For Art...

[bluebird]

There seems to be multiple point of interest associated with this ROC discussion. If I can humbly suggest to Enso that their using their reference point (the center or their reference for all measurements), which I believe is a top down view above the ball (a so called World reference point) is one of the sources of confusion.

Since these machines are being used for truth finding in respect to their products, they have any and all rights to determine what suits them best, but we as golfers have a very different agenda that would be much better served by moving the reference point to the golfers pivot center.
This would accomplish several improvements that would help golfers learn what techniques help or hurt their game.


1. First it would correctly show that if there is no closure added or subtracted, the ROC number would be (0).
2. Then any ROC positive or negative added could be associated with Path (Alpha), Path (Beta), and twisting (Gamma).
3. Different release methods and swing pivot lengths, can be evaluated to determine how they affect Roc and the overall effectiveness of club and swing presentation.
For us laymen, it is impossible for us to use the current aggregate totals and make any logical determinations as to which direction is preferred.

 

[leon]

Oliver, look what you did. Another RoC thread. You should be ashamed of yourself. Go stand in the corner facing the wall and think about what you did!

 

[drewyallop]

I may be wrong but the dynamics of a projectile (rocket) is relatively simple. I think I read somewhere that NASA made the necessary calculations on an IBM 360 computer, a machine with less power than an iPhone. Make no mistake, the US space programme was an astonishing engineering accomplishment. But the phenomena discussed here are different. Measurement is more difficult and modeling impact requires many more degrees of freedom.

But I am an amateur. Art may have another view and, unlike me, will speak from experience.


Drew