/u/wotan_weevil and I had a conversation here about the draw weights of the Mary Rose longbows, and he proposed using Adam Karpowicz's formula, calibrated using bow 79A0812. I doubted the accuracy of the formula, but this weekend I decided to give it a proper try and use it for all the bows.

Spreadsheet

I used an average of results gained using bows 79A0812 and 81A3952 as the baseline for the Coarse and Medium bows, and used the 10GPa draw weight for bow 790812 to calculate the draw weights of the Fine bows. I then discarded the draw weights of the Coarse bows, as their elastic modulus is likely well below the 7.5 GPa of the Medium bows. The results are surprisingly similar to the Graph of draw weights in Weapons of Warre attributed to Kooi and Pratt in that around 70% of the bows were under 120lbs (vs 75% in Weapons of Warre. There are some variations from the original graph, and it would have been more accurate if there was a second Fine bow to use as a baseline, but I've come right around to Wotan's way of thinking re: Karpowicz's formula.

The spreadsheet also let me rank bows by their thickness, which is one of the most critical determinations of draw weight. As expect, 79A0812 was one of the thickest bows, though it was around the top 2/5ths of the bows by wdith. Length wise, it was also one of the longest, which is probably why the draw weight was calculated as being so relatively low. 81A3952, however, was the 7th shortest bow and was in the bottom 1/5th of bows by width, but was ranked right in the middle of bows by thickness. This combination of shortness and thickness allowed it to draw a relatively high draw weight, in spite of thicker bows existing.

I also took the opportunity to add a few bows from Late Antiquity/the Early Middle Ages and try to calculate their draw weights. The result were interesting. None of the bows from Late Antiquity drew much over 50lbs, and one was even as low as 23lbs. The Ballinderry bow was 83lbs, while the Hedeby bow was 122lbs. I've found various anecdotal reports on the internet - without data from the replica itself - which indicate that the Nydam bows were between 50 and 70lbs, but they might just be replicating the heaviest of the bows. My source only has 3 of the 36 bows, so the one 23lb bow might just be an oddity and some 70lb bows might show themselves.

The Hedeby Bow also has a draw weight that doesn't match what I've read. In this case, experimental archaeology has given a range of draw weights for the bow between 80 and 100lbs, 20-40lbs lighter than the formula suggests. However, the Hebedy bow and its replica were deflexed and, if I recall correctly, the replica bow was only drawn to 28". This might go some way to explaining the disparity between draw weights. However, it also opens up the question of how accurate my calculations for the Mary Rose bows, as neither of the baseline bows have any significant reflex, while a significant number of other Mary Rose bows do. Of course, if this question is asked, then it also has to be asked if the original study considered this as well, which could throw the results into even further doubt.

On the whole, though, I'm satisfied enough with the formula. At the very least, it provides a prima facie case that reported draw weights are incorrect.

(Tagging in /u/Valkine, /u/hborrgg and /u/Grad_Phi as this might be of some interest to them)

This may a bit "cool story bro", but on the subject of "psycho-evolutionary mumbo-jumbo" I stumbled on this: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40806-017-0133-5 . I wanted to check out the methodology which a newspaper article ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/21/atheists-likely-left-handed-study-finds/ ) indicated may be the wrong way round - it's good to find the actual science behind such things is poor. But the journal wasn't in the database I have access to.

So I did further internet searches on author and title and, among other things, found this Twitter thread including a video: https://twitter.com/smomara1/status/944990926920962048 The video has now been taken down; formerly, the YouTube page mentioned the conference was held at UCL, and used their logo. I had a quick look but CBA watching more than about 3 mins. I did wonder, so are UCL very into academic freedom, or very money-motivated, in hosting this...? At least one other author (Charlton) who had previously published with Dutton had a post at a Russell Group uni, so I figured that there was a certain amount of establishment acceptance of "fringe" material in the name of freedom and diversity of thought.

Several days later this story appeared: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jan/10/ucl-to-investigate-secret-eugenics-conference-held-on-campus
UCL had found out about it for entirely other reasons - the scandal around Toby Young.

I wonder how many other people had noticed the YouTube material and while personally thinking the content was a bit off, tacitly assumed UCL were okay with it and aware of the conference.

I probably should have waited and posted this today in this topic instead of yesterday in the Friday topic. Instead of copying and pasting, I will just link to my post about foods eaten by West Mexicans at the time of contact. Hopefully you guys find it interesting.

Any recommendations for the Allied experience in India in WW2?

So in addition to the book list, what are the recommended graduate reading lists? Harvard? Found that through the grad student association.