The Voynich Ninja

They are very detailed drawings, even the ridges on the crank shaft are drawn. Two of them have the nut significantly behind the trigger.

It's not practical and very difficult to engineer (at the time). Direct contact between the trigger and nut is simple and effective. Indirect contact weakens the shaft, requires tunneling out the shaft, and is not as reliable in terms of loosing the cord.

Maybe they existed by the late 15th century (the manuscript is c. 1475 to c. 1500). Maybe they are drawn wrong. I don't know. I do know this would have been very difficult to construct in the early 15th century or earlier, bows from that time that have survived (there are very few) are pretty primitive. The Chinese ones are more sophisticated but they have a significantly different design.

Yeah and also, then you've got a trigger bar, why on earth would you want to move the trigger further down the shaft?

On the other hand though, look at the guy who's aiming. It almost looks like all the metal is connected: the bow, stirrup and trigger bar, side plates. Might this explain the construction?

[attachment=2256]

The BNF Lat. bows are pretty sophisticated. Cranks were uncommon in earlier bows (they existed, but not in high numbers), and the arm of the earlier bows was usually wood or composite material, not metal. More things were possible once they got better at metal fabrication.

But even the very finely crafted bows of the 17th and 18th centuries didn't have the trigger 2" ahead of the nut, maybe 1/2" or an inch at the most in rare instances, but not 2". It's just not practical.

In this 11th century drawing, you can see a bolt has been put through the shaft to secure the trigger to the contact point of the nut:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

This one is thought to be from the 14th century. It's quite primitive and the trigger is some distance behind the nut, but the distance is fairly natural if you consider the direction the nut turns when the trigger is depressed. If you reverse positions, so the nut is behind the trigger, it requires a reverse-mechanism that fights the natural direction in which the nut needs to roll to release the cord and is more complicated:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Late 15th century, wooden crossbar:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.


Drawing of metal parts, very detailed, even details of the nut are shown (c. 1500 to c. 1503) BNF Lat 255 f 78v:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.



early or mid-15th century, one with a wooden crossbar:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

The metal arms gradually start showing up in drawings in the mid- to late- 15th century. I'm not sure exactly when they started making metal arms in quantity. I glanced through my files and couldn't find any metal arms in the early 15th century but that doesn't mean they didn't exist (and I looked quickly so I don't know if I missed any). Even if they did, the trigger was usually placed the same as wooden and composite bows.


There may have been a renaissance of innovation in crossbows in the c. mid 1500s (mostly the metal parts), but whether that was early enough to influence the VMS drawings, I don't know. If I see anything else of relevance, I'll post.

The basic location of the trigger closer to the spearhead of the arrow is possible.
The first scheme is simple. But with it the process of preparing for shooting is the reverse. When charging, it is necessary to strongly fix the trigger to the butt. And at shooting it is necessary to lower the trigger. For accurate shooting, you need to use two hands.
The second scheme is a bit more complicated. But I do not see its advantages in comparison with the classical arrangement. In addition, instead of the shown spring, an additional wedge (fuse) is required.
To get rid of the additional wedge, it is necessary to move the nut lock to position "A". But at the same time, as, said JKP, the design will be very difficult, since it will take 2 to 3 more rockers  (reciprocating-lever). And I again do not see any advantages.
[attachment=2257]

I always find it helpful to see diagrams.


But I have a question, Wladimir, starting with the simple diagram...


Usually triggers are squeezed toward the stock. In this diagram, with the trigger in front of the nut, if you squeeze toward the stock, it would push up against the nut and rotate it clockwise. Wouldn't that tighten the nut against the cord instead of releasing it?

I simplified the scheme a little. Of course you need a limiter (green).
[attachment=2258]

In the detail I posted earlier, the trigger bar appears to be shaped in such a way to create a lever against the stock, which would, as I see it, result in an increased downward pull (second arrow from the right).



Wouldn't this result in a change of the inner mechanism?

There was a zodiac tradition of drawing 'opposites' to show the aspects of the sign. I've written about it elsewhere on the forum.

There was an eastern tradition of mirroring the constellations to show how they would look from the earth and also how they would look if you were "out there" looking in, but I don't know if that idea was ever applied to specific details on a single image.

Are we in agreement that the image I received should move "legs on tail" from unique to rare for the lobster?



Universitätsbibliothek Salzburg
M II 180
Medizinisch-naturwissenschaftliche Sammelhandschrift
Papier · 215 Bl. · 284 x 214 · Elsaß, 1438/1440