In the past, most compound archery bows have used two cams, respectively mounted on the limb tips at opposite ends of the bow to provide the means to store more energy in the draw cycle and to reduce the force necessary to hold the bowstring in the full draw position. Examples of such compound bows are disclosed in the following U.S. patents.
The early compound bows utilized cams consisting of eccentrically mounted circular shaped elements. As the desire for more stored energy and greater arrow velocities developed, special shaped cam elements were designed to provide these characteristics. These shaped cam elements, like the circular shaped elements, were mounted on the limb tips. It is well known in the art that to obtain the best bow performance, the cam elements at each end of the bow should be properly synchronized with each other. Patents disclosing various means to accomplish proper cam synchronization include the following:
The more modern compound bows have reverted back to the more simplistic design of the original U.S. Pat. No. 3,486,495 Allen patent, but the requirement for cam synchronization is still present as noted, for example, by the teachings of the following patents:
It is obvious, of course, that the use of a single cam avoids the problem of cam synchronization and, in fact, there are single cam bows known in the prior art. One such bow, popularly referred to as the “DynaBo” was invented by Len Subber. The original Dynabo design had one working limb located at the upper end of the bow handle. A single cam element was mounted on a rigid pylon at the lower end of the bow. The single cam element functioned in the same manner as the cam elements on the previously mentioned two cam bows. As the Dynabo was drawn, one track of the cam element payed out line to the bowstring which was fixed to the upper limb tip and the other track on the cam element acted as a take-up reel for a second line that was also anchored at the tip of the upper working limb.
Since there was only a single cam element, there was not a synchronization problem between two cams. There was, however, a problem is synchronizing the rate that the cam fed out cables to the bowstring at the lower end of the bow and the rate that the flexing of the upper limb feed out cable to the bowstring at the upper end as the bow was drawn. The result was a rather unpleasant feel to the bow as it was drawn and there was a drastic movement of the nocking point and the rear end of the arrow as the bow was drawn and released. This, in turn, made it very difficult to achieve good arrow flight from the bow under normal conditions. An early version of the DynaBo was described in the September 1976 edition of “Archery World” beginning at page 28.
The Dynabo single cam concept was offered in at least three different versions from as many manufacturers during the 1970's, and at least one manufacturer, Graham's Custom Bows, employed the Dynabo concept, with two working limbs. A description of the Graham bow is contained in the June/July edition of “Archery World” magazine. The Dynabo bow, however, never did become an acceptable alternative to the two cam bows and, in fact, appears to have lost whatever popularity it had achieved by the late 1970's.
Another known prior art device that had the capability of providing a solution to the previously mentioned problems of cam synchronization and synchronized box string feed out (the latter being desirable to enable the nock end of the arrow to travel in a smooth, consistent path upon draw and release of the arrow) is set forth in U.S. Pat. No. 4,562,824 issued to Jennings. This patent teaches the use of a single multiple grooved cam mounted on a pylon attached to the bow handle. The cam had one string track feeding cable attached to an idler pulley mounted in the limb tip at one end of the bow and a second track feeding line to a second idler pulley mounted in the second limb tip at the other end of the bow. The cam also has two additional tracks, each of which are taking up line while the string tracks are feeding out line to the bow string. One take-up track is taking up a line which is anchored at one limb tip while the other take-up track is taking up a line which is anchored at the opposite limb tip. Thus, the '824 patent teaches a highly complicated system, as compared to the present invention, that is composed of considerably more parts resulting in a compound bow having greater mass weight than the more conventional two cam compound bow.
A single cam bow developed by Larry D. Miller in the late 1970's or early 1980's was the subject of a U.S. patent application titled “Archery Bow Assembly” (hereinafter referred to as the “Miller application”). The Miller application discloses the use of a single pulley, having two grooves thereon for feeding out line to the bow string. The primary groove is circular and concentric with the axle of the circular pulley. The secondary groove, also circular, may be slightly eccentric for the purpose of maintaining the nocking point of the bowstring perpendicular to the handle section of the bow. A third eccentric groove carries a take-up cable to provide the entire means of compounding (i.e. achieving the desired reduction in holding weight at full draw and storage of energy).
The Miller application, the serial number of which is not known, may be considered material to the examination of the subject application.
