|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trebuchet article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by ClueBot III. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Counterweight has to be closer than payload
The section "Trebuchets versus torsion" says a trebuchet uses a counterweight, usually much closer to the fulcrum than the payload for mechanical advantage, though this is not necessary. First, mechanical advantage is the factor by which an applied force or torque is multiplied, whereas a trebuchet is designed to multiply speed. So it's set up to minimize mechanical advantage. Second, this arrangement is necessary if the trebuchet is to be effective. With equal arm lengths, the payload would accelerate only at g (less, to the extent that its mass is a non-negligible fraction of that of the counterweight), so it could only be thrown as high as the distance the counterweight falls. --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
King Arthur trebuchet
The King Arthur is often regarded as the most efficient trebuchet design, invented by Chris Gerow in 2001  in his efforts to compete in the Pumpkin Chunking championship. In this design, a counter-weight is not attached directly to the throwing arm. Instead, the counter-weight is fixed to the end of a lever, or hanger, that in turn is attached to the throwing arm at a rotating pin. In the cocked position, the throwing arm points nearly straight down, and the hanger points nearly up. When the the trigger is pulled, the hanger rotates on the pin, building up energy through its swing. The throwing arm, however, remains motionless until the hanger has reach an optimal point in its travel, at which point it's released, and the projectile is thrown. The advantage of this arrangement is in its efficiency; the hangar is allowed to build substantial kinetic energy before the throwing arm is released, resulting in increased acceleration.
A further refinement of this design combines the floating axle with the two-piece throwing arm and hanger.
I've removed the above from the article as quite why this particular example has been singled out is unclear. The source (a website by the people who built the trebuchet) don't explicitly make the claim about the design being efficient, and in any case that it is "often regarded as the most efficient ... design" needs to be sourced from a third party. Nev1 (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I took a minute to write the pronunciation up with reference, I see it's not needed as pronunciation is at the bottom which I didn't notice at first, but so I didn't completely waste my time, I'll paste it here in case me or someone else wants to use it or look at it later. Not that they will. Reference can only be seen in edit mode. Carlwev 19:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Manajaniq vs Manjaniq
I am informed by a person reading Arabic that المنجنيshould be Latinized as manjaniq (with one a) instead of manajaniq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrordor (talk • contribs) 14:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
In this article, traction trebuchet were used by Chinese as early as 4th century BC, used by Byzantiumc and Muslim in the late 6th century. Then this article claims hand-trebuchet was first used in around 965 AD. Someone insist hand-trebuchet is in front of traction trebuchet by "chronology". I wonder in what kind of "chronology" the event happened around 965 AD will be earlier than events happened in 4th century BC and 6th century. Moreover, the section of hand-trebuchet cited sources  . Even in these source, the traction trebuchet used in 4th century BC was in the leading paragraph and the source also firstly introduces the traction trebuchet. We should edited based on the source cited not some personal ideas from editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)