Project Dragonslayer: Forging Old Tech With New

Mark Balaschak writes: "[This link] is the easy route to an article on the state of materials science from the May 12 issue of Science. Cool in its own right, the article's kicker is at the end: Northwestern's Dragonslayer Project, which aims to produce a single historically-patterned double-edge broadsword of surpassing temper and hardness. Lacking an ISO Standard Dragon to test it, the sword's criterion of proof will be its ability to cut through a modern case-hardened blade. And to add that extra touch of mythic resonance, it will be made from meteoritic iron. Its makers plan to offer the blade up at auction to collectors -- my guess is that it will go to the lady in the white samite ... " This has to be one of the coolest projects I've seen in a long time. Perhaps they could apply it on a smaller scale and sell some nice tantos as well?

Comments

Re:Sci-Fi Becomes Reality

[digitalhermit]

God, it sometimes seems that people are not amazed at all this cool stuff that's happening. There was a time when I bemoaned that I did not live when the ground breaking discoveries were being made until I realized that we're at the cusp of some really massive changes. Everything you mentioned would be revolutionary in other times, but because so much is happening, the significance is missed during the chaos.
I'm always amazed that Leibniz and Newton, Wallace and Darwin, and other pairs or groups had earth-shattering discoveries revealed so closely together. It's as if the discovery was ready to emerge and needed only a medium to do the revealing.
Who was it that said that advanced science would be indistinguishable from magic?

10 lbs

[Tannin Kal]

"The only 10 lb sword there was [sic.] a rapier."

I'd have to disagree with this point alone.
My wakizashi can't be more than 8 or 9.
Admittedly, it is a japnese "short sword,"
according to Mayamoto Musashi, but it is
still a sword.

Re: 10 lbs

[Darmox]

True enough, I stand corrected, however, I do think that part of the Japanese armor/weapon issue comes from armor not being really effective against a katana. (Leather/wood would, I suppose even be a bit more effective since it is generally more or slash.)

As to rapiers, yes, they are pretty ineffective on a battlefield, being better for a duel, however, I believe that a part of their design is to slip in between the small cracks in armor and such. I could be wrong, though. (A good deal of the point of a rapier is to look nice, though:), which I feel they do very well.)

I believe(more meant to one of the later replies, but I don't want to answer all of them individually, and it is related to this:) that gunpowder did change things, as when people are shooting at you, it is probably more important to be mobile. The pike probably helped a bit, but that has been around far longer than gunpowder, since before the times of heavy armor.

The way I have always believed it, and I don't have time to check on it right now, is that, following the fall of the Roman empire, armor started getting better(oftentimes meaning bigger, but not always). So, you would make a bigger sword, thus being more able to damage the armor(usually breaking the pins/ties that held it together.) So, make bigger armor... bigger sword... (anyone see a parallel to the arms races of today and the recent past?) Eventually, you get to the point where making a sword any larger is not going to be effective(zwei-hander -- BIG two handed weapons) At this point, you start looking for ways to get through the armor, hence the smaller, faster swords such as a rapier, which wouldn't be (as someone has pointed out) effective in battle, but were probably starting to pop-up. Then, comes gun-powder. I don't think that cross-bows really played as big a role as that. I could be wrong, though.

Re: 10 lbs

[SideshowBob]

>>>
Actually, the knights dissapearance had abosulutely nothing whatsoever to do with gunpowder.
>>
The end of the Knight on the battlefield was due to the invention of the Pike, the widespread use of the crossbow, and the English Longbow.

Actually missile weapons altogether had nothing to do with the disappearance of armored knights. (Missile weapons meaning firearms or bolt type missiles).

A knight is an armored soldier. But the armor was so heavy that it was impractical to wear on foot, so all knights were mounted. Devise a means of unmounting him, and a knight is a sitting duck (turtle is a better image). Military strategy employed many such techniques (once the cultural bias against it disappeared). The pike, stakes driven into the ground, fire pits, etc. all served this purpose.

Armor technology of the day was capable of repelling all but the most lucky of missiles (through the eye holes, between joints, etc.) There was even a standardized test for this - how close an archer would have to be to pierce the armor (maximillian armor was the penultimate in this area. I forget what its test was). There was even a mechanical arrow shooting device that could be used to accurately reproduce the test.

It wasn't missile weapons that defeated mounted armored knights, it was military tactics. The reason the tactics took so long to develop was because of the huge cultural bias against allowing foot soldiery (i.e. commoners) to kill knights (i.e. nobility).

Re: 10 lbs

[Disaster]

"As for swords being replaced by firearms, that was no revolution. Swords were commonly issued to soldiers all the way up through the US civil war. It took centuries for the sword to be replaced by the gun. And even it today's modern army a bayonett fixed to the end of a rifle (emergency sword) is standard issue."

Being issued gear and actually using it are separate matters. Hand to hand combat after the introduction of mass field fire tactics (lines and volleys) were uncommon outside of skirmishes and the regular pitchforking of helpless people (civs and routed enemy). Bayonets even at the time of Marlborough were issued and displayed more for morale than for actual use. Most would choose to run in the face of a pressing charge from a formed up enemy than actually cross swords or bayonets with them. As for their facility against cavalry, the bayonet did not replace the pike in utility, but it may have given soldiers enough of a morale boost so that they would stay together and not rout (allowing cavalry to run them down individually). Today's bayonet drills are a joke, little more than physical exercise. Bayonets are best used for digging out trenches and opening ration containers.

Swords issued to officers after the age of Marlborough were part of the uniform and most officers were glad to be rid of their encumbrance for everyday wear.

Re: 10 lbs

[onyxruby]

Actually missile weapons altogether had nothing to do with the disappearance of armored knights.

This statement is historically inaccurate. Their were 2 primary methods of removing the knight. One was the pike (which I mentioned), you got that much right. The other was the crossbow. The crossbow was capable of penetrating a knights armor in the 1400's, and the same crossbow, can easily penetrate a modern bulletproof vest.

This was such a concern to the Catholic church that they made posession of a crossbow illegal. The most powerful military organizations of the day were military knighthood orders. These knighthood orders were wholly capable of, and did, take down nations as desired. A weapon capable of removing the knight was a serious threat to the power of the Catholic church.

A knight is an armored soldier. But the armor was so heavy that it was impractical to wear on foot, so all knights were mounted.

A classic knight in armor wore less weight (70#) than todays modern soldier with pack. Not only was a Knight not encumbered by the armor. He could literally do cartwheels, and vault into the saddle from the ground. Modern recreationists find enjoyment in showing this to myth-mongers. The weight of the armor as it was, was distributed evenly throughout the body. This allowed him more manueverability than someone in chainmail alone (which hung all of it's weight from the shoulders).

Armor technology of the day was capable of repelling all but the most lucky of missiles

Very much true, except for the crossbow. Eventually the English developed the Longbow expressly for the purpose of penetrating armor. Like the crossbow, it is perfectly capable of penetrating a modern bullet proof vest.

It wasn't missile weapons that defeated mounted armored knights, it was military tactics.

This has no basis in reality. As weaponry came along that was capable of countering the knight (mainly the lowly pike), the knight was forced to evolve their tactics. The concept of the knight simply evolved into that of cavalry, and later armored vehicles (tanks). Knights were always fought with knights if pikemen were not available. Much as a modern army sends armor against armor. The formality of the knight only went away when the king of France grew jealous of their financial power.

Re: 10 lbs

[Getafix99]

Um, stop trying to sound like you're some fucking sword master. I've been using swords for over 14 years and I don't consider myself anything but a user, but I can tell you this...
Shadow Knight is right on, what sword did you use that was more than 10 pounds? and did you hold it for more than 5 minutes?
It probably just *felt* heavier because most tai chi swords and katanas made today are horrifically unbalanced (or spring steel-puke).
Dragon Slayer project represents a cultural highpoint and it's badass!

Re: 10 lbs

[Darmox]

Remember that Katanas have a significantly different philosophy of use than European swords. The katana is light, (a stainless one doesn't count, that's just a big knife, IMHO,) because it can be. It's a lot more about finesse, and when you have a sword that is that sharp, it doesn't matter if it is not heavy, because it will do more damage, and be easier to use than the heavier ones, anyways.
This lead to a number of interesting things, for instance, Japanese armor is often times more of a decorative nature than for protection.
European armor (and weapons) on the other-hand, evolved together, in a bigger-armor, bigger-sword kind of way, until the advent of gun-powder, at which time you could take down a knight no matter what he was wearing, so he might as well be able to move around. A huge sword is not nearly as effective when you are worried about getting hit, and so came the rapier.

Disclaimer: I may have afew (or a lot) of the facts wrong here, please correct me if this is the case.

Re:10 lbs

[Kintanon]

I said the only 10lb sword THERE, as in at the location where I was able to weigh the broadsword.
That has no bearing on any other location on earth. But the collection of swords I was looking at contained only 1 rapier, the only sword that was around 10lbs.

Kintanon

Re: 10 lbs

[onyxruby]

I agree with you completely. My only point on that was that is still available as an "emergency" weapon. And your correct in that it more closely resembles a pike than a sword. Point taken.

Re:10 lbs

[Zan Thrax]

I think that number would be even higher if swords weren't a really expensive thing to have hanging on your wall. Even those cheesy (unsharpened!) replicas that all the House of Knives locations have are hundreds of dollars... I'd love to have a huge collection of authentic (or accurate replicas) swordsd, from both western and eastern cultures, but I'm not rich, so I'll just have to hope that maybe these Project Dragonslayer guys will use their newfound knowledge to make more swords, as well as golf clubs (ugh... what a waste of cool metalurgy).

Re: 10 lbs

[krenshala]

Remember that Katanas have a significantly different philosophy of use than European swords. The katana is light, (a stainless one doesn't count, that's just a big knife, IMHO,) because it can be. It's a lot more about finesse, and when you have a sword that is that sharp, it doesn't matter if it is not heavy, because it will do more damage, and be easier to use than the heavier ones, anyways.

This lead to a number of interesting things, for instance, Japanese armor is often times more of a decorative nature than for protection.

Actually, the reason Japanese weapons tend to be lightweight, and the armour to be wood, leather, or cloth, is because the Japanese Islands have very limited metalic resources. Lacking iron/steel in sufficient quantities, they made due with what they had available (thus the wooden banded armour of the classic samurai in full armour).

European armor (and weapons) on the other-hand, evolved together, in a bigger-armor, bigger-sword kind of way, until the advent of gun-powder, at which time you could take down a knight no matter what he was wearing, so he might as well be able to move around. A huge sword is not nearly as effective when you are worried about getting hit, and so came the rapier.

The Europeans did not have the limited iron availability, and thus were not limited in what they could produce. Because they did not have to make the absolute best use of a limited resource, their weapons and armour tended to be of a relatively lower quality (though as you say, until the development of the musket were more than effective for the job :).