The present invention embodies a simple, lightweight compound bow construction which solves the cam synchronization problem of two cam bows and overcomes the problems of synchronously feeding out cable to the upper and lower ends of the bowstring. The resulting bow has a smooth, desirable mocking point travel path which enables ease in matching arrows to the bow and provides consistency in performance.
A cam is eccentrically journaled at one limb end of the bow and a pulley is journaled at the other limb end of the bow. A cable passes around the pulley to form a bowstring section and a second cable section, both sections forming a dual feed single cam compound bow. The amount of feed out to both ends of the bowstring is approximately the same. One embodiment of the drop-off cam provides a large periphery cam groove and a smaller periphery cam groove which are designed to synchronize the rate of cable feed-out at both ends of the bowstring section during the drawing operation. Other embodiments of the invention are also disclosed.
An anchor cable is provided to tie the two limbs of the bow together during the flexing of the bow. The anchor cable may be fixed at one end to the axle of the concentric pulley and at the other end fixed in a groove in the cam to synchronize the flexing action of the bow limbs.
In
As shown in
A cable 22 has a medial portion trained around concentric pulley wheel 17 to form a main cable section or bowstring 22a and a secondary or return section 22b, both of which extend across the bow and terminate at the cam 18. The ends 22c and 22d of the two sections 22a and 22b are respectively received in grooves 18b and 18c of the cam 18. The end 22c and 22d of the sections 22a and 22b are anchored to the cam 18 as by the cable anchor pins 19a and 19b fixed in said cam 18, as best shown in FIG. 3. In the form shown, three anchor pins 19a are provided to permit adjustment of the effective length of cable 22 and bowstring 22a.
An anchor cable 25 is anchored at one end 25a to the axle 15 (see
The operation of the archery bow having the eccentric cam illustrated in
Alternative forms of the invention are illustrated in
Another alternative form of the cam is illustrated in
The embodiment of the cam shown in
Feed out section 22a, as best seen in
The embodiment of the cam shown in
Feed out section 22a, as best seen in
The embodiment of the cam shown in
Feed out section 22a, as best seen in
It has been found that a desirable approach to designing the grooves in the cam is to initially have the groove which receives bowstring 22a (the “primary groove”) be approximately twice the peripheral size of the groove which receives the bowstring 22b (the “secondary groove”). The size of the primary groove may, for example, be the peripheral size of a cam on a standard bow having two independent cams. A starting point for the design of the groove which receives anchor cable 25 (the “take up groove”) for use on limbs having relatively low spring rates and relatively longer limb tip travel may be, for example, to have the size and shape of the take up groove be approximately the same size and shape as the primary groove. If, however, one desires limbs having a higher spring rate and desires to reduce limb tip travel, the take up cam size will be smaller than that of the primary feed cam for a given peak draw weight. Conversely, if one desires limbs having a lower spring rate and desires to increase limb tip travel, the take up cam size would be larger than that of the primary feed cam for a given peak draw weight. The final shape of the take up cam will depend on the energy storage characteristics that are desired. Adjustments of the peripheral size and shape will then be made to the secondary groove to assure that the nocking point travels in a smooth path during the draw cycle. To achieve this, the bowstring is drawn at discrete draw length intervals, for example, at draw length intervals of one inch and at each such interval the nocking point position and travel is analyzed and, if required, the secondary groove is made either peripherally larger or smaller to assure that the nocking point travels a smooth path between intervals. By continuing this process of modifying the size and shape of the secondary groove throughout the draw length, the resulting single cam compound bow will, among other desirable features, be provided with a smooth nocking point path of travel. It should be noted that the amount of stored energy will be directly related to the leverage ratios between the primary, secondary groove shapes and will depend on the combined effect of the two bowstring let off leverage arms as compared to the leverage arm of the bowstring take up side.
This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/047481, filed Apr. 19, 1993, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,890,480, which is a continuation-in-part of application Ser. No. 07/875748, filed Apr. 28, 1992, now U.S. Pat. No. 5,368,006.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3990425 | Ketchum | Nov 1976 | A |
4365611 | Nishioka | Dec 1982 | A |
4838236 | Kudlacek | Jun 1989 | A |
4986250 | Darlington | Jan 1991 | A |
5368006 | McPherson | Nov 1994 | A |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 08047481 | Apr 1993 | US |
Child | 09160983 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 07875748 | Apr 1992 | US |
Child | 08047481 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 09160983 | Sep 1998 | US |
Child | 10934630 | US |