to explain the paradox? If they were sufficient it would follow that a bow held rigidly in a frame, with the arrow released either by hand or by some trigger contrivance, would project the arrow at least as well as when shot by an archer. Let us see what Dr. Elmer has to say about the subject. I shall quote from a recent letter: "What do you think of a mechanical support and trigger for a bow as a method for testing arrows? I made one and it gave results that were very surprising. For instance, the arrows flew rather wild and showed a very marked tendency to buckle. What astonished me still more was that they veered off to the left. This made it seem likely that ordinarily the bow is slightly pushed to the right by the arrow." Although we have already added one new reason to those formerly accepted as sufficient, we are apparently not yet entirely on the correct track, so let us continue the study of our force diagram. Effect 4. From the instant the center of gravity of the arrow leaves the inside of the bow until the nock leaves the string, the force A offers a considerable turning moment, tending to turn the plane of the string and bow toward the left. The magnitude of this turning moment is the product of the force A multiplied by the distance N E. The distance N E varies from 17 to 7 inches, but as it decreases, the force A increases, so that the turning moment remains fairly constant and of considerable magnitude. In Dr. Elmer's machine the bow cannot turn, but in the archer's hand it can and does.If not properly controlled it will move the bowstring against the arm guard. Effect 5. When the arrow is drawn the left arm is under considerable strain and the hand moves slightly to the right. On release, the removal of the constraining force moves the arm somewhat to the left. The muscles do not respond at once, due first to the inertia of the arm and, second, to the fact that muscular movement does not begin until a certain time after stimulation. As the arrow remains in con tact with the string for about 1/40 of a second, after release, the motion of the arm toward the left is probably negligible until after the center of gravity of the arrow has passed the inside of the bow and then increases in magnitude until the arrow leaves the bow. This would have the tendency of moving the nock toward the left, thus pushing the arrow back parallel to its aimed course. This last effect cannot be proved through the use of mathematics as it depends upon several variable factors than cannot readily be determined, such as the exact period when the muscular recoil is operative. I derived the conclusions mainly though a prior reasoning. The following facts seem to prove the conclusion correct. When the nock leaves the string the force A no longer acts against the arrow. This would greatly diminish the force B and consequently produce but little wear on the shaft along the last seven inches of the nock end. My old arrows show considerable wear in this zone, which leads one to believe that the fifth effect is operative to a marked extent. In addition to this, arrows when shot buckle far less than they would if effect 1 were the main factor. The first three effects are operative in a mechanical contrivance, such as that used by Dr. Elmer. The fact that this machine shoots badly to the left and buckles the arrows, as it theoretically must, shows that the last two effects are not only operative but are probably the chief factors in the solution of the problem. The relative magnitude of the various effects depends somewhat upon the personal equation of the archer, when he, through intuition, gets the five effects balanced he is able to shoot without lateral displacement, or undue buckling of the arrows. I believe we are now prepared to solve the problem, discussed in a previous article, pertaining to the effect of a variable point of balance of our arrows. A variable position of the center of gravity alters the relative magnitudes of Effects I, 3, and 4. As just mentioned, an archer shoots without lateral displacement when all five effects are properly balanced. A difference in the position of the center of gravity of our arrows changes the relative magnitude of three of the effects, so that an exact balance of all five effects cannot be maintained, unless the point of balance of each separate arrow corresponds closely to the remaining arrows of the set.

That is the nutshell version, and why modern center shot bows dont have the paradox.

Not always, arrow may hits target where it is pointing on full draw too

more like a difference frequency of oscillation

And there is archer C, being a thumb archer doing a torque or khatra of the bow in release, so that the arrow does not have to pass the bow....

@@karlgunther-turkisharchery4272 the flight of the arrow is decided at the nano second of release as the front node of the arrow pushes of the riser for khatra to work you need to be insanly faster than human reaction time of 0.3 second at best or faster than the arrow , or the arrow has the right spine so the clearance is good with or without khatra

@@mortenjacobsen5673 Spine for thumb archery is not that important....

@@karlgunther-turkisharchery4272 nothing is unless you want to hit the target with some degree of consistency ,

Yes Sir, you explain it correctly. Flexing = Mass Inertia of the arrow Point + Internal Force that travel through the Arrow Shaft. Btw, Internal Force would have similar Newton with the DRAWN STRING force.

You're right, he says in the video that the arrow bends to get around the bow, but it doesn't. It bends because the nock starts moving before the point does.

Thank God someone actually knew this I hate how much this guy talks about others giving misinformation then says some garbage like this

No it's not

@@vodoopupped9687 yes it is. The paradox is "hey, the arrow is pointing to the side not straight at the target, but it still goes straight to the target even if it's pointed to the side. Weird, it's a paradox". The solution is that the flexing allows it to get around the bow and into the target.

