Acceleration of clubhead

[nmgolfer]

What causes release? in simple layman's terms

***warning*** (some effort on layman's part is required)

Layman must first understand exactly what is meant by the word

FORCE

A Force has:

1) an associated line of action
2) a point of application
3) magitude and
4) sense (direction)

Understand what's meant by these term by reading linked web page before proceeding

If the point of application and or line of action of a force acting on an object does not go through the center of mass of that object, then said force will not only cause the object to translate (move) but also rotate. See principle of moments and or d'Alemberts principle

How does this apply to golf? When the golfer swings a club he/she is applying a force, at the grip. The line of action of that force seldom passes through the center of mass of the club (located close to the clubhead). Therefore, the force applied at the grip by the golfer causes the club to not only translate but also to rotate. That rotation is what we call the "release".

 

[nmgolfer]

I'm sorry what is nonsense? The fact that acceleration is both speed and direction or that you don't care a lick for anyone and just wanna rile up the crowd?

He asked:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicious Circle
It doesn't make any sense to me. Are you suggesting that a rotating clubhead at 100 mph will hit the ball further than a clubhead moving in a straight line at 100 mph?

You said:

YES!!

I'm saying that's BALONY!

You are wrong again. Why don't you go take a physics course (apparently you skipped it in high school )... exposing your ignorance is quite tiresome.

 

[puttmad]

Most people want the answer(s) handed to them on a silver platter. Its only natural; we're generally lazy. But its the process that is important. By forcing ourselves to think critically and to experiment, new neural pathways leading to deeper understanding and a firm foundation on which to continue to build and put into place.

I won't do the heavy lifting (the distillation) for Jim, Jeff or Puttmad. That would be doing them a disservice. It would also be doing myself a disservice because in their process of discovery they may come across something from which I myself can benefit. That's how we learn and we grow.

nm,
Sorry mate, that is a cop out...
You have explained things in a "scientific" manner which 99% of us would admit to not understanding.....like telling us in a different language really.

So now you tell us we should experiment ourselves (from this "basis" of another language (and non-understanding) and figure it all out ourselves, evn though you know we did not understand you in ther first place....

If that is your idea of how you think people grow, then I think I'll use a different fertilizer...

To be honest, you have spouted a lot of stuff on this thread but have provided nothing useable for us average intelligence golfers..

All I (and Brian) asked you to do was to translate the "useful info" you have supposedly provided, but now decline to clarify, quite simply because you think you are better than anyone else...

You claim to have all the answers, but in your smugness decide you are not going to tell us...

You did this on another forum too mate (and I do remember correctly....

TBH you make me sick....

 

[Brian Manzella]

Whew!

Thank goodness for me around here...you guys have so much knowledge, but can't explain a lick.

Here goes my best shot, PLEASE correct my incorrect assumptions ONLY if they VIOLATE THE LAWS of force and motion.

Cool?

Here goes...

How The Release Works in The Golf Swing

The golfer moves his club, hands and arms—the "Power Package"—to the top by way of his body rotation, arm lift, elbow bend and wrist cock.

From the top, from the ground up, the golfer exerts force on the club. That force could be pulling in a "along the club" fashion, or with a force "across the shaft."

As the golfers pivot rotation pick up speed, it aligns—or TILTS—itself in away to influence both speed and direction of the "along the club" force.

The golfer—who may have done it already, and too soon—then can apply the "across the shaft" to add in the speed and direction of the clubhead.

The angle that was formed on the backswing—and may have been added to on the downswing—of the golfers left arm and club, wrist cock if you will, will be "encouraged" to stay in this fashion as the golfer's force along the shaft from the top, keeps the weight of the clubhead "inside" the golfer's hands having gravity assist in storage and or "float loading" of this wrist cock.

While all this is happening, the golfer's right arm was bending going back and may have been bent more during the "inside" the hands phase of the downswing.

The Pivot's rotation, which has carried the arm/hand/& club unit into the downswing, reaches top speed as the clubhead orbit takes it outside the hands and gravity and ___________________forces begins to "release" the angles.

At this point, the golfer can apply force across the shaft to speed the power package unit up.

All of this comes to a head, when the pivot puts on the brakes from the ground up, and that pivot speed is transfered to the Power Package (arm/hand/& club unit), adding to its already rapidly increasing amount.

The ball is struck on the way to all of the angles becoming inline, where the force is the greatest.

So the "RELEASE" is "released" by gravity, force along and across the shaft which gets to the club by way of the hands, with an assist from the right arm and pivot.

How'd I do?

 

[Vicious Circle]

YES!!


F = m·a

Mass times ACCELERATION equals force. So there are three things that will create the force applied to the ball. Mass of the object hitting the ball, the SPEED that it's hitting the ball, and the DIRECTIONAL CHANGE.

F ≠ m·s

Mass times SPEED does NOT equal force.

Okay, then in the above equation what measure is given to a (if not mph, fps, or some other measure of distance/time?)

I'd love to see this experiment for real; PingMan vs. piston actuator.

 

[mandrin]

Put up or shut up.

Just use your math to prove your "point". Your words ring shallow and empty. Who cares that people have given items names containing the word centrifugal. It does connote some meaning and there are two valid uses for the term in physics... Nobody disputes that. BTW (External) Forces don't come in pairs. That's true only in statics not dynamics. Sometimes forces are accompanied by motion.

I universally accept Newtownian physics... you would be wise to do so.

nmgolfer, some kind remarks you made about mandrin, such as

-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.

allow to put together an interesting profile of your personality. Brushing that aside, there is some progress since you admit without any reservation accepting universally Newtonian physics. Hence Newton’s Third Law. Let’s restate it.

Newton’s Third Law – To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or, the mutual action of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

Therefore you also agree with the following:

For every centripetal action force there is always opposed an equal centrifugal reaction force.

Hence we have no choice to conclude that you implicitly admit that centrifugal action is real and not fictitious. Why therefore do you live in this terrible conflictual state, since you are also on a crusade against centrifugal force, denying its existence.

 

[nmgolfer]

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM Description: An argument that attempts to disprove the truth of what is asserted by attacking the speaker rather than the speaker's argument. Another way of putting it: Fallacy where you attack someone's character instead of dealing with salient issues. There are two basic types of ad hominem arguments: (1) abusive, and (2) circumstantial

READ! I've not once said centrifugal, the reaction to centripetal is not real and or a valid physics term. What I've said is IT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM EXPLAIN THE RELEASE! Once again (and I've stated this in nearly every post in this thread because you as an expert in Logical fallacies are trying hard to change the subject) we are talking about the release.

Now I see... now you've stooped to pulling out the ole Ad Hominen Logical Fallacy. Well then mandrin, then here's another to add to your "personality profile" list:

I think you are a ***** and generally *******... but that's just stating fact isn't it.

Quit stalling mandrin. You said weeks ago now that you would prove ringer wrong mathematically re. centrifugal force. That you have not done. (because you can't?) Enough all ready.... Put up or shut up.

P.S. Need I remind you that you started the hurling of insults? You're going to "decorticate" my post remember? I count one failed attempt so far. Bring it on mandrin. Bring it on!

nmgolfer, some kind remarks you made about mandrin, such as

-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.

allow to put together an interesting profile of your personality. Brushing that aside, there is some progress since you admit without any reservation accepting universally Newtonian physics. Hence Newton’s Third Law. Let’s restate it.

Newton’s Third Law – To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or, the mutual action of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

Therefore you also agree with the following:

For every centripetal action force there is an equal and opposed centrifugal reaction force.

Hence we have no choice to conclude that you implicitly admit that centrifugal action is real and not fictitious. Why therefore do you live in this terrible conflictual state, since you are also on a crusade against centrifugal force, denying its existence.

 

[nmgolfer]

nm,
Sorry mate, that is a cop out...



Blah Blah BLah Blah....


TBH you make me sick....

The feeling is mutual!

 

[Ringer]

He asked:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicious Circle
It doesn't make any sense to me. Are you suggesting that a rotating clubhead at 100 mph will hit the ball further than a clubhead moving in a straight line at 100 mph?

You said:

YES!!

I'm saying that's BALONY!

You are wrong again. Why don't you go take a physics course (apparently you skipped it in high school )... exposing your ignorance is quite tiresome.

What an informative post. I'm sure after reading it everyone here understands why I'm wrong now.

You're even worse than mandrin. Can't put up a good answer, reply with some snide comment about their intelligence.

 

[Ringer]

Okay, then in the above equation what measure is given to a (if not mph, fps, or some other measure of distance/time?)

I'd love to see this experiment for real; PingMan vs. piston actuator.

So would I.

 

[Ringer]

nmgolfer, some kind remarks you made about mandrin, such as

-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.

allow to put together an interesting profile of your personality. Brushing that aside, there is some progress since you admit without any reservation accepting universally Newtonian physics. Hence Newton’s Third Law. Let’s restate it.

Newton’s Third Law – To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or, the mutual action of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.

Therefore you also agree with the following:

For every centripetal action force there is always opposed an equal centrifugal reaction force.

Hence we have no choice to conclude that you implicitly admit that centrifugal action is real and not fictitious. Why therefore do you live in this terrible conflictual state, since you are also on a crusade against centrifugal force, denying its existence.

The only other force acting on the axis is the force holding the axis in place. Sorry brother but again, there is no OUTWARD force.