The rapier was an idea that never really took hold with anyone that had to use his sword for a living (professional soldiers, et cetera) due to its low strength. It looked nice, and was very swift, but just couldn't stand up to the rigors of combat. Anyone that tried to use on in real battle quickly realised their mistake (and if they were lucky were able to correct it).

krenshala

Re: 10 lbs

[onyxruby]

European armor (and weapons) on the other-hand, evolved together, in a bigger-armor, bigger-sword kind of way, until the advent of gun-powder, at which time you could take down a knight no matter what he was wearing

Actually, the knights dissapearance had abosulutely nothing whatsoever to do with gunpowder. The end of the Knight on the battlefield was due to the invention of the Pike, the widespread use of the crossbow, and the English Longbow. Keep in mind that a crossbow bolt hits with about 17x times the thrust of a .45 caliber bullet. This is why the crossbow is frequently banned, even where firearms are legal. They chew through a bulletproof vest as if it wasn't there.

As for bullets on armor, you might be surprised. Tests have been done to see what would happen (discovery channel had a special on this kind of thing), the armor of a knight stops most modern small arms fire. Especially when worn over chainmail and padding. As for swords being replaced by firearms, that was no revolution. Swords were commonly issued to soldiers all the way up through the US civil war. It took centuries for the sword to be replaced by the gun. And even it today's modern army a bayonett fixed to the end of a rifle (emergency sword) is standard issue.

Re:10 lbs

[Anonymous Coward]

The most interesting aspect of this discussion is learning just how many slashdot readers are armed with kick-ass swords.

Re: 10 lbs

[yugami]

a giant claymore may weigh more than 10lbs i don't know, however a traditionaly or semi-traditionaly(like the shinto katanas) forged katana on average weights in between 2 and 4 lbs.

Re: 10 lbs

[SideshowBob]

>>>
The rapier was an idea that never really took hold with anyone that had to use his sword for a living (professional soldiers, et cetera) due to its low strength. It looked nice, and was very swift, but just couldn't stand up to the rigors of combat. Anyone that tried to use on in real battle quickly realised their mistake (and if they were lucky were able to correct it).

The rapier was used primarily by members of the upper class for a) self defense while in a city, and b) as a dueling weapon

There were however lightweight bladed weapons used by professional soldiers even after the widespread use of firearms. Sabers, for instance, were standard issue for the cavalry all the way up to and including WW1.

10 lbs

[Tannin Kal]

Not a single katana or tachi i've ever
held has been that light, and while many
were simple 440 steel display pieces, a
few were well-wrought damascus or even
the proper differentially-temepered
higher-carbon blades.

Claymores as well, of all types, weighed more
than 10 pounds. Though I know less of scottish
weapons, my friends wallace-style claymore and
his lighter basket-hilt claymore are easily
over your 10 lbs.

Re:Sci-Fi Becomes Reality

[B'Trey]

You'd have to read Pratchet. He writes absurdist fantasy somewhat similar to Douglas Adams. There is no requirement for a correlation between anything which appears in a Pratchet work and reality.

Re:Materials and Swords

[dlapine]

SCA martial arts have a large variety of simulated weapons effects, which include impact, piercing and slashing. Actual swordplay against actual armor does not use a cutting motion with the broadsword of the middle ages because it can't slice through the metal armor of the time.

AFAIR, there was a SCI-FI story about a time traveller who used a sword prepared with post modern technology. They used a time displacement field to divide a broadsword in half and placed a slab of diamond a few hundred microns thick in the center.

I wonder if any work has gone it making a composite laminate sword along these lines, rather than using the fold and flatten katana method.

Re:Why ACK?

[ACK!!]

I fenced at Georgia Southern with Dr. French. Great fun. The sad part is that it is great fun but rather expensive for someone starting out because the classes were very costly from what I remember from calling the Atlanta Fencing Club.

I live in Lawrenceville just north of Atlanta. Good to heer from a neighbor, y'all. :->

Go ahead...

[ktakki]

Lemme see those moves, boy. Take your best shot with that there metal toothpick you're holding.

k., with a full mag of 7.62 FMJ.
--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people
are really good at heart." - Anne Frank

Re:Why a broadsword?

[Darmox]

hehe... Epee is my favorite too. I just like how(often-times, anyways) it is more of a stratedgy, and not so much run-in-and-attack-first kind of thing.

All the equipment is finnicky. I have two epee's, rewired them, went to a tournament, neither passed inspections-- with brand-new parts.

Oh man, now this is really off-topic:)

Re:Sword mechanics

[Kiffer]

I would think that over all you would have vey little chance of killing a Dragon with a sword. A Dragon Slayer would carry a sword for use against people and people sized things ... but to kill a Dragon you'd want someing bigger Polearms and long speers in to the back of the neck or something along the lines of whaling harpoons with explosive heads

Japanese / European

[Skip666Kent]

I wonder if layering would be such a good idea on a Claymore/broadsword kind of weapon? The Euros wore a lot of plate metal armor which had to be hacked through in no uncertain terms, wheras the Japanese wore much lighter armor and forged blades which were much better at cutting.

Can you get the best of both worlds in one sword, I wonder, or is it better to specialize one way or the other?

In either case, Happy Hacking!

(-_-)

Amateur metalworker - how to?

[torpor]

I'm curious, how does one go about becoming an amateur metalworker, metallurgy hobbyist? Are there any good books or web sites on the subject?

Re:Amateur metalworker - how to?

[davebooth]

well I cant speak for what options are available to you, but the way I got into it was to be taught basic metalwork in school (along with basic carpentry - when old farts like me were in school the UK taught all boys the latter and included the former if the school had the facilities) then later in life, having kept up an interest I spent a lot of days pestering working smiths to give me a little time and teach me the basics of forge work. Along the way I learned my very rudimentary knowledge of the metallurgy of steel from these working guys - starting from "this stuff needs to be worked hotter than that" and going on to books to find out why.. along the way I learned that ancient blades are often much higher quality than could be readily explained by the technology of their time and that many serious researchers have spent time working out precisely what they did and how in order to achieve these results. From there it was a short step to getting seduced by the mystery and folklore that surrounds swordsmithing and I started researching it in earnest.

Having recently moved from one side of the Atlantic to the other that is where it currently has stopped, but only until such time as I have the space and time to set up a workshop again. I'm badly out of practice but setting up the workshop will fix that - somewhere to heat the metal, a good sized anvil, a decent hammer and time are all thats needed, once I have the place to start over. With just those basics you can make all the other tools you need (although I'll probably cheat and buy in the more awkward stuff) Even if I never do anything more useful with it than helping my neighbor fix his garden gate (fire-welding wrought iron.. yuck!) its still fun to do.
# human firmware exploit
# Word will insert into your optic buffer
# without bounds checking

Re:Amateur metalworker - how to?

[CharlieG]

What kind of Metalworking? Bladesmithing? (Making forged knives/swords), Knife Making (stock removal)? General Metalworking (Lathe/mill work)

There are good places for each of these, with SOME overlap between the "Knife Making" crafts and the general metalworking.

Drop me an e-mail at

Charlie@TheGallos.com, and I'll help out

Re:Less Chemistry, More Nookie

[krenshala]

(Now all we need is a lightweight bulletproof armor to go along with this...)

Well, there was the bear armour from a few months ago.

krenshala

Re:Weight?

[Darmox]

I would tend to think it would be closer to the 5-10lbs. Of the swords that I have looked at, (and own,) none are that large. AT 40-50 lbs, it is more of a two-hander, and actually more of a club. Here's a greatsword, (43" blade), that weighs in just under 6 lbs, and this is a REAL sword, (this is about the finest manufacturer I have found, I have a long sword from them) Great Sword
The main thing I see, is that you really can't weild a 40lb sword effectively for much of anything. Perhaps one horseback, but even then it becomes very unweildy, and generally the balance is not going to be very good on a weapon of that size(well, the balance may be good, but it won't be superb just because of the size of it.)

For a more affordable blade

[Epeeist]

Try Battling. Much more fun too, especially during freshers week (or the equivalent in the States).

it's all about the japanese

[Tannin Kal]

I want to see what our tech can do with
a katana. The Japanese managed to create
(IMHO) the most beautiful, powerful
bladed weapons in existence. As was mentioned,
even some of the recent tech couldn't do
more than match the meticulous forgings
of the Japanese. I wonder how far they
were from our "structurally perfect" swords.
As you say though, you don't slay a dragon
with a rapier, or a katana.

adamantium claws anyone?

Re:it's all about the japanese

[Darmox]

Well, I'm no expert on katanas, but my guess would be, not a whole lot.

They've already pretty much past their peak in evolution, and I doubt that one could even be made today that would match up to the old ones. It's pretty sad, really, 'cause they are a truly wonderful weapon.

Re:it's all about the japanese

[Akuinnen]

I can't say for shin nihonto but Japanese style swords are made with better metal and more technical knowledge than nihonto. This means that the swords are stronger. Check out www.swordforum.com or www.bugei.com for discussions on smithing.

Re:Oh Great!

[locust]

Dude, its all about how you sell your story. Given the number of stories submitted daily (about 400?), you have to have a good line, or else Rob & Co aren't going to look at it twice. You have to start your story off with something like:

• Technology foo threatens the Internet or
• Company bar threatens the Internet as we know it or
• Lawsuit sna could destroy Internet or
• Patent fu granted on obvious or impossible (or both) invention/technique and will ravage the Internet

This one got posted because the poster made a big deal out of the Northwestern project. The title Project Dragon Slayer! didn't hurt either. That got attention. I tend to be too longwinded in my submissions, and so they don't get posted. I share your pain, so I suggest that you resubmit your story as: Man jumps 10K feet with 85kg parachute, lives, patents, sues, and threatens Internet!.

--locust

No because of the lack of meteorite iron...

[marat]

Subj!

Re:No because of the lack of meteorite iron...

[onyxruby]

Obviously they cannot mass produce with meteorite iron. They would have to use material from Earth for now. I'm talking about the tecniques used for the process.

Re:Why a broadsword?

[krenshala]

I guess it has its advantages in pitched battle. But if you want a quality sword, a rapier (or longsword, or smallsword) is the way to go. I would dare to say that it requires even more skill than a broadsword, though they are different types of skill. I'd take a simple, lightweight, flexible rapier over a broadsword any day.

The problem is that your "simple, lightweight, flexible rapier" would get broken fairly rapidly by any normal sword. During the period of actual use, the rapier was only useful for dueling, because in a (hand-to-hand) melee situation the rapier did not have the strength to stand up to anything but another rapier.

krenshala

Re:Ceramical cutlasses

[swordgeek]

Ceramical? Is that like ceramic?

Regardless, here's a very useful application of
the idea. Wish I could afford them.

http://www.fantes.com/kyocera.htm

Highlander-ku

[Rude Turnip]

Now my Highlander
Fantasies can come true - Swoosh
Whoops, where'd my ear go

Re:Sword mechanics

[hey!]

I would think that over all you would have vey little chance of killing a Dragon with a sword.

