|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boomerang article.|
|Boomerang has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Technology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Please improve the sources if you can.
This article was evaluated following the Guidelines of WikiProject Timeline Tracer.
Please remove this message only after the article has been corrected.
- 1 Not for hunting
- 2 Some comments
- 3 Comment moved from article
- 4 layout
- 5 boomerang usage
- 6 Some minor changes
- 7 Oldest moomerang
- 8 Incorrect use of term force in design section
- 9 References
- 10 Links to "Boomerangman"
- 11 Long Distance Boomerangs
- 12 Boomerangs in Popular Culture.
- 13 "well-behaved" boomerangs
- 14 Boomerang Flight Diagram on front page of article
- 15 Boomerang in space
- 16 Boomerang in space
- 17 Airfoils
- 18 Sources for World Records
- 19 Throwing technique
- 20 Bad Physics
- 21 Boomerang bullets ;)
- 22 Etymology
- 23 Boomerang associated with Australia
- 24 External Link with "funny video"
- 25 History
- 26 Nano Edit
- 27 flying ring is not a boomerang, as far as I can tell.
- 28 "Boomerang (Australia)"
Not for hunting
Never used for hunting? Can this be true? Is the whole idea of a (returning) boomerang not to be able to throw it into a flock of birds and if you don't hit one, then it comes back so you can have another go? Tannin 11:53 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)
very much so. it was, as now, almost entirely an object of recreation.
its true- there was apparently very little use of a returning boomerang for hunting.
I have witnessed a large boomerang at a tournament hit a sparrow, a very small bird. The boomerang fell from the sky and the bird flew on. Not what you would want for hunting birds.--126.96.36.199 19:00, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How large? Some boomerangs were designed for hunting roo's. Very large boomerangs had heavy ends to them, were made of hard wood, and were not designed to return but to hover horizontally low to ground and clip animals legs. Returning boomerangs were also used to hunt but not as weapons, as a draw to scare birds towards a hunting pack, who would be armed with nets, spears, or both, and would ambush a bird flock scared towards them by the flightpath of a returning boomerang.
A stick that is extremely heavy, hovers horizontally close to the ground, and does not return is NOT a boomerang. It is a hunting stick, sometimes also called a kylie or rabbit stick or many other names. A boomerang is not a boomerang unless it boomerangs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemolithoautotroph (talk • contribs) 19:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
About Hunting: For the last time, for all time: a "boomerang" is usually small, lightweight (40-100 grams), highly recurved (angled) but in all cases returns to the thrower when properly thrown. The foils, such as they are, are usually all oriented "up," that is, they create lift all towards the same side, or face, of the boomerang. This lift contributes to the "turn" and layover that characterizes the returning flight path of a boom. A "throwstick" (only informally or very loosely ever referred to as a 'boomerang') is typically heavy (800-1800 grams), large, gently recurved, and is emphatically not intended to return to the thrower. The foils on a throwstick, even less well defined that on a proper boom, are very often directed one up and one down, so that the lift generated oscillates in flight, and does not produce the "turn" in flight, but a very gentle, nearly straight flight, sometimes curving low then higher, sweeping along the ground, creating a wide swath to hit prey.
In the 1920's, a "Great White Hunter" (Robelson, or the like) *paid* some indigenous Australians to use poorly-made returning boomerangs to "recreate" hunting scenes for a camera, which was silly, because the people he hired did not have a tradition of making returning booms, only throwsticks. They obliged by following his orders, setting up "traps" whose designs apparently arose de novo in the mind of "The Boss," according to his extensive experience hunting with any and all weapons. Despite this charade, there have been no recorded cases of any indigenous Australians (or any other peoples) intentionally using returning boomerangs for actual hunting as a part of their actual culture or traditions. Throwsticks, yes, for game (and believe it or not, for fish), but not the returners.
And, BTW, copies of the throwing objects from King Tut's tomb (and other Egyptian sources) make great throwsticks, but lousy returners. There is even a contemporaneous Egyptian mural showing a typical throwstick hit to the neck of a goose. The ancient Polish mammoth "boomerang" is a great throwstick, too, as shown by experiments with accurate copies.
