网帖翻译

@Maciej Załucki
Maciej ZałuckiThat doesn’t make much sense. Those rings will move the center of gravity only by the diameter of one ring.

这没有多大意义。这些环只会将重心移动一个环的直径。

@Lakan David Inocencio
What’s more, they’ll move the center of gravity just by adding them. If the intention was to keep the center of gravity close to the hand, then it would make more sense to just not add the rings.

更重要的是，如果添加它们仅仅为了移动重心。如果目的是保持重心靠近手，那么不添加环会更有意义。

@Peter Chan
Peter Chandon’t equate this sword to a European long sword or even a Chinese long sword. They have center of balance much closer to the hilt. But this broadsword is top heavy. It functions more like an axe, with a long blade of a sword.
The biggest distinction is you have to swing in circular motion. You can’t change direction at will like with a sword. At least not at the opposite direction.

不要将这把刀等同于欧洲长剑，甚至中国长剑。他们的平衡中心更靠近刀柄。但这把大刀头重脚轻。它的功能更像是一把斧头，带有剑的长刃。
最大的区别是你必须以圆周运动挥动。不能像拿剑那样随意改变方向。至少不是在相反的方向。

@Go Fish
Go FishI would say it practically is an axe. At least sickle-like axes known in Asia are of similar balance

我想说它实际上是一把斧子，至少亚洲已知的镰刀状斧头具有类似的平衡性。

@Jatter Perdoe
Jatter PerdoeYeah. The rings weren’t there in real war blades. They only seem to be there on ones used in martial arts demos and ceremonial places. My assumption is that the sounds they make entertain the audience more. I seriously doubt they serve any actual combat reason.

是的。真正的战争刀中没有这些环。它们似乎只出现在武术演示和仪式场所使用的东西上。我的假设是他们发出的声音更能娱乐观众。我严重怀疑它们有任何实际战斗的意义。

@Peter Chan
Peter ChanThese are 2 blades swords. They are very different than the one bladed broadsword shown in main post. Fighting style is very different too.

你给的图是双刃剑。它们与主帖中显示的单刃大刀非常不同。战斗风格也有很大不同。（图略）

@Hong

HongThose are jian (剑), the broadsword is a dadao (大刀).
这些都是剑，题主说的其实是大刀

@Jakob Jäderbo
Jakob JäderboWouldn't it be mass of 1 ring but combined diameter? The lowest position replaced by the top position+1, all other being filled by adjacent rings.

不是1个环的质量而是所有环的总和吗？最低位置由顶部位置+1 替换，所有其他位置由相邻环填充。

@Maciej Załucki
Maciej ZałuckiNo, the whole array of the rings will only flip by the diameter of one ring upwards or downwards, so it will shift only by moving the weight of one ring by the diameter of one ring. It would make much more sense to have one big ring if that was the sole goal. It would be even better to just have some sliding part that would be shot out with the centrifugal force but this is still pointless due to conservation of energy. Unless you want to make this a 2-in-1 tool that has the center of gravity close to the palm for short strokes and quickly move it to the tip for swinging it. Simply shifting the mass will not change how much energy it has but having more mass at the tip means that you can put more energy into a swing at the same speed.
There was some recording of a simple experiment that everyone could repeat. If you start rotating on an office chair with your hands out, then when you pull your hands near your chest, you will start spinning faster. That’s because you still have the same energy but the mass is closer to the center and holds less energy than it held being much further away. If you want agility, you want to have the center of mass close to the pivot point and if you want to put more energy into the swing, you want the mass to be as far as you can. It will take much more energy to make a swing but it will also take much more energy to stop it and that’s the point of heavy swings.

