palmreader
New
Inertia
..I am not a expert like Mandrin and G2M, but I thought Inertia is the product of Mass and accelration....
..I am not a expert like Mandrin and G2M, but I thought Inertia is the product of Mass and accelration....
Effective striking mass of clubhead
- Thread starter mandrin
- Start date
- Status
Perfect Impact
New
Is not inertia a non-quantified property: in motion or at rest.
The product of velocity and mass is quantified, and it is called momentum.
Acceleration is the application of force to change inertia in a body--to move one at rest or to change the velocity of one in motion.
But of course simple things like this have to be questioned. After all, everyone is beyond those things by now, right?
The product of velocity and mass is quantified, and it is called momentum.
Acceleration is the application of force to change inertia in a body--to move one at rest or to change the velocity of one in motion.
But of course simple things like this have to be questioned. After all, everyone is beyond those things by now, right?
Right again ...
Looks like I need a refresher course, physics was only like 30 years ago.....
I guess what I'm trying to say is that at impact, you have Momentum P=MV, and Kinetic Energy Ke=1/2 M*V^2 of an object attached only at the hands. The clubhead doesn't increase in mass, so the only variable left to work with is velocity. Thinking about the light vs heavy Iron Byron for a minute, the only point of application of any weight difference is at the club machine junction, which would be an application of torque to the rotating club assembly. Increased torque, would increase velocity, which violates the premise of equal clubhead speed. I for one am anxious to hear Mandrin's take on this subject.
G2M
golf2much,
Inertia is that quantity which is solely dependent upon mass.
The mass of a body does not change with acceleration, hence
The inertia of a body does not change with acceleration either.
Only a change in mass can change the inertia, not acceleration.
Looks like I need a refresher course, physics was only like 30 years ago.....
I guess what I'm trying to say is that at impact, you have Momentum P=MV, and Kinetic Energy Ke=1/2 M*V^2 of an object attached only at the hands. The clubhead doesn't increase in mass, so the only variable left to work with is velocity. Thinking about the light vs heavy Iron Byron for a minute, the only point of application of any weight difference is at the club machine junction, which would be an application of torque to the rotating club assembly. Increased torque, would increase velocity, which violates the premise of equal clubhead speed. I for one am anxious to hear Mandrin's take on this subject.
G2M
mandrin
New
Why?
golf2much,
I took great pain to define the situation in terms of mass, not in terms of torque. I made up a figure to further define things. Then further refinement with the reference to Iron Byron.
Why do you keep hence thinking in terms of torque? I can assure that it is definitely is not the same as mass.
Why is it that so many golfers feel that a golf club attached to a train, going down the track at 100 mph, will hit a golf ball further than a golfer striking the ball also with 100 mph?
Why is it that Mindy Blake, described as engineer and scientist, in his books, is very plain about his conviction that a 'high-pressure' swing is superior to a 'high-speed' swing?
Why is it that Ike S Handy stubbornly states in his book that it is the swinging of the body weight and not the speed of the clubhead, which produces distance?
Why is the same notion present TGM with resistance to impact deceleration, feeling heavy and deliberate, varying effective clubhead mass?
There is in all this a common thread, a similar intuition notion, that one can somehow increase the effective striking mass of the clubhead.
Where is this notion coming from? What might be a possible explanation?
I am surprised that none of the true hard core TGMers has stepped up to the plate to help us understand what HK meant by effective mass.
Are they afraid of it being scrutinized a bit?
golf2much,
I took great pain to define the situation in terms of mass, not in terms of torque. I made up a figure to further define things. Then further refinement with the reference to Iron Byron.
Why do you keep hence thinking in terms of torque? I can assure that it is definitely is not the same as mass.
Why is it that so many golfers feel that a golf club attached to a train, going down the track at 100 mph, will hit a golf ball further than a golfer striking the ball also with 100 mph?
Why is it that Mindy Blake, described as engineer and scientist, in his books, is very plain about his conviction that a 'high-pressure' swing is superior to a 'high-speed' swing?
Why is it that Ike S Handy stubbornly states in his book that it is the swinging of the body weight and not the speed of the clubhead, which produces distance?
Why is the same notion present TGM with resistance to impact deceleration, feeling heavy and deliberate, varying effective clubhead mass?
There is in all this a common thread, a similar intuition notion, that one can somehow increase the effective striking mass of the clubhead.
Where is this notion coming from? What might be a possible explanation?