Hopefully this puts the "returning boomerang as weapon" to bed for good. Just for the record, as a young idiot I tried to throw returning boomerangs near, then at, both killdeer and bats. The animals not only easily dodged every toss (and some booms were nicely thrown, and fast, too) but they *literally* flew rings around my best booms, and shamed me from ever hoping to hit anything alive with one. Bats, especially, love tribladers, maybe because the blade pass frequency is so close to the wingbeat frequencies of big moths. The bats would dodge in, swing around, and follow the booms down quite a-ways. Go ahead, throw your best booms at anything that flies. Really. You can almost hear the little things laughing at you. They are safe from you.
I am not a boomerang expert but I have been making and throwing boomerangs since 1985. I have mostly made and thrown the traditional two-armed boomerangs but occasionally done other shapes too. I have some comments on boomerangs that I like to share. Note that these comments mainly apply to the traditional two-armed boomerangs. I might get around to work these comments into the article someday. But perhaps someone else will do that for me? Anyway, for now, here goes:
Boomerangs are usually propeller shaped just as the article says. That is, the wings are slightly "twisted". But it is a common misconception that a boomerang has to be airfoil shaped. We usually do make them airfoil shaped since at-least in theory that gives them slightly more airtime. But if you ever tried to throw an airfoil shaped boomerang upside down (round surface outwards/down) you should have noticed that it flies just as good or almost as good. So airfoil shape is just an added luxury and in no way necessary.
- you are quite simply incorrect, in most cases throwing a boomerang "upside down (round surface outwards/down)" as you say will result in the boomerang crashing hard. Unless it is a boomerang intended for near vertical delivery, or unless you make corrections in your delivery or unless your 'airfoil' is not very aerodynamic... They can however be thrown from either end without much affecting the flight. Pedant 19:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- Most upside down boomerangs have a reversible airfoil that is used for trick catch / team relay boomerangs. One side of the boom flies rather high and tends to hover, the other side creates a low flying fairly fast circle. Tibor 23 May 2007
Right-handed / left-handed boomerangs
A boomerang is made either for right handed throwers or for left handed throwers. A right-handed boomerang when thrown the normal way turns left. And of course a left-handed boomerang turns right. Trying to throw a boomerang with the wrong hand is almost impossible since the correct throwing angle then gets very awkward. So sorry all you left handed people out there, you can not throw the same boomerangs as the rest of us throw. (On the other hand, we can not throw yours.)
Why boomerangs return
As the article says, intuitively it is not especially strange that a rotating object does have a bent flight path. But why a boomerang is turning the way it does is actually still a scientific mystery. (At-least it was last time I checked.) Lot's of people and even aerodynamic engineers have tried to come up with an explanation. However if you check the explanations that people usually come up with you will notice they imply that a boomerang would turn in the other direction. But empirical evidence shows all those explanations are wrong. Some aerodynamic researchers have even spent a whole lot of valuable supercomputer time on the problem but still could not explain it. We who make boomerangs of course by experience know what shapes cause more or less turn etc. But no one knows why, yet. Personally I find it rather nice that such a simple device as a boomerang still can not be explained by science.
- A scientific mystery? You clearly are an ignorant. It is way simpler than you think, your proble is that you're too stupid to understand actual explanations of aerodynamics and prefer to look at sources that show it as a mystery because they are easy to understand... of course, all they say is that it is a mystery. For f*ck sake, we have put people on the Moon and sent machines to the surface of Mars and you think this is a challenge for modern science? Wow, you really are an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- again, no, the Klutz book on boomerangs shows a mathematical model of a boom in flight, and it corresponds well to the timelapse photo of an actual boomerang. For any given airfoil/weight/size/etc. there is a specific way that the forces interact in flight. It's just hard to generalise to a formula, because of so many variables, including how it is thrown. As you point out below, the flight is a figure-8, on one end it's flight turns right, at the other end it turns left. Pedant 19:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Look at the wings as they rotate, and it is easy to understand. The "airspeed" of the wings when they are at the top is forward velocity plus rotational velocity. The airspeed of the wings when they are down is forward velocity minues rotational velocity. The wings generate the most lift when they are vertical pointing up, and the least when they are veritical pointing down. Just like a bicycle wheel, if you have a spinning boomerang, and you torque it with more force at the top, then the right hand rule in physics says it will turn 90 out of phase with that torque. That's the quick and easy answer, the full principals build off of that. It is possible for a boomerang to lose all forward velocity, at which point there is no torque, and the boomerang hovers down. A figure 8 (also called "s'ing out") at the end indicates that the boomerang needs some tuning or work. Trick catch boomerangs always get to a no forward velocity hover - how else could people do hand-stand foot catches?
How boomerangs fly
It is a common misconception that a boomerang flies in a circle. But it doesn't! A boomerang actually flies in an 8 shape! Although usually it comes back to us after the first half of the 8 shape so we only see the first "circle". If your boomerang is good enough (is able to retain enough energy / rotating energy) and you throw it well enough it will pass over your head after the first "circle" and then start turning in the other direction in another "circle" and then come back to you from your back. It seems it would continue to do the 8 shape if it could retain enough energy. But most boomerangs usually "fall out of the sky" due to energy loss already after the first "circle". Air resistance is a bitch. It seems the reason it does a 8 is that while doing it's "circle" it slowly tips over and eventually that makes it turn in the other direction. But as you should know by now, trying to explain why a boomerang flies as it does is not for us mere mortals.
- except for the last sentence this is quite correct, a boomerang will continue to fly in figure eights until the pattern's precession turns enough that the wind is coming from the wrong direction relative to the boomerang's flight... or of course, when the boomerang runs out of either rotational speed or airspeed. Pedant 19:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
- actually, you can have all sorts of different flight path with a boomerang. figure nines that stay stable and hover are very common in trick catch boomerangs. Real out there and back boomerangs not even attempting to make a circle are used for long distance boomerangs. Low wind fast catch boomerangs never return horizontally and therefore if thrown really hard make a second circle, not a figure 8 at all. Tibor, 23 May 2007
Boomerangs do come back. And they are pointy and rotate fast. They hurt a lot when they hit you. And if they hit you in the eye that eye might be destroyed. So here is some safety advice for the first time boomerang thrower and for any one else standing close to boomerangs being thrown:
1: Boomerangs are destroyed if they hit anything hard like asphalt. And boomerangs tend to get stuck in trees. And they are very good at smashing windows. So boomerangs need a lot of space, especially if thrown by beginners. So you need a big lawn. An empty football field or similar usually is ideal.
2: Watch out for birds, dogs and other people before you throw. You don't want to hurt anyone / anything else, do you? Note that a boomerang thrown by a beginner might turn upward and then come straight down at high speed BEHIND the thrower. So the proper place for onlookers to stand is some distance behind the thrower. Not in front, not on the side and not close behind of the thrower.
3: Professional throwers and beginners usually try to catch the boomerang. But that tends to hurt the hands a lot, especially if the boomerang is heavy. Personally I like it to land in front of my feet.
4: Boomerangs move in a weird way. It takes time to become familiar with how boomerangs move. Beginners that try to step out of the way of incoming boomerangs often step into the way of them instead. But keep on trying to step out of the way, eventually you will learn. Pain does seem to speed up learning...
5: The most dangerous spot the boomerang can hit on the body is the eyes. So that is the part you want to protect at all cost. Although a hit anywhere else on your body does hurt a lot that usually causes no critical injuries. Even a lost tooth can be fixed. But a lost eye can not be fixed. So to protect the eyes is the first priority. However the two intuitive ways to protect the eyes do not work. Stepping out of the way often fails for beginners. Reaching out the hand in the air and trying to stop the boomerang also fails. That is due to that humans tend to put the hand towards the rotating centre of the boomerang. But if you look at the shape of a two-armed boomerang you will notice that the rotating centre is in mid air, not in mid wood. So the boomerang usually just slips past your "protecting" hand and straight into your face.
But there are two easy and well working ways to protect your eyes from an incoming boomerang. And both methods protect the mouth fairly well at the same time. The easiest way is to simply turn your back towards it. Sure, a hit in the back hurts a lot, but it usually is not dangerous. The other good way is to cover your eyes with the palm of your hands. Note that the normal way to cover eyes that most people use does not work well enough. (That is, to put the fingers over the eyes and the palms resting on the upper part of the cheeks.) Since a boomerangs pointy end can slip between the protecting fingers. Instead put your hands slightly higher so it is the palm of the hand that covers the eyes. A boomerang can not pass through a palm.
So what I usually do is to first try to step out of the way, if that fails I prefer to cover my eyes. Since covering the eyes is quicker then turning the back towards it. Of course I start raising my hands towards the boomerang / face already as I start stepping out of the way. So stepping out of the way is a good reflex, what you need to keep in mind is how to use your hands properly.
Well, I hope this did not scare anyone off from trying boomerangs. They are great fun so do try them!