不，整个圆环阵列只会向上或向下翻转一个环的直径，因此它只会通过将一个环的重量移动一个环的直径来移动。如果这是唯一的目标，那么拥有一枚环会更有意义。如果有一些滑动部分会在离心力的作用下被射出，那就更好了，但由于能量守恒，这仍然没有意义。除非你想把它做成一个二合一工具，重心靠近手掌进行格挡，然后力量快速移动到尖端进行挥动。简单地改变质量不会改变它所具有的能量，但在尖端有更多的质量意味着你可以在相同的速度下将更多的能量投入到劈砍中。
有一些简单实验的记录，每个人都可以重复。如果你开始在办公椅上旋转并伸出双手，那么当你将双手拉近胸部时，你会开始旋转得更快。那是因为你仍然具有相同的能量，但质量更靠近中心，并且比远离中心时拥有更少的能量。如果你想要灵活性，你希望重心靠近枢轴点，如果你想在劈砍上投入更多能量，你将希望重心尽可能远。劈砍需要更多的能量，但停止劈砍也需要更多的能量，这就是剧烈劈砍的要点。

@George Huestis
George Huestis… would be a fun fantasy weapon though, something like a quarterstaff with ball-bearings inside that can be released to the end of the staff with a thumb knob. Then you can just let your end of the staff go and it’ll swing around weirdly and hit people in ways your superhero main character “can totally predict.”
Fairly certain it wouldn’t work IRL for various and sundry physics reasons, but it feels like there’s potential for bullshit handwaving there, an excuse for your warrior monk to be able to beat up ten men in a fair fight.

这会是一个有趣的奇幻武器，类似于一根四分之一的法杖，内部装有可以通过拇指按钮释放到法杖末端的滚珠。然后你可以放开法杖的一端，它会怪异地摆动并以超级英雄主人公“完全命中”的方式击中人们。
相当肯定在现实生活中由于各种物理原因它不会起作用，但感觉有潜力用来吹牛逼，为武僧战士能够在公平比赛中打败十个人提供借口。

@Peter Chan
Peter ChanThis is not a fantasy weapon. This is in fact a standard issued weapon in Chinese military throughout the history. At least the lighter variant.
If you joined up with the military, local militia, security guards, constable (police), they would give you this sword. It’s a broad sword with the center of balance toward the front.
Why? Because it’s easy to pick up and train. It fights a bit like an axe/mace where the front is heavy. The weight helps the impact.
The flimsier 2 edged long sword is actually less useful because it’s much harder to get good with it.
This is a a lot harder to make/mass produce than the broad sword. The thin edge is easily broken if the smithing process isn’t good. Whereas even a junior smith can make broadswords.

这不是幻想武器。这实际上是中国军队历史上的制式武器。至少是更轻的版本。
如果你加入军队、地方民兵、保安、警察，他们会给你一把大刀。这是一把重心朝前的单刃武器。
为什么？因为它很容易上手和训练。它的战斗有点像斧头/狼牙棒，前部很重。重量有助于杀伤。
更脆弱的两刃长剑实际上不太有用，因为它更难使用。
而且比大刀更难制造/批量生产。如果锻造工艺不好，薄边很容易折断。而即使是初级铁匠也可以制作大刀。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

@Maciej Załucki
It isn’t the location of the center of mass that makes it fantasy, it’s the idea of internal weights that can be used to change where the center of mass is mid-stroke.
… but maybe that’s also been done, my knowledge of medi weaponry basically extends to “swords were sidearms you used in the event you found yourself not behind a pointy stick, useful primarily to wave about yourself until you could get back behind a pointy stick.”

这并不是质心位置的位置使其成为幻想，而是内部的重量可以用来改变质心的想法。但也许这已经有了，我对中世纪武器的了解基本上仅限于“剑是你在没有靠谱的棍棒时使用的武器，主要用于挥舞自己直到你能够回到靠谱的棍棒后。”

@Jakob Jäderbo
Mass of 1 ring, combined diameter is equivalent to mass of whole array, 1 diameter. But that is not equivalent to mass of 1 ring 1 diameter, which ot sounds as if you are suggesting. Am I reading you right?

