Talk:Fuller (weapon)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have no idea if this is correct or not, but I thought the "blood groove" term referred to the fact, that if one is cleaning the blade with a cloth or chamois, you can guide the wiping motion by pressing the wiping implement partially into the groove, thus ensuring that neither the wiping implement or the fingers holding it during the wiping motion stray to the business side of the blade. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 11:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Strengthen"

The phrase "their purpose is to lighten and strengthen" is not correct. The purpose of a fuller is to lighten a blade. It is clear from the physics discussion in the article that a fuller cannot strengthen a blade. Any opposition to removing "and strengthen?" Mathandubh 10:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Stengthen" = Flexing strength

The purpose of fullers in long blades, beyond saving money in steel and making the blade lighter and more balanced,, is to give them some ability to flex when under pressure and when being twisted, much like a railroad rail or I-beam used in construction. A three-sided musket bayonet could thoretically be driven against a hard surface, and only be bent, not shattered. It is easier to bend a piece of iron or steel back into shape, rather than to try to recast the shattered remains thereof.

95thfoot, Saturday, June 09, 2007, 9:10 PM EST

With all due respect, the edits made to suggest that a fuller adds strength are unsupported by engineering fact. Even the AG Russell reference first declares that the purpose of a fuller is to lighten the blade. The talk about it strengthing a blade is misleading because they J Hrisoulas is comparing different geometries. A fuller is all about getting the best strength while reducing weight. Note the statement "When combined with proper distal tapers, proper heat treating and tempering, a fullered blade will, without a doubt, be anywhere from 20% to 35% lighter than a non-fullered blade without any sacrifice of strength or blade integrity." The fuller does not increase strength, it makes the blade lighter without significantly decreasing strength. How could removing material increase strength??

Look at the Beam_(structure) article. The i-beam takes the same amount of mass, and makes it stiffer than the same square beam. Or, since mass near the center doesn't help the stiffness much, one could take the square beam, carve out fullers, and end up with a lighter beam with about the same stiffness. In any case, the i-beam structure is designed to resist vertical deflection (in that picture.) Saying a fuller makes a knife or sword stiffer means it is stiffer in the cutting direction. Has anyone ever used or seen a knife or sword where the stiffness in the cutting direction was less than the stiffness in the sideways direction? The main reason to use i-beams in construction or railroads is exactly one of cost. One uses less steel, ie less cost, and achieves the engineering goal of managing the loads in use. The references to "strengthening a blade" should be removed. (BTW, "strengthening" is vague. What types of bending does the fuller help prevent?)--Mathandubh (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

One final comment. Look at the article on Second_moment_of_area. Section 7.5 calculates the moment of inertia for an i-beam. It is clear that the resulting value will always be less than for the square beam of the same outside dimensions. This means the i-beam will bend more than the square bar for a given load. Thus the i-beam is less stiff. Fullers cannot stiffen a blade! But they can lighten the blade, without affecting the stiffness much in the cutting direction. I will remove reference to strengthening the blade here.--Mathandubh (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)