--Davidgothberg 19:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- that safety advice is good, but can be simplified: the boomerang can strike anything within several hundred feet of the thrower. It can break or hurt anything it hits, and can get caught in any tree within sight. I have personally seen a boomerang land nearly half a mile from the thrower.
an area LARGER than a footbal field would be best for a beginner. The best boomerang tournament I attended was held on a sod farm, several miles of lawn in all directions. Just remember that you are the target, and try to learn with an inexpensive boomerang, preferably made of 'softer' material than wood or carbon composite or aluminum. Pedant 19:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I just read in the German Wikipedia article about boomerangs that since the Kylie (hunting boomerang / throwing stick / non-returning boomerang) can be thrown very far with great precision the Australian army during World War I were equipped with "boomerang hand grenades". Guess that is the most dangerous boomerang ever invented.
--Davidgothberg 1 July 2005 06:36 (UTC)
- Gosh I hope you deleted it (tho it IS funny) MinorEdit 06:58, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment moved from article
This comment was placed in the main article by User:184.108.40.206:
"The "Design" section of this article needs serious help"
Sarah Ewart 01:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, very poorly written.
this article would look a lot better if the design section were moved up above the "competiton" section Bueller 007 22:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
I've added a "citation required" tag to the "History" section, which currently states that there "is little to no evidence that returning boomerangs were ever used as hunting tools". If so, then then there needs to be something further on what they were used for. Right now it merely says generally that boomerangs and other hunting sticks also had religious and recreational uses. If, as stated, Australian Aborigines have used (returning) boomerangs for thousands of years, there should be some indication of for what purpose, if it wasn't hunting. Hopefully someone can clear this section up. - David Oberst 17:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Some minor changes
In the Competitions and records:events section, it says 'Aussie Round: Boomerangs are thrown from the center of a bullseye...', shouldn't it be 'centre' given that this is an Australian article. If no one objects, I'll change this myself.
Secondly, in the Trivia section, it says 'The boomerang sport in Brazil is growing fast with many news: special plywood created for boomerangs (BWoods), Kellogg's company inserting five million boomerangs in cereal boxes, and the First Pan-American Championship set for August 2005'. The 'news' seems out of place. Perhaps whoever wrote that could review it.
Thanks, --Colourblind 05:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Changed the spelling of 'center' to 'centre'. Not sure what to do about the Trivia section, so I will it as is. --Colourblind 00:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Oldest boomerang was found in Poland. This information can be found:
I believe it is properly a throwstick, not a boomerang per se, based on it's size, weight, material (ivory), shape (planiform and foils), and based on experiments performed on copies of the artifact. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Incorrect use of term force in design section
Lift and drag are forces, but speed and rotational inertia are not. The article states: "forces of lift, drag, speed, rotational inertia etc. 'attempt' to reach equilibrium". Perhaps someone who knows about boomerangs could clarify this statement. Thanks, Adam4445 00:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
While I'll admit this section is bloated and often obscure, I must point out that 2 prominent ones are missing: Cham Cham from Samurai Spirits and that Simpsons episode with the immortal line "that throwing-stick stunt of yours has boomeranged on us!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
Links to "Boomerangman"
For the second time, I'm removing a link to a site called "The Boomerangman", . The first time it was clearcut: the link was to the site's front page, and the site simply looked like a boomerang sales outlet.
This time, it's less clearcut, so I feel the need to explain myself, and I'd be glad if the anonymous editor would chime in: I could be persuaded.
The new link was to an internal page on the same site, . This page actually has some information, but in my not-always-reliable opinion, the purpose is mostly to talk up the lines of boomerangs that this vendor sells. The page has links to the site's catalogs and sales forms. In addition, the page has a few typos, no external references, and just doesn't seem very scholarly. All of this is a judgement call, and as I said I'm willing to be persuaded the other way. I'd appreciate other opinions.