That's why it takes a hero.

In any case, a lot depends on how big you assume the dragon is. I remember an old picture of St. George and the dragon; the dragon was depicted as being about the same size as a large croc. By the way he was using a lance, but it would be feasible but risky to dispatch such a beast with a heavy sword.

If you imagine the dragon to be like Tolkien's Smaug, he'd have to be large enough to eat several ponies, and and strong enough to smash the entire side of a mountain. He has enough fire breath to set an entire town on fire in a couple of passes. He boasts (in all liklihood truthfully) that his teeth are as long as swords and his talons are like lances.

Taking on that kind of dragon with hand weapons is rather like taking on an Apache gunship. The lucky bow shot is pretty much your best option. Successfully killing that kind of dragon with a sword pretty much out of the question, although supposedly in Middle Earth history it had been done.

Re:Sword mechanics

[FigWig]

I think it's the same principle as those carnival games where one hits a hammer on a piston and depending on how high the ball goes, you get a prize. In my experience the winners use the lighter mallet, though most go for the heavier one since you would think it will hit harder. the key is that kinetic energy is 1/2 * m * v^2 where m is the masss of the object and v is the objects speed. Thus the velocity is more important in determing the strengh of the resulting blow. A heavier mallet (or sword) will be much more difficult to get to a high speed (except for using gravity).

Re:Dorks

[Skip666Kent]

The "Highlander" sword has to be the all-time favourite.

"Pssst! This was hand-made in the 1500's by a Japanese warrior swordsmith named Tempura Sushiyama, who reportedly died just after it was completed...yours for $85!"

"What's that? You only have $40? Dude...this one here may look like junk, but...(lowers voice to barely perceptible whisper)...it's plus 2 to hit, dude!"

To be auctioned off...

[Munelight]

Ironically enough, the auction for this real-life weapon is to occur on Everquest.

Mmmnnn... Wood elves.

Weight?

[Kintanon]

I didn't see this in the article, but I wonder if they are planning on making it weigh 40 - 50 lbs the way a traditional broadsword would, or plan on using the technology available to cut the weight down to 5-10lbs or even less. That would make one hell of a devestating hand to hand weapon.....

Kintanon

Re:Weight?

[Fyndo]

The 40-50 pound broadsword has already been discredited, so this is probably redundant, but I thought slashdotters could use some experience in reality-checking.

42 pounds is about 20 kilograms. Iron has a density of 7.2 g/cc. Thus, a 42 pound sword would be made up of, approximately, 2800 cc of iron. for a 2m (6' 3") sword, that's a cross-sectional area of 14cm, for a blade 2cm thick, and 7cm across. That is, for the metric-impaired, that's 3/4" thick, and 2 3/4" wide. Now this "blade" doesn't taper at all, if it's 3/4" thick in the middle, and tapers down to an actual edge, you get a blade that's 5 1/2" wide. If it tapers to a point, keeping the same thickness at the base, you have a blade 16 1/2" wide. now that is a broad sword.

Reality check 2. The torque to hold a 6' 40 pound sword level would be 225 pounds (calculus available on demand). We're talking the equivalent of doing a 225 pound wrist curl.

Re:Weight?

[B'Trey]

Wouldn't cutting the weight down that much reduce its effectiveness against an armored opponnent?

Re:Weight?

[krenshala]

I'm getting the feeling that the posters stating swords weigh in the 20-40lb range have either never held a real sword, or never actually weighed the swords they did.

krenshala

Re:Weight?

[Kintanon]

I would tend to think it would be closer to the 5-10lbs. Of the swords that I have looked at, (and own,) none are that large. AT 40-50 lbs, it is more of a two-hander, and actually more of a club. Here's a greatsword, (43" blade), that weighs in just under 6 lbs, and this is a REAL sword, (this is about the finest manufacturer I have found, I have a long sword from them) Great Sword
The main thing I see, is that you really can't weild a 40lb sword effectively for much of anything. Perhaps one horseback, but even then it becomes very unweildy, and generally the balance is not going to be very good on a weapon of that size(well, the balance may be good, but it won't be superb just because of the size of it.)


I am forced to concede as I just reaxmined some of my information. The sword I weighed was apparently of pretty disgustingly crappy workmanship. Because citing from this page I realize I am in error and you sir, are correct:

Sword Myths

Myth #2: Medieval broadswords weighed 10 to 15 pounds, some as much as 40 pounds.
This myth comes from the same place as the myth about the weight of plate armor. Plate armor was worn by knights in the 14th to 17th centuries, and it was certainly bulkier than normal street clothes. However, if a knight wore armor that made it hard to get up after falling from his horse, then such a knight didn't live very long, no matter how thick his armor was. And such a knight would die just as fast trying to wield a sword that weighed 15 pounds.

Actually, the average medieval broadsword weighed around 3 to 5 pounds, and only the very strongest warriors could handle the 5 to 8 pound hand-and-a-half swords and early Claymores. And then there were those giants who hauled the occasional two-handed great sword into battle, but even those only pushed 12 pounds at the maximum. Even the so-called Austrian Masterpiece two-handed sword with a flamberge blade weighed only 8 to 10 pounds.

Just to give you an idea, the Marto Excalibur is 48" long overall and weighs around 6 pounds, the CAS Iberia Black Baron sword is about 38" and weighs just 3¼ pounds, the CAS Iberia Swept Hilt Rapier is 44" long and weighs only 2½ pounds. And even Marto's largest Claymore is 56" long and weighs only 8½ pounds. All these swords feature steel blades and have the same size and proportions as their Medieval and Renaissance counterparts.

Re:Weight?

[juju_ben]

Found a site with some rather extensive length/weight information for various types of weapons, including swords of all types. The heaviest sword listed was ~15 pounds, and was greatsword over 6 feet long. 40-50lb. in a sword is just absurd. http://www.busprod.com/the_burg/sca/rapier.htm

Re:Weight?

[matthias]

At the Cleveland Museum of Art, they have this particularly huge German greatsword from the early 16th century. It's about 5'8" in height or so... I'm 6'5" and it comes to just below the shoulder. Oddly enough, it's 8lbs, 12oz. None of the blades in my collection weigh more than 5lbs total, and these are all originals, not the modern reproductions. I'll admit that some of them feel like they're 50lbs after a while, however. Gotta love the way levers work.

Re:Weight?

[Kintanon]

I'm getting the feeling that the posters stating swords weigh in the 20-40lb range have either never held a real sword, or never actually weighed the swords they did.

I have held them, and I have weighed them. I just happened to have weighed a VERY VERY poorly made sword. Which skewed my perception. The ones I held were probably not as poorly made, but still felt heavy due to the length. I have since corrected my misinformation and posted a link earlier in the thread to an excellent website which will dispell any myths concerning the weight of medieval swords and armor. I apologize for my previous ignorance.

Kintanon

Re:Weight?

[Tannin Kal]

In agreement with Kinshala, most of the misconceptions here come from not holding a _real_ sword, or just one that feels heavier from it's poor balance. With a large portion of even the supposedly knowledgeable population incorrcet on the weights of these weapons, many of the replicas are created abnormally heavy. I have indeed held a 15 lb sword, albeit a very large one, at a Ren Fest.
While something along the lines of a 40-50 lb sword would be downright painful, some swords, mainly the larger 2-hand claymores, do reach over 10 lbs.
As Kintanon, i also concede to grossly overestimating the weights of swords, but after some more research, I believe the above post is substantially correct.

Re:Weight?

[Phrogman]

With regards to medieval swords, please don't forget that the armor of the time was poorly manufactured, and not to be compared (even mentally) with modern steel. It had a tendancy to shatter on impact, so the blow of a knight's sword did not need to pierce the metal armor of his opponent in some cases, but merely batter it into oblivion.

Re:Weight?

[seanson22]

You are right, it will be the Celts that contradict you. While the Greek and Roman armies preffered the smaller swords that you describe, that could be held in one hand while the other operated a shield, the Celtic swords were around fourty pounds, and were as often nearly as tall as the men wielding them. Since they were only used by the backwater tribes on some remote islands in the Atlantic, they were far from the prevelant weapon of the day. I would supect that with the subjegation of the Celts by the Romans (well, most of the Celts, the highlands were such a pit the Romans didn't even bother invading it), the medieval swords of mainland Europe were of a more temperate size. However, based on an exhibit of old English arms (circa 1500 AD) it would appear they kept much of the same dimensions as their predeccesors. If the Scottish games are near you I would advise anyone to go. You won't see the real thing, but the replicas will give you an idea of what the real thing was like.

Re:Weight?

[krenshala]

I saw it. I'll have to check out the Myths section when I get a chance. (Anything to learn more about swords :)

Remember: The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that the ignorant can learn. ;)

krenshala

Re:Weight?

[CharlieG]

There is an easy way to do a rule of thumb truth to any sword weight.

Steel weighs in at JUST under .28 pounds per cubic inch (the alloy doesn't matter much)

If you say a sword weighs 40 pounds, you need a sword that has 143 cubic inches of steel in it. If you were to figure a blade that AVERAGED 2" wide, and 1/4" thick (remember to remove thickness for edge grinding), the sword would be 6 feet long. If you tapered it at all (say it was 1/4" at the THICKEST, and 1" wide near the tip), that would be a REAL LONG blade, say 12 feet or so. Nope, I think not

Most swords I've seen probably have an AVERAGE thickness of about 1/8" (NOT max), have a blade width that AVERAGES about 1.25, and are maybe 3.5 feet long which gives you, oh, 6 cubic inches, and therefore about 2 lbs

Re:Weight?

[codemonkey_uk]

I wonder if they are planning on making it weigh 40 - 50 lbs the way a traditional broadsword would, or plan on using the technology available to cut the weight down to 5-10lbs or even less. That would make one hell of a devestating hand to hand weapon...

Much of a broadswords power comes from its weight, with the strike being assited by gravity.

Although a lighter weapon would be easer to wield, it would require morestrength to strike with the same power as a heaver weapon.

Thad

Re:Weight?

[Medievalist]

Having engaged in various forms of sport combat for nearly 25 years I might actually have some valid input here... how unusual!
The sword that put the scar in my right shoulder weighed less than 10 pounds. To get to my body it hacked a notch at least a half inch deep into a rawhide covered, laminated wood shield. This particular blade was not case-hardened, damascene, or pattern-welded, and was roughly 21 inches long.
Oliver Cromwell's sword, on display in an English museum, is said to weigh in at 90 pounds. Although I have my doubts, and I haven't any information on whether the sword was simply the Lord Protector's parade piece or a weapon actually used in combat, it's not impossible. I have used a six-foot landesknecht sword that must have weighed at least 45 pounds and it was quite handy if used with appropriate technique.
I've spent many a firelit night arguing this topic, and Burton's "Book of the Sword" (and probably Fox and Oakeshott as well) deals with it somewhat scientifically, but it comes down to personal taste. I like a 30 inch sword balanced roughly a palm's width forward of the quillons, weighing between 4 and 8 pounds, with a nice series of grooves in the blade to add stiffness without excessive bulk. My modern keyboard-jockey hands require a larger grip than I've ever found on a bronze-age or eastern weapon, about the size of the largest medieval european grips.
In conclusion, there isn't really any such thing as a "traditional" broadsword, and sword weights used in actual combat vary widely in weight (2.5 to 100 pounds - anything lighter is a knife, anything heavier is some kind of pandybat or romphia) depending on cultural biases and personal taste.
--Charlie

Re:Weight?

