Acceleration of clubhead
- Thread starter mandrin
- Start date
- Status
Mandrin...
Not fair. By introducing a torque... you've changed the problem statement. Also in your equation 1 you should have omega squared not alpha squared. Yes the rod (hub and axle actually) experience a real centrifugal force but the bead, not being constrained to rotate about "O", does not. Yes... for an accelerating rod the bead's trajectory would look something like you've depicted.
Not fair. By introducing a torque... you've changed the problem statement. Also in your equation 1 you should have omega squared not alpha squared. Yes the rod (hub and axle actually) experience a real centrifugal force but the bead, not being constrained to rotate about "O", does not. Yes... for an accelerating rod the bead's trajectory would look something like you've depicted.
Last edited:
Bronco Billy
New member
Hi There
It Sure is Great!!!! I Just Can't Wait till the Cheerleaders of Either One Come in and Trash the Other One..... For the Christ's Sake I Hope the Moderators let Them Fight it Out Among Themselves..... I am Also Sure Anybody that Wants to Fight Fair are Welcome to the Fracus..... There's a Hell of a Lot to be Learned Here.....
Cheers
Last edited:
mandrin
New
Is this the same nmgolfer who solemnly announced his retirement from this forum just a few days ago and who before leaving so lovingly aspersed me with such sweet compliments, which I have, for easy reference, shown below?
-1- On another note...Mandrin you are one condescending SOB.
-2- Its apparent that I and a whole lot of others are much better educated than you on matters scientific.
-3- Let me guess... you're a "drafter" or tech-aid like homer was..
-4- Put up or shut up.
-5- Your words ring shallow and empty.
-6- I think you are a ***** and generally *******... but that's just stating fact isn't it.
-7- ---- you as an expert in Logical fallacies----
nmgolfer, let’s not get distracted by such frivilous futilities and let’s have a look at your post.
“Not fair. By introducing a torque... you've changed the problem statement.”
Statement makes no sense. Instead of simple saying, sorry mandrin, I was in such a hurry to put a rope around your neck that I forgot to read/understand your post, hence made a wrong assessment.
“Also in your equation 1 you should have omega squared not alpha squared.”
Wrong. There is no mistake in my formulas.
“Yes the rod (hub and axle actually) experience a real centrifugal force but the bead, not being constrained to rotate about "O", does not.”
Wrong. Also the rod is immaterial in my case.
“Yes... for an accelerating rod the bead's trajectory would look something like you've depicted.”
Wrong. Not “something like” but rather instead ‘exactly’. It is math driven, no sweet hand made sketches as by some.
From above I wonder if you are just a "drafter" or tech-aid of some kind.
mandrin
New
nmgolfer,
There is a contradiction between formula and picture. Formula suggests a force inversely proportional to radius r, whereas the drawing indicates a force increasing with radius r. Try to be concise so as not to add to the confusion.
nmgolfer,
...Try to be concise so as not to add to the confusion.
ADD to the confusion? In this thread? Is that possible??
Just kidding (a little...)
mandrin,
The picture is right F = m*r*alpha, the formula is wrong... Your formulas are wrong too. Fix it... nuff-said.
snip....
puttmad, You're right about one thing... Nobody will ever add 50 or even 1 yard distance by believing in fictitious centrifugal forces and fairy-tales, not matter how "convincing" the "color for dummies" diagrams shown may seem.
The picture is right F = m*r*alpha, the formula is wrong... Your formulas are wrong too. Fix it... nuff-said.
snip....
puttmad, You're right about one thing... Nobody will ever add 50 or even 1 yard distance by believing in fictitious centrifugal forces and fairy-tales, not matter how "convincing" the "color for dummies" diagrams shown may seem.
Last edited:
Mandrin and NM golfer
Why can't you guys just exchange different opinions on the correct mathematical exposition of the relese phenomenon without indulging in unmannerly inflammatory rhetoric? I am fully aware that other forum members disagree with my opinions about the golf swing, but that doesn't give me the "right" to heap insults on their heads. The value of this forum is exposure to different opinions, even if each of us has a natural tendency to favor a certain opinion. Exposure to a different idea sometimes changes my mind, and that's a very satisfying experience.
Jeff.
Why can't you guys just exchange different opinions on the correct mathematical exposition of the relese phenomenon without indulging in unmannerly inflammatory rhetoric? I am fully aware that other forum members disagree with my opinions about the golf swing, but that doesn't give me the "right" to heap insults on their heads. The value of this forum is exposure to different opinions, even if each of us has a natural tendency to favor a certain opinion. Exposure to a different idea sometimes changes my mind, and that's a very satisfying experience.
Jeff.
Jeff,
I live in the real world. Incompetence can be tolerated on a golf fourm but not in the real word. People's lives are at stake I would be marched out the door by security to never work again if I made the claims like mandrin has on this forum. Our differences (mandrin's an mine) are irreconcilable. Perhaps its enough to just let it be known that not everyone buys the baloney sandwich he's selling.
