User talk:HorsemansWiki

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Beeblebrox (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Horses and Hungary
Szia. Cool combination! Do you take photos? --Una Smith (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks, yes sometimes I try (Commons:Category:Ádám Zoltán Dijlovas Kiképző Központ).--HorsemansWiki (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lovely! --Una Smith (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I commented on Image talk:Parts of a Curb.png, but probably should have made the comment on Commons, or on Talk:Lever... --Una Smith (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And there is further discussion on that page.  Montanabw (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

More comments on Talk:Lever. --Una Smith (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I really did not notice your comment on the Image talk page, but as I see it has been sorted out since than by Montanabw.
 * I did notice your comment on the Lever talk page.
 * The Kimberwicke bit is new for me, I have no experience with it. Though there is no shank arm, there still can be an 'effort arm', and can provide leverage, especially with the rein attached to the lower slot. As the mouth piece is attached asimmetrically, I can imagine that when the rein not attached to the slot is pulled, it tends to slip downwards on the inner profile of the D (, which seems to be a half circle), and if it happens, than there might also be a mechanical advantage greater than 1. A loose rein also rests on the lower part of the D, and climbs up, as the rider takes up the rein again. Another question is if the model what we try to use, is adequate - or oversimpified - that we did not miss any important efect, like the friction (e.g. between the ring and the rein, particularly if the ring is not cleaned properly after each usage), what is the effect of this bit if the rider has an unsteady hand (think of the short effort and even shorter load arm of the lever which might produce big force by small movement), the force exerted on the poll, the type and form of the mouth piece, the effect of handling the two reins separately... Seems that I have more questions than answers, but my guess is that this type of bit belongs to the curb bit family, even if there is no slot on the D.


 * Professionals in the horse industry usually classify the Kimberwicke as a curb, it is expressly illegal in certain competitions where a snaffle is permitted. (Oh and FYI, remember to sign your posts so we know who is saying what, OK?)  Montanabw (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know here I did sign my post - at the bottom of it. Nevertheless I admit that here I started a new, though not quite unrelated topic whithin the same post, so I could have sign it twice. --HorsemansWiki (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

But it made me thinking about the snaffle bit. There might be some effects what we (at least me) would not think of.


 * E. g. for a simple snaffle bit with a ring, the following picture shows the forces exerted on the ring of a snaffle bit:


 * Lets be
 * $$\vec {Fr}$$ - the Vector of Force exerted by the rein


 * $$\vec {Fp}$$ - the Vector of Force exerted by the poll


 * $$\vec {Fb}$$ - the Vector of Force exerted by the bit


 * $$\alpha = angle (-\vec {Fr}, \vec {Fb})$$


 * $$\beta = angle (+\vec {Fr}, \vec {Fp})$$


 * If there is no aceleration of the ring, than


 * $$\vec {Fr} + \vec {Fp} + \vec {Fb} = m_{ring} \cdot \vec g \approx \vec 0$$


 * The lines of these three forces should meet at the same point, and be in the same plane.
 * When $$\vec {Fr} = \vec 0$$ (no force in the 'weightless' rein) than $$\vec {Fp}$$ and $$\vec {Fb}$$ are in the same line, in opposite direction ($$\alpha = \beta\,\!$$), and the $$\vec {Fp}$$ force just holds the bit.
 * When $$\vec {Fr}$$ and $$\vec {Fb}$$ are not in the same line than the magnitude of $$\vec {Fp}$$ is greater than zero: $$|\vec {Fp}| > 0$$


 * Considering the heights of some suitable triangles, we can obtain the


 * $$h1 = |\vec {Fb}| \cdot \sin {(\beta - \alpha)} = |\vec {Fr}| \cdot \sin \beta$$


 * $$h2 = |\vec {Fp}| \cdot \sin {(\beta - \alpha)} = |\vec {Fr}| \cdot \sin \alpha$$


 * equations.