On the other hand, if the anonymous editor returns and simply restores the link without actually answering these concerns, I will feel much less guilty about removing the link. ACW 22:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Long Distance Boomerangs
I have quite an extensive knowledge about long distance boomerangs (say boomerangs that go out 100m and more and return accuratly). Now I have put up a web site www.baggressive.com with lots of information about this very specific topic and I have also written a book about this very specific topic. Is it sensible to put my link and book onto the page, should I forget about it or even try to start a new page about 'long distance boomerangs'? I would like some guidance. AgentFish 21 June 2007
- It's all about objectivity. Much as your website would be useful for other people interested in knowing more about long distance boomerangs, as a rule Wikipedia is not about promoting your own interests. And especially if there is a commercial interest behind adding a link, it will get reomved pretty quickly. If you put up things about yourself or your own website that is not objective. If someone who has nothing to do with you feels this is of common interest in the true sense of wikipedia, they may do so. But everything is self-policed and moderated, so even if someone does it about you, it could get removed if it's not within the spirit of "The Free Encyclopedia". BuzzWoof 15:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I will refrain then. However, I added a citation to the plans on my site, in the design section AgentFish 22 November 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 18:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Boomerangs in Popular Culture.
- Because it's a trivial reference, that does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of Boomerangs. --Eyrian 00:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
A lot has been said about boomerangs, but they are in general complicated. I would be happy to contribute to this article if you're interested in looking at what I call the "well-behaved" boomerang. There are several levels of behaviour: The first is one that does indeed return in a circle, but this requires no gravity, no drag and certain perfect aerodynamic properties. The second is a spiral path with layover. I'd be happy to write about this. Most indoor boomerangs behave like this, and they are easy to make.
I have some info at http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~hemh/boomerangs.htm which I think could be useful. It is not commercial in any way.
Also, I think it is essential that the boomerang article has a link to the wiki gyroscope page - after all, gyro effects are key to the behavious of boomerangs.
I'm new to wikipedia so please forgive me if I am doing all this the wrong way.
Hughhunt 19:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Hugh Hunt, Cambridge University
Boomerang Flight Diagram on front page of article
The flight diagram shown on the front page of the boomerang article appears to be erroneous. It shows a right-handed throw traveling in basically a clockwise (in plan view) direction, which is totally opposite from any boomerang I ever threw or saw thrown by a right-hander. I've been making and throwing boomerangs for over 25 years (I'm a lefty, BTW), and should by now know what I'm talking about. This diagram is simply wrong. If another of you boomerangers out there has a correct illustration, you should replace the one here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
126.96.36.199 (talk) The flight diagram is worse than wrong: no boom ever behaves like that, because the trajectory is physically impossible. Anyone who bet on that diagram is risking injury to property, self or others. What does one need to do to get a couple of any of the numerous accurate images of flight paths posted to this page? Some of these must be public domain... I could capture a long-exposure of my own booms and release it under Creative Commons, Gnu, whatever. Guidelines anyone?
Yes, the above is true, I came to this page to make the very same recommendation after looking at the diagram. I have thrown only right handed boomerangs and they do travel counterclockwise, and yes, the trajectory would be impossible even for a left handed boomerang. I would fix the diagram if I could, but the only thing I can do is delete it, and I will do so. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- See this deletion request at Commons. I don't know whether it's right or wrong. Someone else ought to pursue this to an appropriate resolution. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Boomerang in space
 Not sure if it is worth mentioning that they have the same behavior with or without gravity. -20:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Noticed the addition to the article, checked link, and was non-plussed. But then realized they must have meant inside the station, in the air. If you could find an article that explicitly stated that I'd sure feel better. Small things like how small the boomerang was would be nice, but explicitly saying they didn't throw it towards Japan while outside and it returned would help the hair on my neck relax! Shenme (talk) 05:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I am also a little confused by this news article. As far as I know, there isn't nearly enough space inside the ISS (inside the artificial atmosphere)to throw a boomerang and have it return. The throw must have taken place outside, in the (near) vacuum of space. Throwing a boomerang while wearing the spacesuit, and even being allowed to do something like that seems a little strange to me. The journalism in the piece isn't very good. As far as I know, a boomerang should return in a vacuum as well, though. As I understand it, the reason for making the boomerang airfoil-shaped is just to be able to gain more height and distance with it, as the air has no effect on the flight path. I might be completely wrong, though. Oom Kosie (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Boomerang flight has nothing to do with gravity, it is purely aerodynamic, meaning they do not return in a vacuum or near vacuum. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13525-does-a-boomerang-thrown-in-space-return-to-its-pitcher.html?feedId=online-news_rss20 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I also opine that the cited supporting source would be more useful if it explicitly stated that the boomerang was thrown inside the ISS. That was implied, though — it does say that Doi threw the boomerang "during his free time". There's a more verbose article here which says, "The boomerang that was used in the experiment on board the ISS was [...] a small, tri-blade boomerang intended for use indoors in a small area or outdoors in light winds. It travels 5 to 8 feet before returning to the thrower.". There's also an informative article here which does a good job of explaining boomerang physics (capsulization: the spinning blades produce the most lift when they're advancing in the direction of flight; they advance in the direction of flight in the upper half of the spin plane; this produces a force which would tilt the boomerang to the left; gyroscopic precession converts this into a turn to the left instead of a tilt to the left). -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Right back at'cha! :-) It turns out the article you referenced did explicitly say what we wanted:
- "This test was done inside a pressurized module of the ISS."
