Acceleration of clubhead

Status
Not open for further replies.

nmgolfer

New member
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.
 

nmgolfer

New member
For the case mandrin has shown....

fbdbeadnh2.png

http://nmgolfscience.tripod.com/img/fbd_bead.png
 
Last edited:

JeffM

New member
Whew! It's great to have NMGolfer contributing his insights. It gives one a different perspective on the issue.

Jeff.
 

Bronco Billy

New member
Whew! It's great to have NMGolfer contributing his insights. It gives one a different perspective on the issue.

Jeff.

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...

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.
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. :rolleyes:

“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. :p

From above I wonder if you are just a "drafter" or tech-aid of some kind. :D
 
Hi there,

This is getting very silly as both nmgolfer and Mandrin are correct where physics is concern. I did not go through all the formulaes but the problem seems to be that both cannot agree to use the same reference frame!

Sigh ..

daniel
 
I'm just wondering how many golfers are hitting the ball 50 yards further due to the clearly defined ( if you are AE..:)) information in this thread....:D
 

nmgolfer

New member
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.
 
Last edited:

JeffM

New member
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.
 

nmgolfer

New member
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.
 

hcw

New
Why can't we all just get along?


Why can't you guys just exchange different opinions on the correct mathematical exposition of the relese phenomenon without indulging in unmannerly inflammatory rhetoric?

...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:)...
 

JeffM

New member
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.
 

hcw

New
My sister, my mother, my sister, my mother...

nmgolfer,
Stop editing your posts to sound more civil than you actually are.

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
 

nmgolfer

New member
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.
 
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.

error_1.gif


Above is the formula you deem to be wrong. Well, let’s see and start with a dimensional analysis.

error_2.gif

error_3.gif

Correct, dimensions on both sides are the same.

Moreover,

error_4.gif

error_5.gif

error_6.gif


Substituting last expression in (1) gives:

error_7.gif


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. :p

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. :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top