 * If $$sin (\beta - \alpha) \neq 0$$ (which is alwasys true for $$\beta > \alpha\,\!$$), the ratios of forces can be calculated as:


 * $$Rb = \frac{|\vec {Fb}|} {|\vec {Fr}|} = \frac {\sin {\beta}} {\sin {(\beta - \alpha)}}$$


 * $$Rp = \frac{|\vec {Fp}|} {|\vec {Fr}|} = \frac {\sin {\alpha}} {\sin {(\beta- \alpha)}}$$


 * Let's see these for some arbitrary values:
 * $$\alpha=01 \deg; \beta=85 \deg; Rb \approx 1.00; Rp \approx 0.02$$
 * $$\alpha=05 \deg; \beta=85 \deg; Rb \approx 1.01; Rp \approx 0.09$$
 * $$\alpha=10 \deg; \beta=85 \deg; Rb \approx 1.03; Rp \approx 0.18$$
 * $$\alpha=20 \deg; \beta=65 \deg; Rb \approx 1.28; Rp \approx 0.71$$

bigger than the force applied by the rider, and the poll is pulled by more than the half of the force of the rein.'''
 * Notice, that
 * the last row more or less describes the horse on the picture. '''The force pulling the mouth of the horse is 1.3 times
 * These angles can be affected in some degree by the adjustment of the cheekpieces.
 * If $$\alpha \approx 0$$, than $$Rb \approx 1$$, and $$Rp \approx 0$$.


 * --HorsemansWiki (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

--HorsemansWiki (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (Grinning) I'll let you sort out the math and physics, that is definitely outside my expertise! The main thing that horse people look at is the mechanical advantage of the direct pressure bit (i.e. snaffle) versus what we call a "leverage" bit, i.e., the curb.  As far as horse people are concerned, virtually all bits fit into either one category or the other; curb or snaffle. (Gag bits are yet another breed of cat, but they are also frowned upon by the purists)  Mouthpieces have additional impacts (solid, jointed, ported, etc...), but mouthpiece does not dictate bit family.  The snaffle family and the curb family clearly have different impacts on the horse itself.  In practical terms, the curbs are to put pressure on the poll and the chin groove in addition to the mouth when the reins are used, snaffles are explicitly not supposed to do either.  But I'm rambling.  Essentially, is your argument that even a snaffle exerts more than a 1:1 ratio of rider force to the horse's mouth? One comment on your drawing:  The cheekpieces on a snaffle do not exert upward pressure on the bit nor put pressure on the poll when rein pressure is applied -- if the bit moves up, it is due to rein pressure. In fact, if a snaffle is poorly adjusted too loose, pulling on the reins can visibly LOOSEN the cheekpieces.  There may be slight passive pressure on the corners of the mouth and the poll if the bridle is too tight, but rider rein pressure doesn't influence this...  Montanabw (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right, for a too loosely adjusted snaffle, pulling on the reins can visibly LOOSEN the cheekpieces. Here is no contradiction yet, for the 100% loose cheekpiece, Fb and Fr will point in opposite direction in the same line, means $$\alpha = 0$$ and Fp = 0. In this case the bit and the center of the ring is approximately in the line of the rein, while originally with loose rein the center of the ring was in line with the cheekpiece. This means that the cheekpiece allowed the ring (and the bit) to turn to the necessary angle without resistance or restriction. But if the two corners of the mouth or the molars prevent the bit from climbing up, than when the force of the rein will try to turn the ring towards the hand of the rider, the upper point of the ring wants to go down due to the turn, which might or might not be allowed by the cheekpiece. if the cheekpiece prevents the further turning, than there a force will arise in the cheekpiece (otherwise it could not prevent the turning of the ring), which WILL PULL THE POLL DOWN, and will alter the direction of the force of the rein and the force of the bit, producing an $$\alpha > 0$$. This angle is an indicator of the force in the cheekpiece, and therefore can be used, if it is known, to calculate that force, which is not coming from an active pull on behalf of the cheekpiece, just a reaction to the effect of the rein in certain circumstances.