1个环的质量，组合后等于整个阵列的质量。虽然只平移1个直径，但这并不等于一个环1的质量，这听起来像是你在暗示。我读对了吗？

@Maciej Załucki
Right, I looked at it from a wrong angle :)

对，我看错角度了：）

@Shawn Meehan
Yeah. I can't imagine trying to hew through someone with a bunch of rings on the back of the sword. They would certainly cause issues cutting through things. Look awesome though.

是 啊我无法想象要用刀背上的一堆环来砍断一个人。它们肯定会引发破坏性的问题。不过看起来棒极了。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

@Caleb Davenport
That blade is plenty wide enough to cause a fatal cut before the rings interfere.

那把刀片足够宽，足以在环干扰之前造成致命的割伤。

@Steve Marck
It's not the first cut you should worry about, it's the second one. If your sword is stuck in the first guy, you're gonna have a bad time fighting the second guy.

这不是你应该担心的第一个问题，这是第二个。如果你的剑卡在第一个人身上，你和第二个人的战斗会很糟糕。

@Ines Hvala Dolenc
Maybe it's not a sword fashioned for cutting through but for maiming?
I also don't like the concept too much. I prefer saber designs with a thickened tip for increased momentum instead.

也许这不是一把用来砍人而是用来致残的刀？
我也不太喜欢这个概念。我更喜欢刀尖加厚的设计，以增加动量。

@Shawn Meehan
Yeah, I mean, I think the answer is correct in that it has limited utility in combat, but is basically cool for demonstration or training.

是的，我的意思是，我认为答案是正确的，因为它在战斗中的效用有限，但对于演示或训练来说很酷。

@Silas Byrne
Yeah, point #4 is probably the reason as it feels on the mark. The other answers largely make no sense.

是的，第4点可能是正确的原因。其他答案基本上没有意义。

@Jesta Gaming
Given the average size of these swords, I'd imagine it would do just fine against calvary and have a fair stand up against heavy armor… I cannot believe that a sword like this would be made without a real purpose. Similarly to the spears and swords with colorful feathers or scarves or rope on them as a means of distracting your opponent, I feel like this particular sword (which I will probably always refer to as a horse chopper thanks to Kenshi) is more about removing limbs, heads, and crushing armor since the balance of weight is more aligned with that of a mace or even a halberd. These swords have plenty of space before you get to the rings to chop an arm clean off, and to sever bones of thighs before getting to the rings. As an additional note - Those same rings when presented with force from below create a nice wedge to help separate whatever is being cut for easier release (further cementing the idea its use was for dismembering their enemies and or the mounts of said enemies.)

考虑到这些大刀的平均尺寸，我想它在对抗骑兵时表现得很好，并且在对抗重甲时也能有不错的表现……我无法相信像这样的刀会在没有真正目的的情况下被制造出来。与带有彩色羽毛、围巾或绳索的长矛和剑类似，作为分散对手注意力的手段，我觉得这把特殊的大刀（我可能总是将其称为斩马刀）更多的是去砍四肢、头部和破碎盔甲，因为它的重量更符合狼牙棒甚至戟的用法。在你进入贴身战斗之前，这些大刀有足够的空间来砍掉手臂，并在到达贴身距离之前切断大腿的骨头。作为补充说明 - 当劈砍时，这些相同的环会形成一个很好的楔子，以帮助分离正在切割的任何东西，以便更容易释放刀身（进一步巩固了它的用途是肢解敌人和/或所述敌人的坐骑的想法。）

@Kriztofer Plitzkin
No fighting blade is effectively designed to cut “through” things. They are meant to inflict maximum damage on the human body but cutting through it is optimistic.

没有一把战斗刀是设计用来“穿透”东西的。它们旨在对人体造成最大的伤害，但穿透没什么意义。

@Peter Chan
Also, they are designed to be parried.
Chinese broadswords are standard issued weapons for military and militia throughout Chinese history. They are much easier to teach beginners.
So in combat, you will see newbies banging the swords against enemies repeatedly. It is taking toll parrying these swings. Eventually the repeated impacts will tire out their enemy and knock their weapon off. Sort of like a mace.
But unlike maces, these swords are lighter and much easier to wield than maces.