I live in the real world. Incompetence can be tolerated on a golf fourm but not in the real word. People's lives are at stake I would be marched out the door by security to never work again if I made the claims like mandrin has on this forum. Our differences (mandrin's an mine) are irreconcilable. Perhaps its enough to just let it be known that not everyone buys the baloney sandwich he's selling.
Why can't we all just get along?
...because mannerly, uninflammatory discussions rarely get the traffic that "flame wars" do...and the exchanges with the chance to make a post like #206 above are the part mandy likes the most...
...because mannerly, uninflammatory discussions rarely get the traffic that "flame wars" do...and the exchanges with the chance to make a post like #206 above are the part mandy likes the most
...
NMGolfer,
Your argument doesn't make sense to me. This is a golf forum where we have no ABSOLUTE standard measure of truth or technical competence. As a forum member, I have my own personal opinion about another forum member's technical competence, but I cannot pretend that my personal opinion represents the ABSOLUTE truth. I strongly favor your technical explanations, rather than Mandrin's technical explanations, but that doesn't prove that Mandrin is wrong or technically incompetent.
I think that you and Mandrin should just present your contrary technical opinions without any accompanying ad hominum attacks.
Jeff.
Your argument doesn't make sense to me. This is a golf forum where we have no ABSOLUTE standard measure of truth or technical competence. As a forum member, I have my own personal opinion about another forum member's technical competence, but I cannot pretend that my personal opinion represents the ABSOLUTE truth. I strongly favor your technical explanations, rather than Mandrin's technical explanations, but that doesn't prove that Mandrin is wrong or technically incompetent.
I think that you and Mandrin should just present your contrary technical opinions without any accompanying ad hominum attacks.
Jeff.
My sister, my mother, my sister, my mother...
you tell 'em lia41985! (actually nm, not that you do/should care, but i think your edits to follow jeffmann's suggestions are the better course...pigs and wrestling and all
-hcw
you tell 'em lia41985! (actually nm, not that you do/should care, but i think your edits to follow jeffmann's suggestions are the better course...pigs and wrestling and all
-hcw
Jeff,
In a perfect world that might happen but in this real word one critical ingredient is missing: mutual respect. Engaging give-and-take mutually beneficial dialog cannot happen in its absence. I said I repect mandrin but the feeling is not mutual. How about this... I'll pop in and simply post the letters: BS when necessary. That way no petty pi**ing matches will ensue.
In a perfect world that might happen but in this real word one critical ingredient is missing: mutual respect. Engaging give-and-take mutually beneficial dialog cannot happen in its absence. I said I repect mandrin but the feeling is not mutual. How about this... I'll pop in and simply post the letters: BS when necessary. That way no petty pi**ing matches will ensue.
mandrin
New
Wrong again
nmgolfer,
#202 "Also in your equation 1 you should have omega squared not alpha squared"
#211 " ...the formula is wrong... Your formulas are wrong too."
Why do I have that funny feeling that I have to redo your education? You keep mentioning errors without any substantiating, not very ethical. However, you definitely are wrong, so I will take you through it, step by step, so that you don’t miss a beat.
Above is the formula you deem to be wrong. Well, let’s see and start with a dimensional analysis.
Correct, dimensions on both sides are the same.
Moreover,
Substituting last expression in (1) gives:
nmgolfer, hopefully you recognize your obvious error now as (1) is expressed in a way which you are more likely to recognize. Anyhow it is rather childish to have to explain all this to someone claiming to be a scientist.
I am really glad that you got hcw as an enthusiatic fan, he is a real asset for this forum contributing often with a multitude of original ideas.
I enjoy your scientific contributions but just try to be a bit more accurate the next time around and don't blame without at least a minimum of substance in your arguments.
nmgolfer,
#202 "Also in your equation 1 you should have omega squared not alpha squared"
#211 " ...the formula is wrong... Your formulas are wrong too."
Why do I have that funny feeling that I have to redo your education? You keep mentioning errors without any substantiating, not very ethical. However, you definitely are wrong, so I will take you through it, step by step, so that you don’t miss a beat.
Above is the formula you deem to be wrong. Well, let’s see and start with a dimensional analysis.
Correct, dimensions on both sides are the same.
Moreover,
Substituting last expression in (1) gives:
nmgolfer, hopefully you recognize your obvious error now as (1) is expressed in a way which you are more likely to recognize. Anyhow it is rather childish to have to explain all this to someone claiming to be a scientist.
I am really glad that you got hcw as an enthusiatic fan, he is a real asset for this forum contributing often with a multitude of original ideas.
I enjoy your scientific contributions but just try to be a bit more accurate the next time around and don't blame without at least a minimum of substance in your arguments.
- Status