--HorsemansWiki (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV requirement of Wikipedia is an antidote to the nonsense of purists and bigots. So many equestrian writers make physically impossible claims about "leverage" in connection with bits. Wikipedia needs to be more precise about what is and is not a curb bit, and this discussion is work toward that end. How about we copy this discussion to an article talk page? Maybe Talk:Curb bit? --Una Smith (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that at least what I wrote, was not about the curb bit, it was rather about the snaffle bit, so I would not move this there. But what do you think, what is and what is not a curb bit? --HorsemansWiki (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, Una, I agree with HW (hope you don't mind the abbreviation!) This is just chitchat. And an interesting discussion.  Unless we really want to add all the math to the bit articles, or something, I'm happy just talking here with HW!  And, Una, I most sincerely hope you are not referring to any of the participants in this discussion as purists or bigots! (Are you?) You know that Equestrian writers use a lot of unique lingo and terms of art, in doing so they don't intend to violate the known laws of physics, more often they are using terminology that dates to the Renaissance, before there was a modern scientific understanding of some concepts.  There is a very clear standard in the horse world as to what a curb bit is, and if someone wants to explain that horse term of art X really refers to law of physics Y, that is not a problem, but it IS a problem (and a WP:NOR) to try and exchange non-standard phrasing for well-known terms of art.  The point, however defined, is that the direct action of a snaffle is easier to use on horses unfamiliar with rein commands, and thus is used to start young horses and introduce them to the concept of what a bit is and does, while the curb is a more refined piece of equipment that horses "graduate" into.  However you want to explain that in terms of physics, it is interesting, well, and good.  But horse people are still going to say that a curb has "leverage" and a snaffle "does not" (even if, in physics terms, it actually does.)  The most interesting work on the action of bits has been done by a dressage rider who also is a professor at, I think, Michigan State, by the name of Hilary Clayton.  I've only read summaries, haven't gotten into the nitty-gritty, but she has some interesting observations, particularly about the behavior of different mouthpieces.   Montanabw (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course no proplem with the abbreviation, though I would prefer being HMW, which have less startling resemblance to Home Work.
 * I was just thinking that on these pages there should be some statement like what you wrote above: '...that the direct action of a snaffle is easier to use on horses unfamiliar with rein commands, and thus is used to start young horses and introduce them to the concept of what a bit is and does, while the curb is a more refined piece of equipment that horses "graduate" into. ...'
 * - Thanks for the information on the book, I added the it to the list of my favorite books.
 * (Unfortunatetly I have lost the My Horses My Teachers from Alois Podhajsky, that's why it is not listed there.)
 * --HorsemansWiki (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

My point is that substantive discussion like this belongs on an article talk page, not a user talk page. I don't care which article talk page, though, provided it is reasonably relevant. Talk:Lever would work. Wikipedia is not a horse encyclopedia, it is a general encyclopedia, and equestrian jargon just like medical jargon should be avoided if at all possible. I think it is necessary to explain bits and reins in terms of their mechanics, using standard (non equestrian) terms. Toward that end, I include Lever etc in Template:Bits and Template:Reins. If bits and reins violate laws of physics, as they so often are described as doing in reliable horse books, I'd like to see a reliable source explaining how they do it. --Una Smith (talk) 09:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * People can use their chat pages for anything they want, Una. HMW can do as he pleases.  As for the rest, both horse jargon and medical jargon can be defined and explained, but failure to use terms of art can lead to massive misunderstandings.  Hence, one uses the methodology of the field, with explanations as needed for laypeople.  And given that HMW hasn't replied here, you and I need to take THIS discussion to either one of OUR talk pages or to WPEQ.   Montanabw (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

File Deleted from Commons
The file c:File:Darco.jpg used in this article has been deleted from Commons Message automatically deposited by a robot - -Harideepan (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC).