[quote author=Fu-Kwun Hwang link=topic=1409.msg5311#msg5311 date=1263479204]
The use of bow stabilizers can greatly increase your accuracy.
Stabilizers will help balance out the weight of your bow and also help reduce the bow movement once the bow is shot.
Most of the stabilizers on the market today can also help reduce vibration and noise, resulting in better shot placement.
I found an article: [url=http://www.worldacademicunion.com/journal/SSCI/SSCIvol02no01paper01.pdf]Modeling and Computer Simulation of Bow Stabilization in the Vertical Plane[/url].
More references are found:
[url=http://www.tenzone.u-net.com/Equipment/stabilisation/pdfs/stab4a4.pdf]Controlling Bow Behaviour with Stabilisers[/url]
Please let me know: Can we use the information/model described in the above articles.
There is another article
[b]Identification of the bow stabilization mechanism by numerical simulation of the laminar asymmetric flow of a viscous incompressible fluid past a cylinder with a projecting disk [/b]
at http://www.springerlink.com/content/n331m37568151544/ but I was not able to view it.
I have the article by Ellison but have not previously seen the first paper.
While Ellisons approach to the subject is (overall) fairly good, the conclusions he makes are however somewhat biased towards the use of Torque Flight Commpensators (TFCs). TFCs are basically flexible rubber mountings attached to the bow to which the stabiliser rods are mounted and these effectively make the stabiliser rods 'flexible' which, I believe, is what the other author is referring to in his paper on stabilisation using flexible rods in the vertical plane.
TFCs were introduced because it was found the natural 'bendiness' of fairly rigid stabiliser rods tended to kill some of the vibration after the arrow was released and many archers thus thought that the principle function of stabilisers was to kill vibrations. TFCs were thus introduced simply to enhance the vibration damping effect.
however, the rubber mounting effectively negates the ability of the stabiliser masses (on the ends of the stabiliser rods) to resist torque about the vertical axis in a timely manner (there is a delay while the rubber is being compressed) and the rotational inertia of the stabiliser is then effectively isolated. (Ellison does make a small reference to this in his paper)
But the fact is that [b]TFCs are no longer in common use![/b] They are 'old school'. Most top archers now favour using stabiliser rods as rigid as possible, the few that still use rubber to dampen vibration now use very hard rubber "weights" (known as "doinkers") on the outer ends of the stabiliser rods to supplement the mass of the metal stabiliser masses.
Ellison does also make some reference to a conclusion that movement in the horizontal plane is 'under the control of the archer'. This is not quite correct, the ~ 10 Hz muscular tremor is a natural muscular function that simply cannot be controlled, likewise, the natural frequency of rotation of the bow (~ 1-2 Hz) about a vertical axis cannot be controlled by the archer while aiming, there is a (roughly) one second delay between perception of a wobble and the archers response to control the wobble.
After moving the bow to an aiming position the natural frequency of the bow sets it oscillating slightly, this motion is damped after 2 to 3 seconds by small frictional forces between the archers bow-hand and the bow-grip (the bow sits loosely in the "V" between thumb and forefinger and it is not "gripped"). The sight extends out past the bow and the archer sees this oscillation as a left-right motion "of the bow" - if they do not wait for friction to act and attempt to control the motion themselves they inevitably make things worse by introducing a "wobble".
We are only looking at motion in the horizontal plane at this point in time