To Timo Nieminen and Kronkew. I also anderstand the basic physics. After all, this is no rocket science. But this does not explain everything. A cutting blade should have a balance between strength, flexibility and cutting power. The question is whether specific blades fit their specific purpose. Beams are made to absorb lateral forces, while cutting tools are generally made to absorb forces parallel to the sides of the blade (although bad hit can exert lateral force too). A blade that has thick and stiff spine will have less cutting power and less flexibility, while a thin blade will cut better, but might brake more easily. I personally think that ethnographic weapons take their shape mostly from tradition and esthetics and less so from function. Can you explain the fantastic shapes of oceanic clubs by their function? Can you explaing the totally different geometries of Ottoman kilij and Persian shamshir by different in their use? I can't.
Just as anecdote: when I was young, I worked in a banana plantation for sevral years. Instead of machete, we used Victorinox butcher knives of the largest size available. Why? Because their cutting power is far superior and you could do much more work in a day. However, they did brake occationally and were expensive to replace.
|