Fixing TGM....(?)

[birdie_man]

Interesting thread over at Iseek....still going....

Here's the last post on page 15:

"After much effort I think it is safe to say that the centrifugal powered swing
and endless belt have been laid to rest. Next target is the red herring of
swinging v hitting. That one will take a long time to die.

This discussion has a long way to go yet!

The eventual target? A sound basis for interested
golfers to understand what actually happens
in a golf swing. By stripping away the misconceptions
from TGM theory we should discover the truths it
holds. That's not too much to ask is it?"

http://www.iseekgolf.com/forums/inde...#ent ry213596

Crazy discussion.....but some ppl might be interested.

 

[Flatleftwrist]

Interesting thread over at Iseek....still going....

Here's the last post on page 15:

"After much effort I think it is safe to say that the centrifugal powered swing
and endless belt have been laid to rest. Next target is the red herring of
swinging v hitting. That one will take a long time to die.

This discussion has a long way to go yet!

The eventual target? A sound basis for interested
golfers to understand what actually happens
in a golf swing. By stripping away the misconceptions
from TGM theory we should discover the truths it
holds. That's not too much to ask is it?"

http://www.iseekgolf.com/forums/inde...#ent ry213596

Crazy discussion.....but some ppl might be interested.

BM,

You may want to correct his misinterpretation. He misrepresents TGM by re-inventing a concept, then argues against his own re-invented concept. Where in the book does it say "Centrifugal Powered Swing"? The throw out action of Centrifugal Force uncocks the swingers left wrist, but CF does not power the club, and we take the entire club into impact, not just the clubhead. The accumulators are the power sources.

I haven't read his issues with the endless belt, but if he again re-invented HK, I'd suggest he re-read the Book.

 

[birdie_man]

Where in the book does it say "Centrifugal Powered Swing"?

That's what I said....not sure tho.

The throw out action of Centrifugal Force uncocks the swingers left wrist

That's one of the things they disputed, I believe.

...

The discussion is f***ed.

I think it's a good thing really....

But all I learned....(mostly)....is that I ain't Bill Nye.

 

[nmgolfer]

In Principia Mathematica Issac Newton lays out four axioms (unquestioned truths) on which our understand of mechanics is based to this today. The first axiom is that: Objects in Motion Remain in Motion unless acted on by a force. What the **** does this have to do with the golf swing you ask?

Imagine a clubhead moving in a direction at given velocity... Not in a circle in a straight line (linear not curvilinear) direction. The ONLY way that club head can be made to move in a circle is if a force acts on it. And what exactly is a force? Its a Mass X (times as in multiplication) Acceleration.

So in order for a clubhead which has a given mass (usually about 200 grams) to move in a circle it must accelerate in the direction of center of the circle. The amount of acceleration that is required to make it change its direction so that it moves in a circle instead of a straight line is proportional to the velocity of the clubhead. That accelerationhas a magnitude of 1/2 r ( omega ) ^2 where r is the radius (ie distance from clubhead to center of rotation) and omega is the angular velocity in radians per second.

Another way of writing the required acceleration is 1/2 V^2. What is this acceleration called? That's right CENTRIPETAL... centripetal accleration times the mass of the club head results in a force... NO NOT A CENTRIFUGAL FORCE... a centripetal force which gives rise to tension in the golf club shaft (or string in the case of a twirling rock). Centrifugal force is not real... it is imaginary and used to explain such things as why a ball rolls off of your car seat when you apply the breaks. Some people incorrectly say "centrifugal force" acted on the ball when what really happened is friction acted on the brake pads slowing the car underneath the ball. Friction is real and centripetal acceleration is real... CENTRIFUGAL force is NOT!

Here is the key thing TGM afficianados need to realize. The change in direction of the clubhead gives rise to the acceleration not the other way around. That centripetal acceleration cannot lead to "more club head speed" or cause 'release' or any of the magic TGM apparently attributes to it. Centripetal force is a 'reaction' not a primary or 'action' force.

This is a "cart before the horse" kind of thing. This is a "what came first the chicken or the egg?" kind of thing. Trained engineers know this. Homer was human and he got it wrong like so many after including the great Jack Nicklaus himself.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Math guy.

Ok, I'll bite.

Reacting to what?

 

[Biffer]

Ok, I'll bite.

Reacting to what?

In a golf swing...rotation?

 

[nmgolfer]

Ok, I'll bite.

Reacting to what?