而且，它们被设计成可以格挡。
中国大刀是中国历史上军队和民兵的制式武器。他们更容易教初学者。
所以在战斗中，你会看到新手不断地用刀对敌人进行劈砍。阻止这些劈砍需要付出代价。最终，反复的撞击会让敌人疲惫不堪，并击落他们的武器。有点像狼牙棒。
但与狼牙棒不同的是，这些大刀比狼牙棒更轻，更容易挥舞。

@Kriztofer Plitzkin
Very interesting…I was not aware of that.

很有趣……我之前不知道。

@Aaron Joseph
This sword only has one cutting face - it is not a double-edged sword.

这把刀只有一个切面——它不是一把剑。

@Shawn Meehan
But it would have to pass through material to hew it.

但它必须穿过材料才能完成切割。

@Peter Chan
Yes, but no.
In real combat you rarely have an opportunity to cut through anything. If you are an ordinary person, you shouldn’t commit too much strength into each hit. They will tire you out quicker and also make you vulnerable to counter attack.
The full intention of this sword is to slash, while maintaining great defense against counter attack (with the long edge of the blade). You can certainly pierce and hack, but it’s not the best piercing weapon due to its weight and size.

你说得对，但不是这样。
在真正的战斗中，你很少有机会切开任何东西。如果你是一个普通人，每次击打时不应该投入太多的力气。它们会让你更快地疲惫不堪，也让你容易受到反击。
这把刀的全部意图是砍杀，同时保持反击前的强大防御。你可以用刺和砍的方式攻击，但由于其重量和尺寸，它并不是最好的刺穿武器。

@Zinserhöhung
Nope, it will cause more pain as the rings will rip the muscle and skin apart.

不，它会引起更多的疼痛，因为环会撕裂肌肉和皮肤。

@Peter Chan
You watched too much movies if you think every swordsman can hack through his target clean like knife over butter.
In most cases, the back side of the sword will never see contact.

你看了太多的电影，也许你认为每个剑客都能像黄油上的刀子一样干净利落地切割他的目标。
在大多数情况下，剑的背面永远用不上。

@Shawn Meehan
Well, I'd be willing to say this weapon was never used in combat outside of a movie. I can't find any indication it existed outside of martial arts studios, nor anything that seems to indicate a date where it first appeared in use.
There's no practical reason for rings outside of maybe training. A thicker spine or taper achieves weight distribution without need of adding holes and risking catastrophic failure.
In fact, even some of the famous historical swords of China, such as the Niuweidao, were only invented in the 19th century and used by civilians, though widely appear in historical movies.

好吧，我更愿意说这种武器从未在电影之外的战斗中使用过。我找不到任何迹象表明它存在于武术工作室之外，也没有任何迹象表明它首次出现使用的日期。
除了训练之外，没有任何实际理由需要这些圆环。较厚的脊背可以实现重量分布，而无需添加孔和冒灾难性故障的风险。
事实上，即使是中国的一些历史名剑，如牛尾刀，虽然在历史电影中广泛出现，但直到19世纪才被发明并被平民使用。

@Peter Chan
You strike me like a guy who may know more than me about history of Chinese martial art. So don’t feel patronized if I say more than I should, it’s for other readers.
Martial art in Chinese history was one of the thing you could learn that would bring insane riches in the past. The ability to win a fight would make you dominate the society back then. But as gun technology got better and better, martial art slowly faded in obscurity. Martial art is still important, but it’s a bunch of simple moves we learn in case of a close quarter combat. But nobody dedicates 10–20 years to perfect anything any more. There is almost no reward beside bragging rights.
Chinese martial artists aren’t the best record keepers, unlike historians. Or, more like they kept it all to themselves. So most of the things we know are from myths exaggerated by bystanders. We don’t know what is 100% true and what is exaggerated. In wuxia, similar to “Western”, the myths sometimes really work to their advantage. Some survive entirely on exaggerating myths to deter challengers. Some purposely mislead their myths to mask their real skills.
And worst of all, like today’s Intellectual Properties, these people spent their whole life living and gaining experience but keeping it to themselves and only transferred these knowledge to their most trusted students. If their students didn’t get it… the knowledge would be lost.
Even if you read Chinese, the record keeping is subpar at best. So you say it’s never been used? Ok. What if it was once popular? It was often told by words of mouth by tavern story tellers. And these records died with them.
But I do know one thing: accomplished martial artists weren’t afraid to have their signature. So a weapon with rings can be an awesome signature. Even it may not be as practical as you think.

你给我的印象就像一个可能比我更了解中国武术历史的人。所以，如果我说得过多，请不要觉得我在攻击你，这是为了其他读者。
中国历史上的武术在过去是可以带来财富的一门学问。能打赢仗，就能主宰当时的社会。但随着枪械技术越来越完善，武术慢慢地淡出了人们的视线。武术仍然很重要，但它是我们在近距离战斗中学习的一系列简单动作。但没有人再花10到20年的时间去完善任何东西。除了用于吹牛之外，几乎没有任何奖励。
与历史学家不同，中国武术家并不是最好的记录保存者。或者，更像是他们把这一切都留给了自己。所以我们所知道的大部分事情都来自旁观者夸大的神话。我们不知道什么是100%真实的，什么是夸大的。在武侠中，与“西方”类似，神话有时确实对它们有利。有些完全靠夸大的神话来威慑挑战者而生存。有些人故意编造他们的神话来掩盖他们的真实技能。
最糟糕的是，就像今天的知识产权一样，这些人一生都在学习和积累经验，但他们把这些知识留给自己，只将这些知识传授给他们最信任的学生。如果他们的学生没有得到它……知识就会失传。
即使你会阅读中文，档案记录也有很多是有误的。所以你说它从未被使用过？好吧。但如果它曾经很受欢迎呢？它经常被酒馆里的说书人口口相传。这些记录随着他们的离世而消失了。
但我知道一件事：成就卓越的武术家并不害怕留下他们的标志。所以一个带环的武器可以是一个令人敬畏的标志。即使它可能没有你想象的那么实用。

@Shawn Meehan
Agreed. I think it's not only an awesome work of art, especially in the case of showcasing metal working—super important—but also can be used to demonstrate one's strength and abilities. I'm not saying no one dueled with it and we certainly know people do and did train with it.
I just don't think anyone was fielding armies with it, especially when we have so many amazing types (and tons of historical examples) of really excellent Chinese swords from all periods.
It's got cultural uses—there are stories of training with it for other weapons, of intimidating people with it, of feats of strength using it as a test— not to mention the significance of it as a display of metal working.
But if it were a functional weapon I think we'd have seen it attested to at battles, records of it being fielded in the thousands, etc. And, most of all, there would be other swords like it in China and in other world cultures.
The beauty of a weapon is severe. It follows function at the limits of the society's metal working. I think, for that reason, most of the successful world swords are very similar.
Great conversation.

同意。我认为它不仅是一件很棒的艺术品，尤其是在展示金属加工方面——非常重要——而且还可以用来展示一个人的力量和能力。我并不是说没有人用它进行决斗，我们当然知道人们这样做并且确实用它进行了训练。
我只是认为没有人用它来装备军队，特别是当我们有这么多令人惊叹的类型（以及大量的历史例子）和各个时期的真正优秀的中国刀剑时。
它有文化用途——有用它训练其他武器的故事，用它恐吓别人的故事，用它作为测试力量的故事——更不用说它作为金属加工展示的重要性了。
但如果它是一种功能性武器，我想我们会在战斗中看到它存在的证明，它被部署在数千人手中的记录等。而且，最重要的是，在中国和其他世界还会有其他类似的刀文化。
武器之美是严肃的。它遵循社会金属加工极限的能力。我认为，出于这个原因，世界上大多数成功的刀剑都非常相似。
很棒的谈话。

@Sir DixALot
This.
Swords are not hacking weapons, particularly in the case of armoured combatants, or even a fool with a buckler, swords are are long extended razors and piercing weapons.
A good argument can be made the Rapier is the peak of swordcraft.

这么说吧
剑不是劈砍武器，特别是对于装甲战斗人员，甚至是拿着圆盾的傻瓜，剑是长长的穿刺武器。
可以说，细剑是剑术的顶峰。

@Lakan David Inocencio
Yeah… no, point 1 is completely ridiculous. The claim is that the rings shifting down will move the center of gravity towards the hilt. But think about it. If the rings were heavy enough to have any sort of appreciable effect, then just adding the rings would move the center of gravity up towards the tip. And the rings shifting down a bit does nothing to counteract that. If the intention was to keep the center of gravity close to the hand, then adding the rings in the first place is a terrible move.
In addition, if it were true, which it is not, then also think about the reverse. Cutting downwards will cause the rings to shift forward as their momentum carries them in the direction of the swing. If it is true that the rings hanging downwards brings the center of gravity closer to the hand making it easier to control, then it is necessarily true that with the blade extended after an attack (as in the picture) will shift the center of gravity towards the tip, making it more difficult to control at exactly the moment the swordsman is most vulnerable. That is a terrible design for a weapon, and it completely invalidates itself.
And if point 2 is correct, then it invalidates point 1. The premise of point 2 is that there’s more inertia. And for there to be more inertia, then there’s more mass. And if there’s more mass there (which is true) then that means that the center of gravity has already been shifted up. There is no way their shifting around in any direction is bringing the balance closer to the hand.

是的……不，第一点完全荒谬。据称，环向下移动会将重心移向刀柄。但想一想。如果环足够重，足以产生任何明显的效果，那么添加环就会将重心向上移向尖端。环向下移动一点并不能抵消这一点。如果目的是使重心靠近手，那么在头部添加环就是一个糟糕的举动。
此外，如果这是真的，那么也要考虑相反的情况。向下劈砍会导致环向前移动，因为它们的动量将它们带到摆动的方向。如果向下倾斜的环确实使重心更接近手，从而更容易控制，那么攻击后刀片伸出必然会将重心转移到尖端，使得剑客在最脆弱的时刻更难以控制。对于武器来说，这是一个糟糕的设计，它本身就完全无效了。
如果第2点是正确的，那么第1点就无效了。因为第2点的前提是有更多的惯性。惯性越大，质量就越大。如果那里有更多的质量（这是事实），那么这意味着重心已经向上移动。它们向任何方向的移动都不可能使重心更接近手。

@Andrew Kirk
#5 is also as false as the myth of the “blood groove.”

#5也和“血槽”的神话一样虚假

@Terry Dinerman
….you will never see a Dadao intended for use in actual combat with such noisy, entangling, useless frippery….
Those rings are for the “tourists” viewing “demonstrations” or students impressing each other at school rather than actual warriors…

……你永远不会看到一把大刀在实战中如此嘈杂、纠缠、无用…。
这些圆环是给观看“演示”的“游客”或在学校给彼此留下深刻印象的学生用的，而不是真正的战士…

@Leeling
As a Singaporean who studies both Chinese and English, I think English is too embarrassing when discussing this topic.
There is no way to distinguish between "Dadao" and "sword" in English, only broadsword and sword.
In fact, in Chinese, these are two completely different weapons. The "Dadao" is a single-edged weapon. It is like a kitchen knife at home, only larger and longer. The weight is on the head and is used for cutting. The "sword" is a double-edged weapon, light, with the center of gravity on the hilt, mainly used for piercing.

作为一个同时学习中文和英语的新加坡人，我认为英语在讨论这个话题的时候太令人尴尬了。
在英语里无法区分“大刀”和“剑”，只能使用broadsword和sword来区分。
实际上在中文里，这是两种完全不同的武器。“大刀”是一种单刃武器，他就像家里的厨刀，只是更大，更长，重量在头部，用于劈砍。“剑”是一种双刃武器，轻，重心在刀柄处，主要用于穿刺。