[ancientscholar]

Hate to disappoint you D&D folks but after handling uncounted actual and detailed reproduction blades the actual weight of a 6th-16th century fighting blade was 3-5 pounds and didn't carry a very sharp edge. They battered their way through armor and caused enormous amounts of blunt force trauma (look at the skeletons of the victims). A light, strong blade travelling at 60-70 MPH does a lot more damage than a massive blade traveling at 10 MPH.

Re:Weight?

[Kintanon]

Much of a broadswords power comes from its weight, with the strike being assited by gravity.
Although a lighter weapon would be easer to wield, it would require morestrength to strike with the same power as a heaver weapon.



This is true, but it was mostly necessary for traditional broadswords because they were more like 3ft long crowbars than blades. They weren't exactly razor sharp. If this blade is sharp enough to shear through metal with minimal force then the weight can be reduced to allow for faster strikes. Also, speed breeds power. The faster you move the weapon the more power it will have behind it at the point of impact. I imagine there is a point where the weight is balanced out to provide maximum impact and maximum speed. I'm hoping they will use some of the technology available to locate that point and design the weapon accordingly. It might end up being 20lbs, or 15, or maybe the traditional 40-50lb weight IS optimal. But it would be interesting to know how they plan on determining the weight if they really are using as much of our advanced tech as possible in the creation of the blade.

Kintanon

Re:Weight?

[juju_ben]

A traditional broadsword would NOT weigh 40-50 pounds, but in face, is closer to the 5-10you suggested for this high-tech sword. The heavier end is usually about 1 lb. per foot, with many being even lighter than that.

Re:Weight?

[Shadow Knight]

Ok, this is ridiculous. "Real broadswords":

a.) weren't what you see in movies. They were *much* smaller than movie swords, and not usually called a "broadsword." Movie swords are usually "War swords" "Riding swords" or nonexistent.

b.) did *NOT* weigh 40-50lbs! No sword (I'm sure some fan of ancient Celtic culture is going to contradict me) weighed anywhere near that much! Ten pounds would be about the maximum weight for a sword meant to be used on foot... even that is a little ridiculous.

Supreme Lord High Commander of the Interstellar Task Force for the Eradication of Stupidity

Re:Weight?

[Basje]

The weight and the distibution of weight (i.e. balancing) are important characteristics of a blade.

A heavier blade will be better at cutting, and easier to block blows with, because it has a lot of momentum of it's own. A light one will be better suited to pierce and parry, because it will be easier to move and aim.

Therefor, I hope they will follow the characteristics of historical swords in this respect. I expect them to do so, for their aim to cut a normal sword will be near impossible if it's too light.

----------------------------------------------

Re:Weight?

[Kintanon]

A traditional broadsword would NOT weigh 40-50 pounds, but in face, is closer to the 5-10you suggested for this high-tech sword. The heavier end is usually about 1 lb. per foot, with many being even lighter than that.


Something about your statement makes me thing you've never in your life picked up a 3 foot long broadsword. I have. I've weighed them. The specific one I was looking at weighted 28lbs and was considered light for the collection. The only 10 lb sword there was a rapier.

Kintanon

Re:Weight?

[krenshala]

I didn't see this in the article, but I wonder if they are planning on making it weigh 40 - 50 lbs the way a traditional broadsword would, or plan on using the technology available to cut the weight down to 5-10lbs or even less.

Uh, one handed or hand-and-a-half swords normaly weigh between 2.5 and 5 pounds (this is for blades from 2.5 to 4 feet in length). Even two-handed swords at 4.5 to 7 feet only weigh in at something like 8 to 15 pounds.

Checking the Museum Replicas Limited website, I find they list a 16th century Broad Sword w/Double Ring Guard that is "Overall-46 inches * Blade-36 inches long, 1 inches wide * Wt.-3 lbs. 6 oz."

krenshala

Sci-Fi Becomes Reality

[SnowDog_2112]

It's one of the things I keep telling my non-techie "people" (ok, so that's mainly family) ... we're living so incredibly close to a science fiction reality, it's not funny.

Molecularly perfect sword blades (drool). Straight out of half a dozen futuristic RPGs, not to mention countless novels.

Mapping the human genome (floored). Yeah it's only one step but...wow.

Molecular computing, pervasive wireless networking(hell, just the Internet itself is something incredible -- we just take it so much for granted we forget how out of this world it is), nanotech, etc, etc, etc!

We live in fascinating times, people. I just wonder whether our grandkids will say, "Wow, you lived in fascinating times" or if they'll think their advances are as amazing as ours. I mean, the past 100 years has been incredible. Will the next hundred? With the stuff we're on the horizon of figuring out, it's hard to imagine it being anything less....

Re:Sci-Fi Becomes Reality

[Keepiru]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Arthur C. Clarke

Re: rapiers , mobility, gunpowder, etc.

[Disaster]

"As to rapiers, yes, they are pretty ineffective on a battlefield, being better for a duel, however, I believe that a part of their design is to slip in between the small cracks in armor and such. I could be wrong, though. (A good deal of the point of a rapier is to look nice, though:), which I feel they do very well.)"

They certainly do look great. Even in fashion the rapier underwent many changes, eventually becoming mostly ornamental as the smallsword which looked as pretty but was a lot lighter and less unwieldy. These types of weapons were useful both on the duelling field but also in the regular type of drunken brawling that goes on when haughty male types get together and down a few ales. Also, during these times banditry was a scourge on travellers so I imagine any type of blade would have been nice to have.

"I believe(more meant to one of the later replies, but I don't want to answer all of them individually, and it is related to this:) that gunpowder did change things, as when people are shooting at you, it is probably more important to be mobile. The pike probably helped a bit, but that has been around far longer than gunpowder, since before the times of heavy armor."

mmmm.. mobility is always nice, especially when you might want to run away (it happens) but against the type of gunfire arrayed on the field in these set piece battles, getting hit was more of a matter of chance than whether you were mobile or static. Among its effects, the advent of mass produced gunpowder made it necessary for organization to appear again on the battlefield as only well-directed, mass gunfire was likely to have any effect on the enemy. No more rabble parting so the knights can go a'charging. Although considerably less accurate than a good bowman, massed gunfire put lots of power in the hand of the average conscript, which at medium to close range would either butcher the enemy or at least scare them away.

Less Chemistry, More Nookie

[Volatile_Memory]

While kinda neat in that geek sorta way, the whole thing still reeks of Society for Creative Anachronism members with too much time and technology at their disposal.

I think these people need girlfriends.

/**
I have a "Zero Policy" tolerance.

Re:Less Chemistry, More Nookie

[Black Parrot]

Didn't you know it's the heroes with the best swords that get laid most often?

--

Re:Less Chemistry, More Nookie

[Kyrrin]

> Wish I could remember the rest of that song...

I believe you're talking about "Bally of Ballynore", a SCA version of the old Scottish 'Ball of Kerriemuir'. I've heard hundreds of verses, but every time I've heard it performed, it starts off with:

Let me tell you a little story
About the ball of Ballynore
There were four and twenty pagans
Lyin' on the floor

And the verse you're talking about is:

Balls to your partner
Your arse against the wall
If you can't get laid at the Pennsic wars
You can't get laid at all...

email me for more verses. =)

--kyr, anxiously awaiting Pennsic.

Re:Less Chemistry, More Nookie

[Aliera]

I am a girlfriend (well, wife), and I think swords are cool beyond belief. Took fencing lessons in college. Have female friends who are serious fencers. And, no, none of us have trouble finding nookie.

Re:Less Chemistry, More Nookie

[BJH]

Bwahahaha! You mean this, of course. Note that the Mark VI suit is for sale, and he's currently working on Mark VII (which weighs in at 120lbs - not exactly what I'd call lightweight).

Re:Less Chemistry, More Nookie

[DustyHodges]

Hey now... They don't need girlfriends... Remember the line from the old song...

"If you can't get laid in the SCA, you can't get laid at all!"

Wish I could remember the rest of that song...

Re:Less Chemistry, More Nookie

[Darmox]

Nah, SCA folks would say "That's out of period!" to all this technology:)

As to the second part, you're probably right:)

Re:Less Chemistry, More Nookie

[Sloppy]

If a dragon kept stealing your girlfriends, wouldn't you start learning how to make swords?

---

Re:Less Chemistry, More Nookie

[goliard]

Ha. Little you know. I've been in the SCA 10+yrs, and where you thought

Making high-tech swords? I think these people need girlfriends.

I thought

Making high-tech swords? Some people will do anything to get a girlfriend.

And I'll have you know, Salon reported we're one of the few exceptive flavors of geek actually getting any (we all know what a pure wellspring of relevant and unbiased intel Salon is ;).

I commend metallurgy highly to you. :)

----------------------------------------------

Re:Less Chemistry, More Nookie

[krenshala]

Yep, that the one. Of course, I was referring more to the material that the inventor came up with that the suit he has been testing itself. Using that material, I'm fairly certain that some nice lightweight armour could be constructed.

krenshala

Re:Broadsword? Not Quite

[zorba]

No, you're very confused. The US Marine sword is a _saber_.
Broadswords have two sides, are straight, and typically do not have a basinet.

Golf Clubs!

[Remus Shepherd]

I *want* this sword. But since I'll never be able to afford it, maybe I can get the next best thing -- at the very end of the article, they say they may make a line of Dragonslayer golf clubs using this technology.

I don't see how a nine-iron could really hurt a dragon, but I'll willing to put on my armor and spar with it for a while to see if it's an effective weapon. ;)

Re:Golf Clubs!

[CausticPuppy]

Just take out both of the dragon's eyes with a couple of well-placed Titleists....

Re:Golf Clubs!

[Zan Thrax]

Does the atl-atl really qualify as a club though? You're not really hitting the projectile with it, you're using it as a lever to really crank up your throwing power. (Lacrosse instead of hockey kinda thing) Also, weren't the projectiles more of a short spear (1' - 1'6" I think) than an arrow? It seems like an actual arrow would be too light to throw straight and fast, even with the power assist of an atl-atl...

Re:Golf Clubs!

[Croaker]

I can just see some corny "Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" movie springing from an idea like this...

Hmm... interesting thought though. Did any society use clubs to impel projectile weapons? (I'd thinking more of baseball than of golf here...) Seems to be an easier technology to develop than the bow. Of course, to be useful in anything other than a huge battle, you'd need a hell of a lot of practice. And there's the friendly-fire issue...