I am surprised that none of the true hard core TGMers has stepped up to the plate to help us understand what HK meant by effective mass.
Are they afraid of it being scrutinized a bit?
Last edited:
mandrin
New
2-M-2
2-M-2 POWER REGULATION
To vary the Effective Clubhead Mass, vary:
-1. The Acceleration Rate (Lag Pressure 7-11)
-2. The Swing Radius (length of Primary Lever Assembly 6-B-0)
To vary Clubhead Speed, vary:
-1. Acceleration Time (Length of Stroke 10-21)
-2. The Release Interval (Centrifugal Reaction 6-N-0)
Homer above refers distinctly to the mass and the speed of the clubhead.
The kinetic energy is ------------ ½ * Clubhead Mass * Clubhead Speed ^2
The linear momentum is ---------------Clubhead Mass * Clubhead Speed
And indeed both are important as they determine clubhead kinetic energy and momentum.
Varying the speed no problem, but how does one change the mass of the clubhead?
I am sure that plain English language birdie_man can give me a hand to tell me how.
2-M-2 POWER REGULATION
To vary the Effective Clubhead Mass, vary:
-1. The Acceleration Rate (Lag Pressure 7-11)
-2. The Swing Radius (length of Primary Lever Assembly 6-B-0)
To vary Clubhead Speed, vary:
-1. Acceleration Time (Length of Stroke 10-21)
-2. The Release Interval (Centrifugal Reaction 6-N-0)
Homer above refers distinctly to the mass and the speed of the clubhead.
The kinetic energy is ------------ ½ * Clubhead Mass * Clubhead Speed ^2
The linear momentum is ---------------Clubhead Mass * Clubhead Speed
And indeed both are important as they determine clubhead kinetic energy and momentum.
Varying the speed no problem, but how does one change the mass of the clubhead?
I am sure that plain English language birdie_man can give me a hand to tell me how.
2-M-2 POWER REGULATION
To vary the Effective Clubhead Mass, vary:
-1. The Acceleration Rate (Lag Pressure 7-11)
-2. The Swing Radius (length of Primary Lever Assembly 6-B-0)
To vary Clubhead Speed, vary:
-1. Acceleration Time (Length of Stroke 10-21)
-2. The Release Interval (Centrifugal Reaction 6-N-0)
Homer above refers distinctly to the mass and the speed of the clubhead.
The kinetic energy is ------------ ½ * Clubhead Mass * Clubhead Speed ^2
The linear momentum is ---------------Clubhead Mass * Clubhead Speed
And indeed both are important as they determine clubhead kinetic energy and momentum.
Varying the speed no problem, but how does one change the mass of the clubhead?
I am sure that plain English language birdie_man can give me a hand to tell me how.
New Theory
Mandrin;
I'm aware that you defined the problem for us in terms of mass, and realize that torque isn't mass. I guess I've skipped a step in the process, so, I'll take a step back. I'm convinced there cannot be a "transfer of mass" from golf club holder to golf club, but maybe my focus is too narrow. Let's consider something unconventional:
Suppose "disconnection" is just a convenient theory. When we calculate momentum and kinetic evergy, we always use the weight of the clubhead and the speed of the clubhead, on the basis that the clubhead acts as a free body. What if that isn't exactly correct. Without arguing for or against the disconnection theory, suppose you consider the swinging golf club, shaft, grip, hand, arm, shoulder etc as a system. IF you accept that premise, then each component of the system will have a unique and specific contribution to the total kinetic energy and momentum of the system. One could argue that each of these "components" have their own velocity and mass, and hence a contribution to total kinetic energy and momentum of the assembly. If this is the case, then a golfer with heavier arms for example would have more total momentum and kinetic energy in his system than a golfer with lighter arms upon arrival at impact. If you considered the total energy and held clubhead speed constant, this could give the impression of greater mass "transfered" by the heavier golfer. I would suggest that if this is the case that only extra weight in the primary lever assembly would matter. The test would be not just an Iron Byron with 100 extra pounds of weight in its base, but one with extra weight in the actual mechanism that swings.
I know this flies in the face of conventional thinking, but you asked.... Journal of Applied Physics here I come...
G2M
golf2much,
I took great pain to define the situation in terms of mass, not in terms of torque. I made up a figure to further define things. Then further refinement with the reference to Iron Byron.
Why do you keep hence thinking in terms of torque? I can assure that it is definitely is not the same as mass.
