The first form (fig. 118) is the wedge that would be produced
by taking for base the dorsal thickness of an ordinary blade, and by
continuing it in an even line to the apex of the triangle—the point.
The two sides meet at an angle of nine degrees; consequently the edge
lacks the thickness, weight, and strength necessary for every cutting
tool. For soft substances it should range from ten to twenty degrees,
as in the common dinner knife. An angle of twenty-five to thirty-five
degrees, being the best for wood-working, is found in the carpenter’s
plane and chisel. For cutting bone the obtuseness rises to forty
degrees, and even to ninety; the latter being the fittest for shearing
metals, and the former for Sword-blades, which must expect to meet with
hard substances. But even an angle of forty degrees will be ineffectual
upon a thick head, unless the cut be absolutely true. No. 2 illustrates
the angle of resistance (forty degrees) and the entering angle (ninety
degrees). No. 3 shows that the true wedge of forty degrees is too thick
and heavy for use, requiring some contrivance for lightening the blade,
while preserving the necessary angle of resistance. The remaining
sections display the principal modes of effecting this object. In
Nos. 4 and 6 the angle is carried in a curved and bulging line, thus
giving the section a bi-convex form. When the back or base is flat
this is the Persian and Khorásáni, vulgarly called the ‘Damascus
blade.’ When baseless and two-edged it is the old ‘Toledo’ rapier—two
shallow-crowned arches meeting (3_a_, fig. 124). In both cases the
weapon is strong, but somewhat overweighted. In the next shapes (Nos.
5 and 7), the two sides are cut away to a flat surface and represent
the ‘Talwár’ of India. When this flat surface is hollowed, as by the
black lines of No. 5 (compare No. 8), we have the bi-concave section,
as opposed to the bi-convex. This hollowing of the wedge into two broad
grooves from the angle of resistance is one of the forms assumed by the
English ‘regulation’ Sword: it was considered the lightest for a given
breadth and thickness, but it is by no means the strongest, and there
are sundry technical objections to it.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account