@@vodoopupped9687 you just don't understand what you are reading

@@vodoopupped9687 considering you're telling us we are wrong while also saying the same thing we are saying, yeah you don't understand what you are reading.

@@vodoopupped9687 it's astoniajing how little reading comprehension someone can have. Now please, let's stop this conversation before you give me an aneurism.

Didn't realise how much you're channel has been growing! Good work!

@@NUSensei I've gotten some help along the way. Notably some from a fellow educator in a different hemisphere. ;)

It's a very good video that explains it clearly. It's also the video that people don't pay attention to, as many viewers get tunnel-vision on the slo-mo flex and then try to backsplain using that snippet.

@@NUSensei Nu? How common is it for you to share your names? Just curious if it's a common surname?

@@nair.127 About 40% of the Vietnamese population.

@@NUSensei xD

This is how the paradox works. The back of the arrow is being accelerated by the arrow, while the front of the arrow is inert.Because the string is moving along a different plane, the back of the arrow is forced along that plane instead of where the arrow is pointing. This is what causes the arrow to flex, and the spine of the arrow allows it to clear the bow as it oscillates because of this initial flex.

"he basically just responded aggressively and removed my comments" - Maybe I removed your because you resorted to name calling? Funny how you left that part out. "If you could re edit a minute or so in the middle of the clip I would be so happy." - wow, that is an arrogant request.

@@3DArchery The comments are not there anymore so we can't really go back and check can we? But no, I was nothing but civil. The other person who actually started the thread and agreed with me got fed up though...

Magnus Wendt yeah Greg got it wrong then acted like a dick about it, haven’t been there since.

I think your explanation is better, however the arrows trajectory will depend highly on the spine of the arrow. So perhaps, to satisfy everyone's misconceptions the paradox might be more along the lines of: the arrow might not hit any of the geometrically centered points between full draw and brace height, based on its spine.

Thank you for making a post that was exactly what I was going to say before I said it. If you could edit the comment so that nothing after “… actual physical paradox.” was included, it would make me so happy! Then the useful parts of the comment would be there without all the drama. Maybe this thread could disappear too.

You mean the sound of the bow string and the bow arms flexing? It does that for certain bows.

I'm sorry for leaving a comment unrealted to this video, however they closed personal message function for youtube.

Likely need to look at the nocking point.

You don't aim with the string or the bow. The paradox is that, logically, for the arrow to fly straight, it should go straight through the bow because the arrow is pushing it in that direction. You aim with the arrow, but that means you are pointing the bow away from the target. This is different to a crossbow or a rifle, where you align the weapon with the target and the projectile follows the direction of the weapon.

The string displacement caused by the finger release still causes a side-to-side deflection.

@@NUSensei Perhaps I did not make the question clear. I refer to a mechanical trigger type release, which grips and releases the string from both sides, as is commonly used with a compound bow. Releasing from both sides of the string should not cause any lateral displacement. Would spine strength still influence the flight of the arrow?

Yes, the arrow will have some deflection, always. The arrow always flexes just from the acceleration force generated, even if your bow and release are "dead-on" center. it just depends how much that it is, and the arrows you are shooting will factor into how much they are deflecting in addition to your bow and your technique.

Note that arrow flexes vertically due to arrow "sitting" on rest.

Modern compound bows are sometimes designed this way, as the use of modern release aids and precision manufacturing allows for structure integrity with centre-shot risers. Recurve risers typically don't do this - one because of integrity and torque (a thinner riser is more likely to twist due to uneven force), and the window would need to be significant in order to get the arrow to clear without contact. I've seen one or two bows with this design, but they're kids bows that aren't meant for anything resembling precision shooting.

Nika Black Phoenix.

It makes things way easier. No, pardox to deal with, sighting is simpler, you can use stiffer arrows so get less oscilation and better transfer of energy to the arrow for faster flight, and tuning arrows it much much simplier.

no the speed and flight is determined by the release regardless of aiming . the advantage lies in the less energi it takes to correct the flight and spin the arrow into , it can be a little more forgiving to small inconsistencies in the release . imagine the target x at 12 o clock and your point is at 11, a small pluck and the arrow hits in the 10 o clock , but with a csthe same pluck of the string lands in the 11caus the arrow had more energi and the timing of the flexing was different . or like lunger vs no plunger . if you hit in the 11 with the punger you adjust it

@@mortenjacobsen5673 Were did anyone say aiming made the shot faster? The rest of the statement is a fancier way to say the same thing.