Re:Golf Clubs!

[Remus Shepherd]

Good idea! Where can I get some molecularly perfect Titleists made of meteoric iron? ;)

Re:Golf Clubs!

[krenshala]

Did any society use clubs to impel projectile weapons?

There's the atl-alt. It's a piece of wood about 2 or 3 feet long with a groove running the length, and a handle at one end. you hold the handle, place an arrow in the groove with the point by the handle (the other end has a piece to keep the arrow from sliding off that way). To "fire" this, you hold it behind you and swing it rapidly forward(overhand works best) which launches the arrow at your target. Basically, you are throwing the arrow by hand, and the atl-alt just extends the length of the lever (your arm) used to propel it.

krenshala

just wondering

[Sempiternity]

Why is the picture on the first page of buckministerfullerene??? Any idea? C60 is not steel so what pertinence does the picture have to the story??

sword master?

[Tannin Kal]

i never claimed ot be a sword master.
your words, not mine.

And in insulting spring steel, keep in mind,
in order to get carbon into the katanas,
the Japanese would forge them in what amounted
to a dirty fire. Spring steel, at least that
of good quality, may or may not have the right
proportions, but has the advantage or pure
carbon.

Sutton Hoo sword

[Jon Peterson]

People in London who are into such things should check out the reproduction blade of the Sutton Hoo sword in the British Museum. It's a nice example of Damascus steel work and gives an idea of why these things must have been so highly prized. The reproduction blade was made in Wisconsin, which is funny.

Also, while I know little about ancient weapons tech, there is a seemingly reliable account of the battle of Hastings that describes an axe blow delivered by a saxon housecarl that cut through a horse's neck and chopped the rider's leg off. One assumes that the foot soldiers of the time were wielding pretty heavy weapons...

Re:Sword mechanics

[hey!]

Yes, up to a point.

At some point, the human arm is incapable of moving faster. So if E = 1/2 mv^2, note that v itself is a function of m, and dv/dm is zero some neighborhood of m=0; in otherwords, you hit your maximum speed at some m1 > 0; since velocity is a constant for mm1, then m1 represents the maximum energy on the set of masses [0..m1]. Furthermore m1 is not necessarily the maximum energy on the intervale [0..infinity], because in some neighborhood [m1..m2] velocity decreases very slowly as a function of mass, so that the square law decrease in velocity is still overwhelmed by the linear increase in mass. If we define m2 this way, that is to say the mass at which the square of the decrease of velocity is exactly offset by the increase in mass, then the global maximum for energy is at m2. m1 and m2 are dependent upon the individual and the technique he uses to swing the sword.

In other words, the only way to determine optimal weight is empirically.

Re:Why ACK?

[CausticPuppy]

The AFC seemed like a little hole in the wall joint in a run-down section of midtown, which is why I don't really plan on joining. Right now I live in that "orphaned" region of highway 9 between Sandy Springs and Roswell.

I can't remember the name of my fencing instructor at Emory though! A short guy who couldn't move his head. Of course he could pretty much just waste anybody in the class without really trying-- kinda like Neo's fight scene in the Matrix after he comes back to life.

Re: the bigger they are the harder they fall

[Disaster]

"It wasn't missile weapons that defeated mounted armored knights, it was military tactics. This has no basis in reality. As weaponry came along that was capable of countering the knight (mainly the lowly pike), the knight was forced to evolve their tactics. The concept of the knight simply evolved into that of cavalry, and later armored vehicles (tanks). Knights were always fought with knights if pikemen were not available. Much as a modern army sends armor against armor. The formality of the knight only went away when the king of France grew jealous of their financial power."

You can argue both sides but there is truth to all of this. If you ever read the popular history "Distant Mirror" by Barbara Tuchman she gives plenty of evidence that knights were defeated by a combination of social change, economic change as well as by technology. Firstly, it is true that there was plenty of technology available to bring down the average armoured knights. That has already been covered. However, there had to be the will and organization (tactics) to use it. In Tuchman's book she gives plenty of examples where noble haughtiness (honor! honor!) won over common sense. ex. Let's charge the well entrenched English and their massed bowmen over a muddy field! Against middle eastern horsed bowmen, the flower of chivalry were commonly slaughtered by lighter, but better lead muslim soldiery who followed professional military leaders rather than squabble amongst themselves over who gets to charge first. Knights were a class of people who did not simply evolve into different categories of military units. Knights somehow transforming into tanks, indeed. The nobility were forced to open their ranks and share power with the bourgeois as the economic power of towns grew. Inevitably, this meant that military leadership was no longer an accident of birth but also required some element of professionalism. Towns that sent off and financed cadres insisted upon it. Some knights may have morphed into heavy shock cavalry, but the utility of cavalry on the battlefield went through a few phases, ending up during Napoleonic times in their ideal support roles of scouting, masking, harassing, and mopping up. A modern army does not ideally send armour against armour. Ideally, a modern army sends armour against desk clerks. :) Also medieval knights were only too happy to skewer peasants who are running away.

Re:Why a broadsword?

[CausticPuppy]

One advantage the foil has, due to its flexibility, is the ability to to a quick "whip" around and nail your opponent in the back.
A valid hit under normal circumstances, but not so effective with electric foils!

For even more off-topic... my favorite move was la fleche. I had a tendency to combine it with lots of wild screaming and flailing. Most of the time it didn't work, but I had fun doing it, and I did occasionally catch an opponent totally off guard if he'd never fought me before :)

Re:What was that time travelling SF/Fantasy book..

[morkoleb]

That was in one of the Fred Saberhagen Berserker novels (forget which one). The Berserkers sent a killer android back in time to mess up the history of Earth and the humans sent back their own killer with a molecularly perfect sword to take him out. The plot is very similar to the Terminator I (actually the whole Berserker series has a lot of resemblances to the Terminator series/or the Borg).

Sword mechanics

[hey!]

Much of a broadswords power comes from its weight, with the strike being assited by gravity.

Well, not exactly. Being a longtime kung fu practioner, I am fairly conversant with the Chinese broadsword which, while a much different design, works prety much on the same physical principles. A moderately heavy broadsword is going to have considerable power when swung horizontally, and the heaviest broadsword that is simply allowed to drop is not going to have much power at all.

In other words -- muscle does the work. Gravity's most important role is providing the wielder a stable platform from which to lever the sword into action.

The relation of mass to penetrating power, all other things being equal, is dependent in a complex and inherently only empiracally testable way to each individual's body mechanics. For any given individual, there is going to be an optimal weight from the point of view of penetrating power, all other parameters being equal. Imagine a sword that is as light as a reed; naturally while you can swing it with great speed it will have very little bite. On the other hand, imagine a sword that is literally the heaviest you can lift. If you could swing it even moderately fast it would have terrific penetrating power. Unfortunately, you can barely move it, so it too has no penetrating power (but in the hands of Arnold it could be pretty damned devestating).

Now imagine a sword that's roughly a third as heavy as you can lift. That sucker's going to bite.

What they need to do is to conduct biomechanical studies using sword collectors as a test population. Have them swing iron bars of various weights into dynamometers and figure out what weight, on average, yields the most energy when swung by a pencil neck fantasy freak. Naturally an actual warrior is going to be much stronger, and training will produce neuromuscular faciliation, so he'll be considerably faster as well. Therefore, I suspect that the statistically optimal sword for the amateur will be unusually light when compared to professional models.

Swords tend, I think, to be lighter than is purely optimal from the point of penetration. That is because speed gives tactical advantages which have to be traded off with pure crushing power. However, in dragon slaying literature I've read, dragons are not depicted as being particularly fast. Large animals tend to have slower reaction times because of the finite speed of nerve signal propagation, so a huge animal is going to be relatively slower than a human being. Also, note that they are armored -- critters that make their living off of speed don't carry armor; highly armored creatures, such as tortises,tend to be slow. Of course, dragon armor must be unusually light since it must permit the dragon to fly. However, it is safe to say that reaction time is not likely to be a dragon's forte: strength, invulnerability and, of course, fire breathing are.

For that reason, the sword should be weighted for optimal penetration (i.e. relatively heavy) since a slight loss of blade speed is not a critical tactical factor. The dragonslayer is unlikely to be called upon to execute quick parrying and feinting type maneuvers.

This has the fortuitous effect that the optimal dragonslaying sword for the amateur would probably make a fine all around weapon for a trained warrior.

Re:Sword mechanics

[makohund]

Quite right. Turin Turumbar (Son of Hurin, Cousin of Huor). Was also known as "Mormegil" meaning "The Black-Sword. Yep, he killed Glaurung. As he passed over a ravine. (Glaurung had no wings... he was an earlier, bigger, heaver dragon. Later they were smaller and winged. Possibly to avoid getting poked in the belly by "heroes" while climbing over stuff. :)

As for the sword itself, it was originally called Anglachel, and was made of "galvorn" by Eol, who first designed that particular metal. Which was devised from the stones of meteors. I think he only actually made two swords out of it.

One was given to Thingol, king of Doriath, whom gave it Beleg (Turin's elf-friend) to go look for Turin. Who took it as own after Beleg was killed. (By Turin, no less. Mistook him for an orc while waking up, not realising he'd been rescued. Pity.) He ended up breaking it soon after sticking the dragon... but I've told enough already.

The other, Eol kept himself. His son Maeglin (who eventually betrayed Gondolin to Melkor) inherited it when he was killed. I don't know what happened to that one.

If you liked the Silmarillion, read "Unfinished Tales". The Silmarillion is pretty condensed, and the stories are more "highlights" than anything else. In Unfinished Tales some of the best of the stories in the Silmarillion are told in full, and make for even better reading. Including "Narn I Hin Hurin" (The tale of the Children of Hurin), which is the story of Turin & co.

Re:Sword mechanics

[Shadowmist]

Smaug was brought down with one arrow, albeit a special one. One assumes that if you're in the dragon-slaying buisness you're going to be equipped with something above average.

p.s. If you want an excellent series of fantasy stories about swords, you can't do better than Fred Saberhagen's books revolving around the Twelve Swords, of whome one of course was DragonSlayer, the Sword of Heroes.

Re:Broadsword? Not Quite

[Lord Bitman]

Who needs enchanting?
It can already be clearly labeled as the "+4 Broadsword of Human Idiocy"

Doesnt anyone do anything for the public?

Ph34r my +2 Dagger!

Watching with great interest...

[davebooth]

As an amateur metalworker, interested in forging techniques and bladesmithing in general I'm watching this with great interest. I've often spent long periods with metallurgical analyses of both the traditional japanese swords and the pattern-welded european ancient blades. They have in common a multi-laminate structure, of steels of varying hardness, the core of the blade being softer than the edge and the martensite generated in the blades production being deliberately (although empirically) arranged to preserve a sharper, harder edge. This is, after all, why a good blade was often a pretty one too and where the true artistry of a master bladesmith (which I most definitely am NOT) shows.