Its 'reacting' to the golfer holding ONTO the club which is connected to the clubhead thereby forcing the clubhead to change directions (move in a circle)

 

[Brian Manzella]

Its 'reacting' to the golfer holding ONTO the club which is connected to the clubhead thereby forcing the clubhead to change directions (move in a circle)

Ok, I am at the top of my swing, and I ain't moving, it has NOTHING to react to.

So, that ain't it.

REACTING TO WHAT???

 

[Brian Manzella]

Dude, YOU need to stay in.

Ok, WHAT MOVES THE CLUB FROM THE TOP...you say 'once it is moving'...

WHAT MOVES IT FIRST?

The moon?

 

[Flatleftwrist]

In Principia Mathematica Issac Newton lays out four axioms (unquestioned truths) on which our understand of mechanics is based to this today. The first axiom is that: Objects in Motion Remain in Motion unless acted on by a force. What the **** does this have to do with the golf swing you ask?

Imagine a clubhead moving in a direction at given velocity... Not in a circle in a straight line (linear not curvilinear) direction. The ONLY way that club head can be made to move in a circle is if a force acts on it. And what exactly is a force? Its a Mass X (times as in multiplication) Acceleration.

So in order for a clubhead which has a given mass (usually about 200 grams) to move in a circle it must accelerate in the direction of center of the circle. The amount of acceleration that is required to make it change its direction so that it moves in a circle instead of a straight line is proportional to the velocity of the clubhead. That accelerationhas a magnitude of 1/2 r ( omega ) ^2 where r is the radius (ie distance from clubhead to center of rotation) and omega is the angular velocity in radians per second.

Another way of writing the required acceleration is 1/2 V^2. What is this acceleration called? That's right CENTRIPETAL... centripetal accleration times the mass of the club head results in a force... NO NOT A CENTRIFUGAL FORCE... a centripetal force which gives rise to tension in the golf club shaft (or string in the case of a twirling rock). Centrifugal force is not real... it is imaginary and used to explain such things as why a ball rolls off of your car seat when you apply the breaks. Some people incorrectly say "centrifugal force" acted on the ball when what really happened is friction acted on the brake pads slowing the car underneath the ball. Friction is real and centripetal acceleration is real... CENTRIFUGAL force is NOT!

Here is the key thing TGM afficianados need to realize. The change in direction of the clubhead gives rise to the acceleration not the other way around. That centripetal acceleration cannot lead to "more club head speed" or cause 'release' or any of the magic TGM apparently attributes to it. Centripetal force is a 'reaction' not a primary or 'action' force.

This is a "cart before the horse" kind of thing. This is a "what came first the chicken or the egg?" kind of thing. Trained engineers know this. Homer was human and he got it wrong like so many after including the great Jack Nicklaus himself.

That's all very interesting and thank you for your time and the enlightenment. Issac Newton didn't play golf. He didn't teach it either. And your argument doesn't apply to TGM. Centrifugal Force is not used to propel the Golf Ball. It didn't propel David's rock either. HK never said it did. You seem to know something about centrifugal force so maybe you should be on an Automobile Accident Forum but not a TGM Forum. Once you read the book and get help understanding it, then you'll understand what powers the club. Otherwise, stick to something that applies and you know something about.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Don't change the subject...

back to our little discussion...

WHAT MOVES THE CLUB FIRST?

 

[Flatleftwrist]

Don't change the subject...

back to our little discussion...

WHAT MOVES THE CLUB FIRST?

He doesn't know. He would rather wonder about waiting for someone to spoon feed him information than pick up the book and learn for himself. He'll never learn. He wants this to be an argument about CF because he doesn't know anything about the golf swing except for what he learns on the Golf Channel.

 

[Biffer]

nmgolfer, thanks for the great posts. It looks to me like BM is looking for additional info, in order to completely understand your explanation and I, too, am interested, although I believe I correctly follow most of what you are saying. Please, be patient and hang in this discussion a little longer for the benefit of us eager learners. Thanks, Biffer.

 

[nmgolfer]

That's all very interesting and thank you for your time and the enlightenment. Issac Newton didn't play golf. He didn't teach it either. And your argument doesn't apply to TGM. Centrifugal Force is not used to propel the Golf Ball. It didn't propel David's rock either. HK never said it did. You seem to know something about centrifugal force so maybe you should be on an Automobile Accident Forum but not a TGM Forum. Once you read the book and get help understanding it, then you'll understand what powers the club. Otherwise, stick to something that applies and you know something about.