@@ehisey I am saying it now : if you aim in the classical understanding of it moving your bowarm to adjust the sight or sight picture your draw length can change or the muscle tension and even the pressure oint in the grip compounders have a device to measure this now btw. I can change my draw length by 1 inch forcing the bow down rather then pivoting and that will be more speed or energi , power. and you probably seen people shooting trough chronographs ? they dont constantly get thesame speed caus the release can be sloppy co lapsed or plucky with variants of 10 fps a clean release has less friction and reduced time and mass for the string to displace so newton 3rdlaw aplied tells us the string will be faster .furthermore aiming ruins your alignment and aiming the bow up and down creates different angels on the hook fingers (fulcrum )

then why put thatching on and what are you actually testing ?how it flies without thatching , but your gona use fleatchings.... i call it lunacy others bare shaft tuning. feel free to explain

@@mortenjacobsen5673 You're checking your centers on your drop away or arrow rest and if you have a bow with two cams, if they are in sync with one another. A fletched arrow will tell you you're off but it might not tell you which way. As it'll correct its self go through your paper target looking as if it was off the other direction. A non fletched arrow will exaggerate what's happening. This becomes more important if you plan on using broadheads that counter to self centering effects of fletchings. (Not all states allow mechanical broadheads that stay shut in flight)

@@michaelt6413 then you canjust tune the fleatched arrow the tear will tell you but just the exit flight ,cam sync I do by fell and visual since the d loop can cause tears too and effectnock travel . i could never get the drop away to fall fast enough so went fo ra blade

He's Vietnamese by ethnicity, Australian by nationality, not Japanese... "Nu" is a Vietnamese surname. Sure, the word "sensei" is Japanese, but...

they don't call the bending of the arrow the archer's paradox, as he explained. people who do this are mistaken.

It's the club shed. A couple of them are drill holes, but a few were from accidents in the shed.

khatra vs Newton epic rap battle of archery !!!! begin.......

Sorry, what olympic archers do is not a khatra, they just drop their bow....

@@karlgunther-turkisharchery4272 depends on the archer and the style but the bow should drop cause of the lose grip and ex ess force forward as a result of less torque and good alignment and some doit as a useless flurry . unless you know all archers you are making assumptions and arguments from ignorance . and bytw i dont drop my bow caus i dont use the bow hand release technique ..some could say its a version of khatra but then you need a clear definitiv of khatra

@@mortenjacobsen5673 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bt2YhpCaq6euo30.html Says all, what I think about it. But I don't no anything about modern olympic archery, I only was tought how, why and when to perform khatra....

@@karlgunther-turkisharchery4272 I agree. It's just that it seems similar to me. I didn't mean that they Khatra, they do not.

Nice

That's the part that is wrong, that's not a paradox, that's trigonometry. Your arrow ISN'T supposed to fly in the direction it's pointing at full draw, it's supposed to fly in line with the force of the string, which happens to be through the bow. But, as with most things, if it works for you, keep doin' it.

That's Zenos' paradox.

Look up paper tuning.

450-400 spine , depending on the rest used the arrow mostly need to handle the compression , since the arrow has no riser to clear its more a question of nock travel and clearance , and foc is just random based on choices of shaft , points, inserts ,nock etc

@@mortenjacobsen5673 FOC is not so much random but more a matter of what you want the arrow to do. Long distance flight arrows will have a negative FOC, while short range "heavy hitters" want a very high FOC.

@@ehisey if i want my arrow to hit the x might have to tune them bit so if i cut them, add weight orjust change the weight of the points the foc will change and you end up with whatever foc that gets you the results, foc isthe sum or result of tuning or whatever the finished arrow you ordered came out as . tuning in reverse from any random percentile of foc is contrary to getting the dynamic spine right

@@mortenjacobsen5673 Not at all. why should the choice of knocks, inserts, points fletching, etc produce an at all random FOC. With carbon fiber the shaft bare is about dead center on balance, so figuring out the needed nose to tail weight difference is simple after that you are just adjusting to the needed spine for the bow. Even with out specificly tuning for it the FOC of a given set of arrows it pretty predicatable based on the material weights.

Lmao the real archer's paradox

I kind of went over the top on this one, but then, I have heard and seen just so much silliness, dare i say stupidity, on this subject. And I point out I'm not referring to NU's, Greg's, or Destin's videos. I sure as blazes got carried away. Why? Certainly not justified with their contributions to putting reason where it should be. I think you have the right approach and attitude in the tone you put to your comments. All this discussion has given me the moment to consider when I first noticed the paradox. I won't go into the details, but the result was a rather short "okay, the arrow is not aligned with the target. I can't explain it quickly or easily, so let's just get on with getting better with the bow." At the end of the day, that's really all that matters.

there is a paradox in the classical sense ,if you remember the idiom straight as an arrow and imagine a straight stick flying trough the air .....then look at some slow motion fotage and why did they not call it khatra if that has been around since feudal japan and the medieval ages ?