 

[nmgolfer]

What an informative post. I'm sure after reading it everyone here understands why I'm wrong now.

You're even worse than mandrin. Can't put up a good answer, reply with some snide comment about their intelligence.

Its well trodden ground ringer. Go re-read any of the forums including this one. Here's another correction: ignorance is not intelligence. You can do something about ignorance, but not intelligence. You should find a community college.. just a suggestion

 

[birdie_man]

I have only skimmed this but....

You guys sure are nuts.

Good post Brian.

 

[puttmad]

I have only skimmed this but....

You guys sure are nuts.

Good post Brian.

Correct birdie, apart from the plural (guy(s)......

 

[tbone69]

How does any of this help a golfer? Sounds like mental masturbation.

 

[jmessner]

jmessner - I just wrote a long thoughtful response to you but this !@#$%^ forum logged me out and it was lost.... talk about frustrating! Bottomline: in science there is only one right answer for a given problem statement and set of assumptions. We begin with root cause (first principles if you will) and we must carefully scrutinize the set of assumptions.

Any assumption that has been proven by test or analysis to be invalid such as the CF powered release myth, the COAM myth, the hands slowing prior to impact myth etc. must be tossed into the waste-bin of history. Only then, by starting with clear problem statement, a clean slate, an open mind and valid set assumptions can one proceed to accurate optimal solutions.

Most people want the answer(s) handed to them on a silver platter. Its only natural; we're generally lazy. But its the process that is important. By forcing ourselves to think critically and to experiment, new neural pathways leading to deeper understanding and a firm foundation on which to continue to build and put into place.

I won't do the heavy lifting (the distillation) for Jim, Jeff or Puttmad. That would be doing them a disservice. It would also be doing myself a disservice because in their process of discovery they may come across something from which I myself can benefit. That's how we learn and we grow.



This thread is headed every which way now... My purpose was to expose the logical fallacy of the CF powered release. To that end I've done what I can. Sure some will brand me a heretic. Cognitive dissonance is rampant so naturally some will cling tightly to their delusions. So be it. In time their beliefs will be exposed for what they are and the truth will become self-evident. By then some of us will be that much further down the road, the gap widening with those stuck in their ways left to eat our dust. Thats just the way it is.

NM - I agree this thread has wandered, but I'm going to try to keep focused on the physics topic for now.

Thanks for showing your approach, and your analysis using D'Alembert's principle was interesting. But, I think I need a little more convincing. I wonder that just because a model can be developed that simulates an action doesn't necessarily mean that only the factors used in the model are involved or causal. I still hold out as much chance that the CF model would produce accurate results (I think you said Nesbit may have assumed CF-throwout as well?). I'm assuming at this point that your model would come reasonably close to simulating the free hinge action but it's difficult to really check without some sort of validation and that's tough to do without some real data.

I'm interested in the slowing hands "myth" which I think is related to this discussion. Was that disproved somewhere? I have video analysis software and quite a few pro swings and using a feature where you can mark positions frame-by-frame it sure seems the hands slow down just before impact.

For golfers - to me both models suggest that holding the wrists back until later in the downswing and creating as short a radius of the hand path just before impact are ways to really increase the release. Anything else?

 

[Bronco Billy]

Thank goodness for me around here...you guys have so much knowledge, but can't explain a lick.

Here goes my best shot, PLEASE correct my incorrect assumptions ONLY if they VIOLATE THE LAWS of force and motion.

Cool?

Here goes...

How The Release Works in The Golf Swing

The golfer moves his club, hands and arms—the "Power Package"—to the top by way of his body rotation, arm lift, elbow bend and wrist cock.

From the top, from the ground up, the golfer exerts force on the club. That force could be pulling in a "along the club" fashion, or with a force "across the shaft."

As the golfers pivot rotation pick up speed, it aligns—or TILTS—itself in away to influence both speed and direction of the "along the club" force.

The golfer—who may have done it already, and too soon—then can apply the "across the shaft" to add in the speed and direction of the clubhead.

The angle that was formed on the backswing—and may have been added to on the downswing—of the golfers left arm and club, wrist cock if you will, will be "encouraged" to stay in this fashion as the golfer's force along the shaft from the top, keeps the weight of the clubhead "inside" the golfer's hands having gravity assist in storage and or "float loading" of this wrist cock.

While all this is happening, the golfer's right arm was bending going back and may have been bent more during the "inside" the hands phase of the downswing.

The Pivot's rotation, which has carried the arm/hand/& club unit into the downswing, reaches top speed as the clubhead orbit takes it outside the hands and gravity and ___________________forces begins to "release" the angles.

At this point, the golfer can apply force across the shaft to speed the power package unit up.