- So we've got that the boomerang returned when throw in the air while weightless. And something to look forward to:
- "A videotape of the experiment performed during the STS-123 mission will likely be released in the near future."
- Thanks for finding this reference. Shenme (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Right back at'cha! :-) It turns out the article you referenced did explicitly say what we wanted:
220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC) No air = no lift = no precession = so no boomerang return. Even if the stunt could have been arranged, a boom thrown in a vacuum would continue to orbit the Earth (with the added eccentricity imparted to it by the astronaut). Basic physics, friends.
Boomerang in space
Shall we add that on March 18th 2008, for the first time, a boomerang was thrown in microgravity inside the ISS? The test, operated by Endeavour Japanese astronaut Takoa Doi and requested by boomerang specialist Yasuhiro Togai, proved that boomerang do fly back in microgravity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 26 March 2008
No, it was not the first time. It was not even the second time a boomerang was thrown in microgravity. First time was by German astronaut Ulf Meerbold aboard Spacelab (1992), second time by French Astronaut Jean-François Clervoy on Mire (1997). see: http://www.flight-toys.com/boomerang/boomnews/spacebooms.html for more details. AgentFish (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
"These wings are set so that the lift created by each wing opposes the lift of the other, but at an angle such that the flight pattern is constantly shifted as the forces of lift, drag, speed, rotational inertia etc. 'attempt' to reach equilibrium, see Boomerang engineer.[clarify]" I would like to point out that speed is not a force. Speed is the rate of change in position and is a scalar. Max Crane 30/05/08. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Sources for World Records
The IFBA is maintaining all world records. http://www.ifba-online.com
the specific link to the official world record document is:
It is updated everytime a new record is thrown.
Additionally http://www.baggressive.com (my website) has a world record evolution of the long distance world records here: http://www.baggressive.com/storiesT.php?topic=116.0&message=259&ttopic=115.0&mmessage=258
I have no clue what is correct to include here at wiki so I just try to give info on the discussion page :)
AgentFish (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've corrected info in the Maximum time aloft article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
In this section, it tells a throwing technique, and the says "The other way also works..." -- Since only one way is given, what is "the other way?"
- There honestly shouldn't even be a Throwing Technique section, as per WP:NOTHOWTO. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The explanation of how boomerangs fly is completely off base. Air foils do not work based upon pressure differential created by the curvature of the surfaces -- this is a common misconception. Air foils are angled such that the lower surface deflects air downwards, while the curvature of the upper surface channels the air flow down. The downward flow of air creates an upward thrust using simple Newtonian physicals. Seantrinityohara (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- see the Airfoil article. Further discussion would be better placed on the talk page for that article, if anywhere. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Boomerang bullets ;)
Boomerang associated with Australia
The boomerang is strongly associated with Australia, so the spelling and grammar should reflect this. And looking through the page's history there seems to be a mixture of different national spellings used in the article. So I think the best solution is to use Australian spellings. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
External Link with "funny video"
The link to a page about "History of boomerangs and a funny video on how to throw them" actually seems to have copied a part of its content from wikipedia. Also, a supposedly funny video is not a reason to link a site on wikipedia. And in this case the quality of the recorded voice in the video is quite bad and the woman doesn't always hold the boomerang correctly. That said, I'll remove the link to this website. --Scartelak (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Someone inserted the following text and then removed it again. It would be interesting to have it in the article but a citation is needed:
According to the Dreaming, the first boomerang was created by the spirit Ngulajuku when he was being chased be a devil-dingo. He hid in a cave, found a broken tree and carved it into a curved shape. He then threw it and it curved around the mouth of the cave and killed the devil-dingo.
flying ring is not a boomerang, as far as I can tell.
The section on Guinness World Record distance links to an article on the world's farthest throw of a flying ring, more commonly (but incorrectly) called a Frisbee. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)