Why is it that so many golfers feel that a golf club attached to a train, going down the track at 100 mph, will hit a golf ball further than a golfer striking the ball also with 100 mph?
Why is it that Mindy Blake, described as engineer and scientist, in his books, is very plain about his conviction that a 'high-pressure' swing is superior to a 'high-speed' swing?
Why is it that Ike S Handy stubbornly states in his book that it is the swinging of the body weight and not the speed of the clubhead, which produces distance?
Why is the same notion present TGM with resistance to impact deceleration, feeling heavy and deliberate, effective mass?
There is in all this a common thread, a similar intuition notion, that one can somehow increase the effective striking mass of the clubhead.
Where is this notion coming from? What might be a possible explanation?
I am surprised that none of the true hard core TGMers has stepped up to the plate to help us understand what HK meant by effective mass.
Are they afraid of it being scrutinized a bit?
Mandrin;
I'm aware that you defined the problem for us in terms of mass, and realize that torque isn't mass. I guess I've skipped a step in the process, so, I'll take a step back. I'm convinced there cannot be a "transfer of mass" from golf club holder to golf club, but maybe my focus is too narrow. Let's consider something unconventional:
Suppose "disconnection" is just a convenient theory. When we calculate momentum and kinetic evergy, we always use the weight of the clubhead and the speed of the clubhead, on the basis that the clubhead acts as a free body. What if that isn't exactly correct. Without arguing for or against the disconnection theory, suppose you consider the swinging golf club, shaft, grip, hand, arm, shoulder etc as a system. IF you accept that premise, then each component of the system will have a unique and specific contribution to the total kinetic energy and momentum of the system. One could argue that each of these "components" have their own velocity and mass, and hence a contribution to total kinetic energy and momentum of the assembly. If this is the case, then a golfer with heavier arms for example would have more total momentum and kinetic energy in his system than a golfer with lighter arms upon arrival at impact. If you considered the total energy and held clubhead speed constant, this could give the impression of greater mass "transfered" by the heavier golfer. I would suggest that if this is the case that only extra weight in the primary lever assembly would matter. The test would be not just an Iron Byron with 100 extra pounds of weight in its base, but one with extra weight in the actual mechanism that swings.
I know this flies in the face of conventional thinking, but you asked.... Journal of Applied Physics here I come...
G2M
Perfect Impact
New
I'm following the posts here with interest. Let me throw in a little twig - not to hijack, but to inquire a bit:
at impact there is ONLY mass x velocity striking the stationary ball, no?
If that is the case and any force that COULD be applied through the shaft to the clubhead DURING THE IMPACT INTERVAL is microscopic by comparison to the force of a 100 mph collision and a 200 gram mass, how can anything ELSE (other than COR) come into play. MV1 = MV2 less whatever is lost in heat and sound..., where MV2 is actually TWO mvs, what is left over in the club itself at separation, and what has been given to the ball.
I am curious whether some other as yet unidentified element might come into play: Microwaves? Hurricanes? Strings? Light impulses?
Anyone?
at impact there is ONLY mass x velocity striking the stationary ball, no?
If that is the case and any force that COULD be applied through the shaft to the clubhead DURING THE IMPACT INTERVAL is microscopic by comparison to the force of a 100 mph collision and a 200 gram mass, how can anything ELSE (other than COR) come into play. MV1 = MV2 less whatever is lost in heat and sound..., where MV2 is actually TWO mvs, what is left over in the club itself at separation, and what has been given to the ball.
I am curious whether some other as yet unidentified element might come into play: Microwaves? Hurricanes? Strings? Light impulses?
Anyone?
Conventional Wisdom
Yes, but the question is, the mass of what? Just the clubhead? Conventional appraoches analzye the situation that way. Mandrin is questioning the long held (by some/many) that a heavier golfer would hit the ball farther with the same club and swing speed. My somewhat TIC post above is an attempt to question whether some of the golfers mass contributes to the energy and momentum at impact.
G2M
Yes, but the question is, the mass of what? Just the clubhead? Conventional appraoches analzye the situation that way. Mandrin is questioning the long held (by some/many) that a heavier golfer would hit the ball farther with the same club and swing speed. My somewhat TIC post above is an attempt to question whether some of the golfers mass contributes to the energy and momentum at impact.
G2M
Perfect Impact
New
JUST the clubhead: I said that anything that could be added DURING impact to the mass of the clubhead must indeed be negligible. Of course there is no other mass (unless it's in the tip of the shaft, in the hosel....).