I deleted that post you quoted because I realized leaving it would lead you folks even farther astray. The formula is wrong. Centripetal acceleration is a = r*omega^2 where omega is the angular velocity in radians per second or V^2/r . Thats what I get for relying on memory and not checking the book. Fer gosh no... not your little yellow book by that Boeing tech aid drafter (Homer Kelley). Yes they may be in the same union SPEEA but tech aides are not engineers (unless their engineering degree is from some po-dunk university Boeing does not recognize as offering an acredited program).

I understand what powers the club. As soon as I can get my hands on mathematica (wolfram's software) or the equivalent, I indent to solve the coupled differential equations and show exactly how the "flail" works... Guess what... it sure is heck isn't because of an imaginary force called the centrifugal. Some people will care; others, perhaps the majority, will remain content in their delusions. The majority once thought the earth was once flat and the center of the solar system too.

PS How do you know Isaac Newton never played golf?

 

[nmgolfer]

nmgolfer, thanks for the great posts. It looks to me like BM is looking for additional info, in order to completely understand your explanation and I, too, am interested, although I believe I correctly follow most of what you are saying. Please, be patient and hang in this discussion a little longer for the benefit of us eager learners. Thanks, Biffer.

THX.... not much more to be said at this point other than that the centrifugal force theory is wrong. What need to happen next is for the problem to laid out and solved analytically using a computer to crunch then simulated the differential equations governing the club motion. Doing that will show how the "flail" or "release" really happens. IT will also be able to predict other things such as the optimal "lag" or delofting of the club (if any) needed to attain max clubhead speed or whether it pays to slow or speed up hands just prior to impact etc.... all "theories" being bandied about.

 

[ej20]

THX.... not much more to be said at this point other than that the centrifugal force theory is wrong. What need to happen next is for the problem to laid out and solved analytically using a computer to crunch then simulated the differential equations governing the club motion. Doing that will show how the "flail" or "release" really happens. IT will also be able to predict other things such as the optimal "lag" or delofting of the club (if any) needed to attain max clubhead speed or whether it pays to slow or speed up hands just prior to impact etc.... all "theories" being bandied about.

Centrifugal force may not be a "real" force in the context of Newtons principle of inertia but it has a real "effect".Who cares what this force is called?You can call it centrifugal force,resisting inertial force,jedi force,magic force,reaction force but engineers know that this force is real in effect and thus can be applied in real life applications as though it was a real force.

In any case,the principle of inertia does not hold true in circular motion because circular motion is not an inertial frame of reference,it's a non-inertial frame.

 

[hcw]

Don't change the subject...

back to our little discussion...

WHAT MOVES THE CLUB FIRST?

the same thing that ALWAYS/ONLY moves the club, the connection to the hands...now the hands will move secondary to movement of various other body parts, and we vary that a bunch (and often incorrectly), but if/when/how the hands move, so does the club...as to the question i think you are asking, i think the pivot/weight shift "MOVES THE CLUB FIRST" (or should)...

-hcw

 

[Martee]

There are a few who are keying off of a mis-read statements.

The Centrifugal Force Arguement has several issues
a. It doesn't exist, it does exist.

Actually and even Homer identified this Centrifugal Force is really Centrifugal Reaction. It is a reaction to the Centripetal Force. Some TGMers like to reference Homer and the swinging clubhead on the string, others will reference a more classic example the pulling outward effect of a car speeding around a turn.

b. Centrifugal Force is what a swinger uses, muscular thrust for the hitter.

Now Homer does state "...the Physics of Hitting is Muscular Thrust, and of Swinging, Centrifugal Force." This is where the pure at heart of the physics crowd get up in arms and prove using text book physics that this can not be, so therefore TGM is flawed.

He also states "..to indicate that Centrifugal Force (Centrifugal Reaction),not muscle, is propelling hte Secondary Lever Assembly (the Golf Club) into Impact.

These are two of the issues that they have and can at length argue. Part because of the word selection including Homers statement that the words can be located in a dictionary cause they are everyday terms and part because of the choppiness in the writing and not repeating information. The extended reference can in fact take some time to finally piece it together.

As long as TGMers stand up and pound thier chests that TGM is based on Geometry and Physics, then you can expect this IMO. In fact many TGMers have just accepted the information and are in fact spreading incorrect information regarding the actual physics and geometry.

 

[Brian Manzella]

NM never answered me, IMO.

WHAT moves the club FIRST??

(what if it isn't the hands???)

 

[Steve Khatib]

I wouldnt waste my time with any other forum other than Manzella Golf Forum because its silly to debate golf with ignorant people who are still into fads and gimicks to give themselves a quick fix!

NM never answered me, IMO.

WHAT moves the club FIRST??

(what if it isn't the hands???)