All of this comes to a head, when the pivot puts on the brakes from the ground up, and that pivot speed is transfered to the Power Package (arm/hand/& club unit), adding to its already rapidly increasing amount.

The ball is struck on the way to all of the angles becoming inline, where the force is the greatest.

So the "RELEASE" is "released" by gravity, force along and across the shaft which gets to the club by way of the hands, with an assist from the right arm and pivot.

How'd I do?

Hi There

Are You Saying PingMan would Not Release in a Zero Gravity Environment?

Cheers

 

[JeffM]

Steve - you state-: "You would have to slow down the upper pendulum in order to let the lower pendulum catch up." You also state with respect to a left arm only swing (which doesn't involve muscle force) -: "Pull hard fast at the start to maximize momentum, then slow down the left arm to let the clubhead catch up."

In both instances, you are stating that the left arm (or upper arm) has to slow down so that the clubhead can catch up. However, that's obviously not true. In a "real" golfer's swing he can swing his left arm at a constant speed throughout the downswing and the relase will still occur and the clubhead will nearly catch up to the hands by impact. The same applies to the PingMan machine. The central arm of the PingMan machine doesn't slow down during the downswing, and yet a release occurs and the clubhead nearly catches up to the peripheral end of the central arm (equivalent to the hands) by impact. I want you to explain that phenomenon - the reason why the release occurs at a certain point in the downswing (usually at approximately waist level) and why the clubhead can nearly catch up to the hands in the short time period from the delivery position (when the clubshaft is parallel to the ground and parallel to the ball-target line) to the impact position - without implying that there is any need for ACTIVE wrist unhinging/uncocking.

Jeff.

 

[Brian Manzella]

edit

Folks, go back and take all the trash talk out, or I will.

This thread is on the verge of the freezer.

Brian

 

[nmgolfer]

re more convincing....

I'm not here to sell you anything. I'm not going to try to "close the deal". I'm showing you the way it is... take it or leave it. Models are well.. a model (profound I know ) and that's why the modeler must scrutinize carefully what elements get included. Ever hear the term: GIGO?... garbage in garbage out. As far as "the CF model" goes... what model? We're still waiting on a mandrin to produce a "CF model". He showed a simple compound pendulum with a constant hub torque. I outlined some of the deficiencies in that approach to modeling a golfer's swing in an earlier post.

If I were asked to design and build a "pingman".... I would pull out a compound pendulum model, like mandrin's, and use it to size the hub drive mechanism appropriately. If I wanted to model a golfer's swing (and did'nt have access to the software Nesbit uses) I would take an approach similar to the one I outlined. It would be a (parametric) model so I could adjust the variables that matter and I would optimize (given practical constraints). That's a way to see (mathematically) just what might be possible (in the way of say club head speed).

As far as the slowing hands myth goes... Nesbit's test results disproved it:
http://www.jssm.org/vol4/n4/17/f4.gif

All golfers tested had nearly identical hand velocity profiles (which is quite intriguing by itself) and none exhibited significant slowing prior to impact. That's not to say a golfer can't have slowing hands. Clearly they can as shown by the photographic evidence Dante produced in defense of the now falsified COAM myth. But its NOT a requirement (for "the energy to "flow" out to the clubhead" )

I do recall reading Nesbit mention CF with respect to release. He's no fool so I asked myself... why would he do that? Just speculation but... Academics are in a never-ending search for money; research funds grease the wheels of higher education. Professors are not unlike politicians in that regard.

From what I gather, funding for Nesbit's (golf) research comes from two sources: USGA and NSF. We know how ensconced the CF myth is in the golfing establishment. Heck the author of nearly every golf book published in the past century blathers on about it. Of course repeating a myth (like the CF myth) over and over again and again does not make it less false but what it does do is cement the misconception in the minds of the impressionable. If I were Nesbit I might choose not to fight the CF battle (and risk pissing off my funders) either...

NM - I agree this thread has wandered, but I'm going to try to keep focused on the physics topic for now.

Thanks for showing your approach, and your analysis using D'Alembert's principle was interesting. But, I think I need a little more convincing. I wonder that just because a model can be developed that simulates an action doesn't necessarily mean that only the factors used in the model are involved or causal. I still hold out as much chance that the CF model would produce accurate results (I think you said Nesbit may have assumed CF-throwout as well?). I'm assuming at this point that your model would come reasonably close to simulating the free hinge action but it's difficult to really check without some sort of validation and that's tough to do without some real data.

I'm interested in the slowing hands "myth" which I think is related to this discussion. Was that disproved somewhere? I have video analysis software and quite a few pro swings and using a feature where you can mark positions frame-by-frame it sure seems the hands slow down just before impact.

For golfers - to me both models suggest that holding the wrists back until later in the downswing and creating as short a radius of the hand path just before impact are ways to really increase the release. Anything else?