Since I've contemplated experimenting with a hybrid technique myself I'm hoping that this project will at least give me some ideas.
# human firmware exploit
# Word will insert into your optic buffer
# without bounds checking

Re:Watching with great interest...

[seaan]

Try looking at http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/merchants/index.armor. html

Re:Why a broadsword?

[CausticPuppy]

I'd like to add that nothing strikes fear in the hearts of your enemies quite like a foil with a little ball of rubber on the end.

Now, some of us will probably never have the opportunity to be in a pitched battle with a sword, so the beauty/elegance of the piece will outweigh (pun!) its real usefulness.

As for real swordplay, er fencing, I'm pretty sure I could take out-- or at least really annoy-- a Komodo Dragon with a mere sabre.

Re:Thermal resistance ?

[Kartoffel]

Perhaps skip the traditional blade, and put removable CBN coated cutting units, instead (trouble is, how do you determine chip breaker geometry with a sword held by a dragonslayer ?)

ROFL. That's excellent. For once someone made a good techie-joke that's not computer/internet related.

Have you checked in Machinery's Handbook? First, you'd need to find some material properties for dragon flesh. I checked, but the closest thing were some tables entitled "Optimum Feedrates for Rough Machining of Low Carbon Dragon"

Re: the bigger they are the harder they fall

[onyxruby]

However, there had to be the will and organization (tactics) to use it.

Correct, and not in dispute, the point was that the tactics used required technology that took a very long time to develop.

Against middle eastern horsed bowmen, the flower of chivalry were commonly slaughtered by lighter, but better lead muslim soldiery who followed professional military leaders

Slaughtered? I don't think so. It was routine for knights to battle armies several times their size and win. I believe National Geographic (possibly Scientific American) quoted some historical references of odds up to 35 to 1. The inability to take on knights in even numbers had a direct influence on the development of the assasin.

professional military leaders rather than squabble amongst themselves

The various orders of the knighthood had professional military leaders. A person who was to become a knight would start training no later than 12 years of age. They received far more training than any modern army. As for squabbling among themselves, I don't dispute that. But that is certainly not a culture in history that has bypassed that.

Knights were a class of people who did not simply evolve into different categories of military units.

Yes, they were certainly a class of people, almost exclusively nobles. I don't question that their was discrimination. But to say that they did not evolve is incorrect. The skills they had (horsemanship was considered as important as swordsmanship) devloped as knights were what was to become the backbone of the cavalry. Even modern horseshows owe much to this history. As history progress it was quite common for the cavalry to consist of nobles. This had as much to do with access to training, and horses that came through wealth as anything else. Even up through the US civil war it was common to have large numbers of officers in the cavalry. FYI, modern US armored brigades quite often have the word "cavalry" in their name. Like the 11th cavalry brigade that gaurds Fort Knox.

A modern army does not ideally send armour against armour. Ideally, a modern army sends armour against desk clerks.

I should have clarified myself better. A moderm army counters armor with armor. Of course we also have fighters, copters, and tow missles. The closest midevil thing to any of these is the crossbow to the tow missle.

You are right in many points, including decimating peasents, social and especially economic changes and so on. I don't dispute there were many negative side effects at all. My point is that the knight was undone by change and had to evolve, even if unwillingly. There was no single factor that removed him from the battlefield.

A modern analogy...

[sporkboy]

Your typical baseball bat weighs 30-34oz. (around 2lb) and it takes a fair amount of effort to swing one with any great speed. So I'd imagine that anything substantially more heavy would present problems. Granted, a sword is more balanced for smooth motion. Also, in the measurement of kinetic energy ( k = mv^2) the velocity plays an increasingly greater role than mass as each increases. So it would be in the interest of the user to get a faster blade after a certain break-even point.

Re:Why a broadsword?

[hey!]

Why did the epee supplant the rapier then?

Because the rapier wasn't a nice weapon to wear to court because caught up in your clothing (after the doublet and hose went out of style).

Which is to say that saying a rapier is better than a broadsword is like saying Apache is better than Linux... Different weapons fulfil different missions and answer to different requirements.

The broadsword isn't silly at all. People of yore were just as smart as us, they spent a lot more time thinking about these things than you or I, and tested them. It wasn't that they were too stupid to come up with the rapier or the cavalry saber. They decided that the broadsword design was the best tool for a certain class of jobs. It has a number of virtues that make it particularly versatile.

(1) It is user friendly. You can hand it to a raw recruit and order him to go forth and kill, and he will by in large do it unto others rather than himself. It's simplicity helps a trained soldier too. If it slips out of your hand on the battlefield, pick it up and swing it any old way. If you're slipping on blood, tripping over rocks or falling into a hole, swing it in the general direction of your target and its fairly likely to do something lethal if it connects. Scientific fencing is fine for a morning on nicely trimmed grass or a gravel dueling ground, but it won't avail if you're standing in a rugged terrain strewn with the bodies of men and horses.

(2) It is rugged; it can take blows from staves and heavy pole arms for example. It can be used in the countless ad hoc ways that soldiers in need of tools do. You probably could chop wood with it in a pinch. The rapier fails miserably here; it is not a military weapon.

(3) It is lethal. It has tremendous penetrating and killing power. It will chop of limbs in the unarmored and crush and break them in the armored. The rapier also doesn't measure up here -- it is a dueling weapon ideal for subduing somebody with possibly lethal side effects. You use it to attack the tendons, ligaments and surface arteries of your opponent.

(4) It is relatively small. It is easy to carry on long fast marches and can be put to use in confined quarters in a pinch. The rapier is superior in this respect, and heavy pole arms are inferior.

(5) It is easy to care for. Put it in its convenient sheath and its fairly well protected from rust and dings.

These qualities make the broadsword a good choice for the anti-draconian mission. A heavy pole arm, spear might appear to be a better choice, but remember the dragon also has a distance weapon, and a better one to boot -- fire. Your survival chances are much better two or three feet away than ten of fifteen, although none to good in any case. I might opt for a short halberd or broad double headed axe for its killing power. The longer the confrontation, the worse your chances. You are definitely not going to knick the thing into submission with a gentlemans toy.

Re:Dorks

[dazedNconfuzed]

Comparably:
I study Iaido (Japanese sword fighting). Half the people who find out say that they (or a friend) own a "really high quality samurai sword - it cost 65 bucks!" - and they're sincere. I rarely have the heart to say that a good (not excellent!) new katana can cost $3000, and a really high quality one can cost $15,000.

Re: the bigger they are the harder they fall

[Disaster]

"Correct, and not in dispute, the point was that the tactics used [to defeat knights] required technology that took a very long time to develop."

No no. Not technologically based. Swiss cantons defeated Austrian and allied knights without the aid of crossbows or longbows or gunpowder. How? Ambushing and formations. The use of the halberd (existing technology) and the discipline of massed formations. Flemish towns let knights splash against palisades and trenches and then skewered them. The common thread is motivation and disciplined tactics.

"It was routine for knights to battle armies several times their size and win. I believe National Geographic (possibly Scientific American) quoted some historical references of odds up to 35 to 1."

Yes, it is true that a fully armoured and mounted knight can run down few lightly armoured horsemen and the knights did stay awhile in the Holy Land. However, if you examine the battles of Hattin and Adrianopole, you will see that the knowledge of how to defeat these charging dreadnoughts was not unknown. Let them charge. Even slow them down with lines of infantry, and then harass and pursue them when they retreat to reform and rest. Repeat until knights succumb. The longevity of the crusader kingdoms had more to do with them staying in their nicely built castles than their tactics on the battlefield. (Also, the muslims were scarecely united against them). The assassins, by the way, were not a special unit developed to deal with knights. They were a unique sect who used assassination against both muslim and infidel to gain power in both worlds.

"The various orders of the knighthood had professional military leaders. A person who was to become a knight would start training no later than 12 years of age. They received far more training than any modern army."

Undoubtedly, the average knight was highly trained in personal combat. That does not translate into organization and tactics, however. Especially when faced with an enemy who does not break and flee or wants to fight knight to knight.

As for the evolution of knights to cavalry, yes it is true that being in the cavalry up to the 19th century was considered a plum place to be if you were upper class or nobility. But the function of that cavalry on the battlefield was more influenced by the eastern use of cavalry than it was by knights. Hence the use of the sabre (from the Turkish shamshir) and the prevalence of light cavalry (hussars, chasseurs, their cossack cousins) rather than heavy (shock) cavalry. In the U.S. Civil War while it was still fashionable to ride around in nice uniforms, cavalry was definitely in its scouting and raiding role (certainly not in the dominant role as it was in the middle ages). Your comment about the modern usage of 'cavalry' is pretty interesting. Air cavalry in the form of a flight of Apache attack choppers certainly is pretty 'shocking'. hmmm :)

The biggest enemy of armour in the modern context is infantry and ground. With infantry increasingly armed with powerful anti-tank weapons and the ground increasingly unfavourable to armoured warfare (more urban warfare), the tank may be a bit marginalized. Perfect tank fields such as in Desert Storm are not expected to be future sites of conflict. This is another example of social changes bringing change in warfare. All these factors are interdependent.

Materials and Swords

[Life Blood]

Ok, first of all tantos are Japanese or at least asian long knives. Project Dragon Slayer is trying to build a european patterned double edged sword. Wrong geography.

On the other hand I think this is really cool as engineer working in materials who does kenjutsu in his spare time. Unlike other fields, the best material to use for swords is still basically a good low-alloy steel. Most composites and high tech metals (like titanium) can't hold an edge without becoming too brittle. High alloy steels can't be hardened properly to create a soft spine and hard edge. What might be really interesting is to see if someone could make a composite sword using steel edges and different spine material. It could do some significant weight reduction and probably be made using some of the old pattern welding techniques used in the late dark ages.

Re:Materials and Swords

[Phrogman]

Why wrong geography? The Orientals did not have a monopoly on high quality swords - damascened steel swords were manufactured by the Arabs (thus the name), in Spain, and even by the Vikings. I think it is absolutely wonderful that they are making a western pattern sword, as it may help dispel the myth that only in the East could they make a decent sword. The processes involved were pretty much identical to those used in the East to the best of my knowledge.

We lost our sword fighting traditions with the rise of the industrial revolution. We retained fencing admittedly, but this is mostly preserved the highly stylized form of the modern sport, not as a martial art. We have lost the use of the older forms of swords such as the broadsword mentioned in this article completely, save for a few published works, and the efforts of organizations like the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) who try to reproduce the methods used by practical application.

But lacking the sword-fighting traditions and preserved martial arts does not mean that the weapons themselves were not of great quality.

Re:Materials and Swords

[Life Blood]

Wrong geography because tantos are asian weapons not european as mentioned in the article post. I was not giving my opinion on european forging techniques. Sorry for the confusion.

BTW eastern and western forging techniques are actually quite different. Eastern techniques used the best parts of the "bloom," that is the piece of steel that resulted from initial refining. Western used the whole bloom. As such, eastern swords tend to be of higher carbon content than western swords. Eastern swords are also forged using clay coat technique to heat treat the swords which was not used in the west.