Contrarian Position
George;
Are you sure? How can you be so certain that no other mass contributes momentum or kinetic energy to impact if you don't isolate the analysis to just the clubhead?
The discussion here has it's roots in the various analogies Mandrin cited above, and how could they possibly be true? The premise I put forth previously is based on the "If the clubhead did not behave as a free body" as suggested by Cochran and Stubb and other various authors.
What are your thoughts from that perspective?
G2M
George;
Are you sure? How can you be so certain that no other mass contributes momentum or kinetic energy to impact if you don't isolate the analysis to just the clubhead?
The discussion here has it's roots in the various analogies Mandrin cited above, and how could they possibly be true? The premise I put forth previously is based on the "If the clubhead did not behave as a free body" as suggested by Cochran and Stubb and other various authors.
What are your thoughts from that perspective?
G2M
Perfect Impact
New
It is self evident, once you see how little difference an applied force can possibly add to the already existing momentum at the instant of collision, that even if the golfer's arms and hands were massive, the clubHEAD simply has a fixed mass. There is no "transfer of mass." Tap a clubhead with a ball or a pen point when it hangs freely. Fix it in a vise and do the same. Self evident things are not provable; only observable. Belief often has little to do with logic when it is simple self evidence. I don't need to "believe" two and two is four. I don't need to "believe" there is no other mass.
mandrin
New
Tought experiments
It is indeed intriguing to ask the question why even a scientist such as Mindy Blake so strongly believed in this vague but very tenacious concept that swinging slow and heavy is superior.
The only way to keep such type of concepts alive is by never doing any critical thinking to put no efforts in translating it into some numerical value. Just like Burner in his post on the high jacked side of this discussion.
One posible reason I can think as perhaps a plausible explanation is that it became so strongly embedded in feel that it totally overpowered reason. Just imagine Blake like Kelley, day in day out with great passion experimenting endlessly.
I think it is fair to assume most people intuitively immediately assume that a big golfer has an advantage over a light weight golfer. Hence there is somewhere the intuitive notion that the body weight somehow ‘flows’ into the strike.
More scientifically this is handled by the concepts such as mass distribution and effective striking mass. Most of the body mass of a golfer is participating in developing kinetic energy in the down swing but virtually none is contributing to the mass involved in the impact.
If you take impacts such as occur in sports like karate, boxing, football, etc. there is much more body mass associated with impact, being more directly inline with impact. In sports like tennis or golf there is an intermediate implement and the relation becomes much more tenuous.
It is therefore quite plausible that these intuitive notions from various sports, such as boxing, are carried over into golf without realizing that it is not quite the same situation due to the usage of an intermediate implement.
Hence again, to put the dots on the i’s, I am only trying in this post to look at the puzzling question why this myth so tenacious remains with us whilst it has no support in science whatsoever.
golf2much, I am glad that you understood my questioning and tried to do some thought experiments on your own to come to grips with this intriguing matter. Most simply quickly jump to conclusions and no insight is gained.
It is indeed intriguing to ask the question why even a scientist such as Mindy Blake so strongly believed in this vague but very tenacious concept that swinging slow and heavy is superior.
The only way to keep such type of concepts alive is by never doing any critical thinking to put no efforts in translating it into some numerical value. Just like Burner in his post on the high jacked side of this discussion.
One posible reason I can think as perhaps a plausible explanation is that it became so strongly embedded in feel that it totally overpowered reason. Just imagine Blake like Kelley, day in day out with great passion experimenting endlessly.
I think it is fair to assume most people intuitively immediately assume that a big golfer has an advantage over a light weight golfer. Hence there is somewhere the intuitive notion that the body weight somehow ‘flows’ into the strike.
More scientifically this is handled by the concepts such as mass distribution and effective striking mass. Most of the body mass of a golfer is participating in developing kinetic energy in the down swing but virtually none is contributing to the mass involved in the impact.
If you take impacts such as occur in sports like karate, boxing, football, etc. there is much more body mass associated with impact, being more directly inline with impact. In sports like tennis or golf there is an intermediate implement and the relation becomes much more tenuous.
It is therefore quite plausible that these intuitive notions from various sports, such as boxing, are carried over into golf without realizing that it is not quite the same situation due to the usage of an intermediate implement.
Hence again, to put the dots on the i’s, I am only trying in this post to look at the puzzling question why this myth so tenacious remains with us whilst it has no support in science whatsoever.