As for sword fighting traditions, western society lost most of its traditions but there are people like John Clements and the HACA trying to piece the techniques back together. Personally I think that SCA is more of a sport than a martial art, since the techniques using in SCA combat are significantly different than in real sword play. SCA swords use blunt impact so their techniques involve chopping actions where actual sword play uses draw cuts and stabbing. SCA combat is to real western swordplay as kendo is to true eastern swordplay. Close but significantly different in the specifics.

Re:Materials and Swords

[Life Blood]

The truth is actual swordplay against actual full plate armor doesn't do much of anything. There are stories from the renaissance of battles between nobles being fought were the only person who died was an old man killed by heat exhaustion or a heart attack. Sword vs. chain mail uses piercing attacks, this is the type of combat you would find through most of the middle ages.

Creating a high-tech sword faces a few issues. The first is that the spine needs to be strong but capable of taking punishment. The spine is the section which takes most of the actual shock of impact and is used for parrying. The edge needs to be hard, but not so hard that it becomes brittle and breaks when its hit against something. This is the problem with titanium and even stainless steel, they are usually soft and brittle when hard.

As for using a composite laminate of some sort, I am somewhat hesitant. Swords see lots of impact loading because that is what they do. They hit things. Laminates tend to delaminate under any sort of impact. Once they start to delaminate it tends to only get worse from there since the delamination sites allow for crack nucleation, etc. Most composites are also a pain to repair and recycle. As for diamond, its an interesting idea, but diamond is crystalline so it probably would crack easily. Its still an interesting idea though.

BTW weight is not necessarily a bad thing in swords since you actually use the weight of the sword to help you in combat. Most people talk about reducing the weight of swords when a good sword actually only weights somewhere between 1 to 2 kilos if its reasonably sized.

Event horizon on it's way.

[Colin Smith]

We're heading for an event horizon where the very fabric of society is going to get very very mixed up. No idea whether it'll be for the better or worse but it's definitely happening. Things are getting faster.

OT: (maybe not) Bollocking

[JSurguy]

I was at a Norman re-enactment society event (sig other is a member) last year, and they had a smith who was making a bollock dagger (fairly short with carved horn handle in the shape of knackers) from a broken sword, he surmised that these daggers were where the term "to get a bollocking" comes from..... apologies if you don't know what a bollock is....

Don't be a Bitter Boy

[Halloween Jack]

My take on "stuff that matters" is that it should be something that the readership could conceivably and probably want to use. So somebody actually went to the trouble of building and testing one of Leo's designs, which the great man apparently never did himself. So what? Yes, the dude who did it succeeded when everyone else thought that he'd end up as a particularly juicy crop circle. Yes, he said that the ride was smoother. He also cut it loose and actually landed with a regular parachute because his DaVinci Special weighed 187 lbs. and would have crushed him if he'd tried to land with it. So much for jumping "from any great height whatsoever without injury." An interesting historical reconstruction, to be sure, but hardly as sexy as broadswords or backyard rockets, at least to the Klingons among us.

Smack that grenade, Babe!

[Glamatron]

And there's the friendly-fire issue...

Yeah, if you accidentally hit a line drive straight at the pitcher's mound, poor Roger Clemens may end up with a gutful of shrapnel, rather than the intended anti-baseball evilpeople on the other side. Not to mention the risk, in a sizeable unit of similar swatters, of clipping a fellow projectilist with an overzealous swing.

Golf clubs may be a little more suitable, because they're intended to hit a stationary ball. If you had a long line of concussion grenades (one whack to set, 2 whacks to explode) and a fellow with a golf club, you might get some interesting results.

Then again, slings and arrows are cheaper/easier to make, and probably just as accurate, with practice.

Re:Oh Great!

[treilly]

I'm pretty sure this'd only benefit womankind and a small percentage of mankind.

Re:samite, nothing!

[rlkoppenhaver]

I can see the /. headline now!

"Gondolin Falls - Imminent Death of the Internet Predicted!"

This is not (yet) a commercial project

[queasymoto]

The article really says that the Dragonslayer Project is a *design project* for undergraduates, with teams of freshmen (apparently) working on the marketing plan while teams of upperclassmen do the detailed design (finite element analysis, for one) that their knowledge allows.

There is no statement that this is actually going to get produced. There's nothing to prevent it from happening, but this was a design class project, not an actual funded program to create a sword.

As someone who specialized in design education in grad school, however, it sounds like the class itself is at the forefront of current (design class) practice. By using teams at different ability levels, the 'junior' teams get a great learning benefit. Also, the first-year students get a taste for using a design process and get a good idea of their entire curriculum right at the start of their program, which helps them put most of their other classes in perspective and (educators hope) improves learning by tying it all together and helps the students decide very early if they're in a field they feel they belong.

My question..

[Glamatron]

is will it be able to deflect bullets?
That would be cool for a weird crimefighter type dude. (s'pose you'd still have to worry about napalm and plastique though)

Re:My question..

[david duncan scott]

If you could move fast enough to parry bullets, I'm guessing you wouldn't need a sword -- just put your head down and run at your opponents (becoming a man-sized bullet yourself). A crash helmet might be a good idea, though.

USMC's ceremonial swords.

[jcr]

The sword shown in the USMC recruiter's ads isn't a broadsword, it's modeled on a civil-war era Naval boarding-party cutlass or sabre. -jcr

Re:Why a broadsword?

[MrCreosote]

The thing I hated about epee was if you were used to foil, you would forget to keep the blade straight and a good opponent would just keep scoring hits on your wrist.

Also, bare-chested sabre bouts are supposed to be quite interesting.

New Tech?

[CycloTron]

A hello? I don't see any new tech being displayed here...this sword doesn't even run Linux!

Fuck...if I'm going to drop several thousand on a weapon it better take me to the market and have a good alarm.

Hmmm...ofcourse a steel blue sword would go well with my motorcycle's paint job. Chopping off a few side mirrors would help me demand the respect I deserve when flying across the Bay Bridge to work.

Now all I need is a HUD for my helmet.

-Hero Protagonist For a Day-

What you guys need is a TrollSlayer...ofcourse then no one would read my posts.

Re:Why a broadsword?

[mbrubeck]

So in summary, broadswords have

1. A simple, intuitive interface
2. Robust design and reliable performance
3. Lots of killer applications
4. Portable hardware
5. Easy maintenance and security

Clearly, this will be an excellent weapon in the war against Microsoft.

Speed of dragons.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Large animals tend to have slower reaction times because of the finite speed of nerve signal propagation, so a huge animal is going to be relatively slower than a human being

True when comparing mammals, and true again when comparing lizards. (Dragons appear to be related to the latter). But when comparing lizards to mammals the strike of a lizard is way faster than you'd predict by considering a mammal of the same size.

Lizards are cold-blooded. So they can be mostly fast-twitch and do a significant amount of high-speed work before they cook themselves.

Also: If the strike doesn't require a mid-course correction it can be pipelined, so the neural delay doesn't matter.

But it also means that, if you can see it coming, you, as a small mammal, may be able to dodge. Watch "The Crock Hunter" versus a snake or a croc some time.

The problem is when the snake or crock (or dragon) pretends to be a stick or log (or redwood tree) until the strike. Then you DON'T see it coming until it's too late to dodge.

Of course, dragons can take advantage of their airspeed, too... B-)

Re:Broadsword? Not Quite

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as a "long sword" or a "bastard sword". Those are terms made up by the guys at T$R. The curved blade you're thinking about is called a sabre, and was used mainly by cavalry (before the tank took over).

"Broadsword" is the correct term for the weapon they are making.

Re:Hmmm.

[GypC]

And what would you do with it? Chop down trees?

Oh wait, I know, go to Indonesia and hunt for real dragons! Hmmm, I wonder if I can take a broadsword carry-on...

"Free your mind and your ass will follow"

Who cares? Just give me my Leatherman

[Chris Burke]

I'd rather just have my trusty Leatherman Wave with such a blade. The Leatherman is much more practical in every day life than a rapier, broadsword, or katana (or, for that matter, adamantium claws). And if it's too big and nasty to kill with a Leatherman, then I don't want to screw with it no matter what kind of sword I have. :P

Re:Why a broadsword?

[Darmox]

Eh, we don't use those practice weapons too much:) (I am a fencer--sport fencing, for those 'in the know') mostly electric, in which you have a small metal plunger in the tip, with a wire running down the blade, to the body, and then to a reel, then to a scoring machine.
In fact, I no longer have any practice weapons at all.

On another note, though, a little bit about fencing:
There are three weapons, foil, epee, and sabre, each with their own rules. Foil is historically the learning weapon, epee is a dueling weapon. Sabre of late has been really poor, as it is *GENERALLY* (not all are like this) two guys grunt, run at each other, both hit, and the one who made the biggest noise/action gets the touch. This is not the way it is supposed to be.
As to what they can do, injuries are not uncommon, although mostly leg problems. Most injuries from the weapons are limited to bruises and welts, with occasional abrasions.
For more information, check out fencing.net This is a really cool site with lots of information.
All in all, fencing gets a bad name because of being 'slow' (ie: lots of time between short, fast, actions,) but it is a VERY fun and fulfilling sport(a bit more than a sport to many, as well.) There are quite a few rules, but when you think about them, they make sense. They all basically come back to not getting killed in a sword-fight.

Let's hope...

[MetricT]

They don't name the sword Daikatana... Otherwise it will be several years before they release it on the market, and consumers will discover that it is really just old Ginsu knifes oiled up a bit.

Re:Why a broadsword?

[Ravagin]

Yeah, I've done a bit of fencing myself (though school has been too busy this past year). But the first guy mentioned rubber balls, so I figured what the heck. Referential humor and all that. :)
That's a great description of the sabre, BTW.
===
-J

Real life Berserk?

[MuteflY]

I don't know if any of you have seen the anime series Berserk but the main character goes around killing people with a giant sword (longer than he is tall infact).
Without giving away the ending of the series, I think the lesson to be learned from watching it is don't make giant swords and go around killing people or big bad things will happen to the world.

Oh Great!

[garethwi]

This is just fucking perfect. Someone builds a rocket in their back garden and it gets posted. Now someone makes a sword and it gets posted, but submit a story about Leonardo da Vincis parachute being tested and working, and you get rejected.

Can someone explain to me just what is news for nerds and stuff that matters.

Re:Oh Great!

[Anonymous Covard]

Ummmm.... when will someone start doing some research that all mankind will appreciate...like finding the gene that regulates penis size.

It would be a greater service to mankind to eliminate the gene that makes men care about penis size.

Re:Oh Great!

[smileyy]

If you want more control over what's posted, use kuro5hin instead.

We're on the Verge, man...

[WorldMaker]

You can feel it... something big is going to happen... and maybe this feeling is just because you've got your freon pumping air conditioner on a little high, but maybe, just maybe, the old sci-fi writers were correct in realizing that the 20?? years would be important dates in History. Right now, humanity is still Xenophobic, Stuck on a Single Blue Orb, and Largely Ignorant of the power of the Internet and Science... How long do you think this will last?

WorldMaker

Hmmm.

[QuarterSauce]

This is a really great project - it has the potential to be a real poetic, inspired piece. A fantastically elegant display of the technology.

Too bad it's gonna wind up in some millionaire's living room hanging on a wall.

Thermal resistance ?

[Chep]

Oh, well, given the evolution of material engineering these last few decades (rougly -- since the JUMO-001D engine, whose operating conditions demanded a breakthrough in metallurgy to get reliable, which fortunately happened only long after WW2), it's not really difficult to do really better than in the past. Think about Cubic Boric Nitride coating on a high-tenacity polymetallic carbide compound, itself on a titanium substrate ; sounds cool to me.

Problem is, once you've slayed a thousand dragons or two, you'll need to re-coat your blade. Perhaps
skip the traditional blade, and put removable CBN coated cutting units, instead (trouble is, how do you determine chip breaker geometry with a sword held by a dragonslayer ?)

Re:Why a broadsword?

[ACK!!]

Then pick yourself up a sabre sir and take up fencing. Tournament or Olympic fencing can be tiresome but the sport and the sparring and the actual practice that many fencers participate in will be as close to you ever get to a duel. There is even a category for your mentioned weapon, the sabre.

The foil is not the only weapon in a fencer's arsenal.

The deal is that the sport may have a lot of tiresome rules but the actual swordsplay and techniques you learn are usually better than the experience you get from a Society for Creative Anachronisms tournament where too many of the folks have spent too much damn time making their costumes and not enough time actually learning how to use the blade.

There are very good swordsmen in those groups but they are swamped by the unskilled and usually overshadowed by the history and custome buffs that dominate so many of the groups.

materials science is part of reality mastering

[matthew_gream]

One of the overall philosophical themes of the current age is the increasing ability for humans to master reality in all shapes and forms.

In the case of materials science, one of the initial phases is the ability to graft together and create constructions of different types of materials available to us : i.e. hybrid materials. In the long term, our mastery of reality will result in nano-technology, where just about any material can be constructed, and new strange types of materials as well.

A sword like this could be an important milestone in the history of materials technology.

Re:Why a broadsword?

[Ravagin]

Right, so we should all use rapiers!
Er, no, wait, hang on...
Yes, I see your point. You're right. I just meant to point out that it's a bit more elegant, and might be more interesting to reproduce.
Hmm. Anyone want to bring back sword dueling?
===
-J

Re:Why a broadsword?

[Ravagin]

You know, you could probably make could money off of that.
===
-J

Monomolecular edges exist...

[DarkMan]

... and I can make them.

Mind you, it's not hard.

They actualy use scalpels with near monomolecular edged for surgey on eyes (removing catartacts etc), because the scars resulting from those scalpals are so fine they effectivly don't exist.

There is only one problem with these, (from a sword making point of view), and that's the fact that they are made from glasses. Normally, silicate glass, cos it's cheap and hard.

The fine edge results from the way in which the glass fractures, so as you 'chip' small piece off the edge, you form conchcoidial fractures. Repeat ofen enough, and you can get virtually 'monomolecular' [0] edges. If I recall correctly, the Aztec's were aware of this, and made knives from obsidian (volcanic glass) because they were very sharp.

Problem is toughness [1], but there are some somultions to that, such as making them into a composite.

[0] It's a glass. Molecule is an alien term to glasses (and crystals). However, if you take the term 'monomolecular' to mean about 10 atoms across, you can get that sharp with glasses.

[2] Toughness, in a material science context, means essentially fracture resistance. In other words, if you hit it with a hammer, and it doesn't break [3], it's tough, otherwise it's brittle [4].

[3] Bending is allowed. Hence metals are 'tough'

[4] Belive it or not, this is a definition that is actually used (ie Charpy impact test).

Re:Monomolecular edges exist...

[latro]

umm...Snow Crash anyone? Of course, it's just a book and you should really just relax, but still, the glass blades are in there.Nice to know there is some basis.

-------

Re:Why a broadsword?

[ACK!!]

Your rapier arguement is well-taken and that is why the author did not list the weapon alone and mentioned the longsword and other lighter blades. A good swordsmen learns many techniques and just for the reason you listed many learned how to re-direct as opposed to blocking a large blade directly. This seems limiting but it is fairly easy when you get a person swinging a heavy blade around in slash and hack motions.

There is a logical reason why lighter swords and sabres (lighter versions of the usual hacker swords) came to dominate a landscape of warfare that had not see a gun come on the scene for dominance. The reason is quite simple, the knights were getting poked with smaller blades left and right. The whole reason lighter blades came into use is the fact that people began to realize (despite what fantasy fans like to think) that it is easier to poke a knight through the cracks in the armor than it is to hack through it.

In reponse the armor became better, the cracks were smaller and either you had to have pike formations and very skilled swordsmen (longbowmen helped too :->) or the knights on armor would rip your ranks apart. It is not a very macho or elegant weapon but the pike formations and not the rise of the gunpowder spelled the real doomed to the mounted knights in armor.

Dorks

[toyboat]

I used to work in a store at the mall. We sold all different kinds of knives.. some good quality knives (Benchmade, Spyderco, Cold Steel, Boker) and some different swords. These swords were all junk. Some barely could keep from falling apart when handled.

But still, the same type of people would come in every day. Long haired, black trench coats, unshaven. Usually with the same type of girl friend. Big fat girls dressed all sexy because the fantasy life of AOL's chat rooms have led them to believe they are beautiful.

They would ask to see some cheap ass sword, and I would hand it to them knowing already what comes next.. then they would swing it all around, and stare down the blade, and then usually hold it in two hands. They would ask all kinds of fun questions about it, like who the swordsmith is.. (usually the PROC), and if it was "battle ready".

After working there a while longer, I stopped showing people like that swords, and started making up more of the answers to the questions they asked. That made me feel a little better.

Re:Why a broadsword?

[Ravagin]

I'd like to add that nothing strikes fear in the hearts of your enemies quite like a foil with a little ball of rubber on the end.
Exactly! And then you can lash them with it, leaving all sorts of delightful red marks!

...so the beauty/elegance of the piece will outweigh (pun!) its real usefulness.
Ouch. Touché.

I'm pretty sure I could take out-- or at least really annoy-- a Komodo Dragon with a mere sabre.
Yes, well, a saber is different. It lacks, among other things, the grace, elegance, and rubber ball.
===
-J

Kurgon!

[gaudior]

This sounds like the Kurgon's sword from The Highlander. The one he takes out of a case, and assembles, like a sniper rifle.

In the end, there can be only one.

--

Re:Broadsword? Not Quite

[Rand Race]

Sabres, like Katanas, are not necesarily curved. British Heavy Cavalry sabres in the Napoleonic era were strait for instance. A sabre is a single edged sword with a heavy backbone (also an apt description of a Katana, although sabres were less of a wedge generally).

There was great debate in that era concerning sabres. The curved blade made a more devastating cut against non-armored foes, but a strait blade could be used from horseback to stab a man lying prone. Strangely enough, the french did not sharpen their sabres. The reasoning being that the most common sabre blow was delivered backhand to the face of an infantryman as the cavalryman passed him. The unsharpened blade produced a hideous injury rather than killing outright, thereby taking manpower to treat the wounded.

I too have never heard 'bastard sword' used historicly, but Romans described Celtic swords as 'long swords'. But hell, most any sword is long compared to a gladius.

Ceramical cutlasses

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

I seem to recall that, in some cyberpunk novel (Sterling?) poor South Asian peasants destroy their jungles using supersharp mass-produced cheap ceramical cutlasses.
__

A Japanese tradition

[Animats]

I've seen a doctoral thesis by a Japanese metallurgy student who made a high-quality samuri sword using modern technology. This is apparently a task one takes on if you're a very good metallurgy student in Japan. The idea is to use the latest technology to better the work of the ancients, a very Japanese goal.

Sadly, I don't have a link for this.

Can you imagine...

[Seqram]

Beowulf slaying a Grendel cluster with these?

Why a broadsword?

[Ravagin]

Despite its (all too) frequent use in fantasy stuff, a broadsword is a really ungainly and (IMO) silly weapon. It is little more than a large steak knife, albeit double-edged. I guess it has its advantages in pitched battle.
But if you want a quality sword, a rapier (or longsword, or smallsword) is the way to go. I would dare to say that it requires even more skill than a broadsword, though they are different types of skill. I'd take a simple, lightweight, flexible rapier over a broadsword any day.

Of course, I guess you can't kill a dragon wih a rapier, unless it's one of Terry Pratchett's swamp dragons...
===
-J

Re:Why a broadsword?

[CausticPuppy]

Did you assume that I was talking about a rapier?

Re:Why a broadsword?

[CausticPuppy]

Epee was my favorite, but also the one I had the least amount of exposure to.
Adding the lower half of the body as a valid target made for some very interesting matches, as well as a few welts on my ankles!
I never got really used to electric fencing. Mainly because the equipment we had was a bit finnicky-- sometimes it missed a valid hit.
(That's my story and I'm sticking to it.)

and whispers of..

[denshi]

a router sends packets in Doriath...

Why ACK?

[CausticPuppy]

I took a 2 years of fencing in college, and I've done foil, sabre, and epee, including a little bit at the atlanta fencing club and a demo session for ACOG (Atlanta's olympic games committee in '96). In fact it's the only sport I've done that I really enjoyed.

Unfortunately I haven't done much since graduating (nearly 4 years ago) but I'd take it up again if there was a fencing club close by.

armor?

[latro]

Wouldn't want to have an epee, foil, or saber (or rapier) in my hand when going up against steel armor.

-------

Can they mass produce this?

[onyxruby]

Can they mass produce a blade like this? The benefits are far beyond the obvious (hey I own a couple of swords myself). There is carry over the more practical and widely used pocket knife. There is a also carry over to make cutting tools for industry. If you can make a better cutting tool, it has far more applications than most people ever realize. Mining machines, logging, industry, even on the nano level. Besides everything else, this is cool and I want one.

Damascus Steel

[dickens]

While we're at Britannica read this:

Damascus Steel (Britannica)

Broadsword? Not Quite

[J05H]

The sword that these predictive-materials geeks are building is actually a "long sword" or a "bastard sword", not a broadsword. A broadsword has one edge, and is straight or slightly curved, with a small basinet. Think of the swords in the US Marine ads - that's a broadsword.
Aside from that little snafu in terminology, this seems like a great project. That sword reminds me of the "artifacts" from D+D, unique and very powerful. Using meteoric iron is cool, there have been blades throughout history made from it, and there is a scientific basis for it being a good material to work with: the metals in meteors tend to be very pure, of pure iron or alloyed iron and nickel.
I wonder how much that beasty is going to go for at auction?