Perfect Impact
New
Another branch thought: My guess is that the psychological feedback from expending "effort" is compelling in convincing the golfer that he is more effective when he does struggle than when he doesn't. As opposed to the "supple quickness" that Mike Austin put forth. "If it ain't hard, it ain't right" is nearly hypnotically "true" to many people.
Point of fact is that "hard" is often exactly the opposite. What is truly efficient more likely USES EASY natural movements and exertions.
Point of fact is that "hard" is often exactly the opposite. What is truly efficient more likely USES EASY natural movements and exertions.
mandrin
New
Opposing concepts
It seems that golf adores opposing concepts and the long lasting debates around them.
Pushing vs. pulling,
Left vs. right side,
Swinging vs. hitting,
Effort vs. effortless.
George that is indeed an interesting approach to look at this enigma. Indeed it is very hard for many golfers to feel that they don’t control purposely their swing. Many would strike better if giving in to the swing, by letting go, but they resent not feeling being in control.
It seems that golf adores opposing concepts and the long lasting debates around them.
Pushing vs. pulling,
Left vs. right side,
Swinging vs. hitting,
Effort vs. effortless.
Not the premise
You are probably right, but the premise of the original post was if both golfers swing the same club at the same speed.
G2M
You are probably right, but the premise of the original post was if both golfers swing the same club at the same speed.
G2M
It's about Fast
We've all heard, and probably even experienced those situations where the nice smooth un-hurried swing results in career yardage. I suspect that Blake and Kelley found that encouraging a slow deliberate swing resulted in better results for most people. I can't think of an instructor that expouses a "just swing faster theory. These guys figured out that golfers trying to swing faster, and "harder" , A. lost control, and B actually got poorer results.
At the crux of all this debate is the release, and managing to hold it to the last possible instant before the forces of the swing take over. This late release, sustained lag, high pressure swing, slow and heavy all relate to various "feels" that these instructors want to convey to their students. They couched their advice in psuedo scientific jargon to make it sound more important and believable.
Very few golf students have the background to question, let alone explain why these instructors are "right for the wrnong reasons". We know the issue is about speed, and not mass, but effective mass is just another way to say faster, but faster in and of itself conveys "swing harder", which is usually accompanied by an earlier release, less speed at impact and normally much less control. Golfers that followed the advice of those to whom you refer got results, not because they added mass or pressure, but because they improved their mechanics, developed a better release and did a better job of sustaininig the line of compression and arrived at impact with more speed. Hence these concepts have developed a great deal of inertia, and are quite resistant to change. As you have and continue to show, the real and the feel seldom are in synch.
G2M
G2M
We've all heard, and probably even experienced those situations where the nice smooth un-hurried swing results in career yardage. I suspect that Blake and Kelley found that encouraging a slow deliberate swing resulted in better results for most people. I can't think of an instructor that expouses a "just swing faster theory. These guys figured out that golfers trying to swing faster, and "harder" , A. lost control, and B actually got poorer results.
At the crux of all this debate is the release, and managing to hold it to the last possible instant before the forces of the swing take over. This late release, sustained lag, high pressure swing, slow and heavy all relate to various "feels" that these instructors want to convey to their students. They couched their advice in psuedo scientific jargon to make it sound more important and believable.
Very few golf students have the background to question, let alone explain why these instructors are "right for the wrnong reasons". We know the issue is about speed, and not mass, but effective mass is just another way to say faster, but faster in and of itself conveys "swing harder", which is usually accompanied by an earlier release, less speed at impact and normally much less control. Golfers that followed the advice of those to whom you refer got results, not because they added mass or pressure, but because they improved their mechanics, developed a better release and did a better job of sustaininig the line of compression and arrived at impact with more speed. Hence these concepts have developed a great deal of inertia, and are quite resistant to change. As you have and continue to show, the real and the feel seldom are in synch.
G2M
G2M
Perfect Impact
New
Does this forum allow for the possibility of an early start for the acceleration of the club head end of the club - a head start, and I am not talking about throwaway. There is a fulcrum on the shaft between the two hands, about five inches below the grip cap, and using the club as a lever instead of a string/flail produces a different way to accelerate the clubhead. Matter of fact, if force is still being applied after the in-line relationship of the clubhead and left arm, it is plausible that velocity is STILL being increased....Not that I'd do it that way, but it makes sense as a possible, fer sure.
Anyone wish to comment?
Anyone wish to comment?
- Status