Gyroscopic Action

[bbftx]

quote:Originally posted by Erik_K

bbftx,

Your posts are very lucid and interesting. It seems that you and I might be on the same page in that we feel that Homer's work isn't totally perfect, but doesn't need to be in order to help explain how the golf swing works to other people.

Yes Erik, you've made a statement about Kelley's book that I fully agree with.

My initial reaction to TGM was extremely negative when I first tried to read the book. I still find some of it odd, hard to read, and of limited value to me personally. I'm not a cultist. But there are parts that have helped me understand swing components better, and thereby help my own game. Chapter 10 is the one I've been using a lot.

 

[Mike O]

quote:Originally posted by hiroshiro

quote:Originally posted by mandrin

...

hiroshiro, I find it quite funny that I can without any problem invoke centrifugal force. Reason? Very simple. HK used it in TGM. On any other forum it would immediately provoke posts claiming that it is a complete hoax, does not exists, etc. []

Thank you for the reply.

I did note the numerous references to the fictitious force, but assumed that it was addressed here in the past and some sort of "cease fire" was in effect.

hiro

I don't really know the past history in regards to posting on Centrifugal force at this forum, but I do know that Homer Kelley was fully aware of the "fictictious force", yet still decided to use the term (centrifugal force) since it was commonly used and referenced in the literature and the culture of the time. I guess by reading the book, many might think that Homer Kelley did not understand that centrifugal force does not exist- of course, if you thought that then you severely under estimated the depth of his intellect.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Mike, it is AMAZING how many people UNDERestimate Homer, and how a few OVERestimate him.

 

[hiroshiro]

quote:Originally posted by Mike O

quote:Originally posted by hiroshiro

quote:Originally posted by mandrin

...

hiroshiro, I find it quite funny that I can without any problem invoke centrifugal force. Reason? Very simple. HK used it in TGM. On any other forum it would immediately provoke posts claiming that it is a complete hoax, does not exists, etc. []

Thank you for the reply.

I did note the numerous references to the fictitious force, but assumed that it was addressed here in the past and some sort of "cease fire" was in effect.

hiro

I don't really know the past history in regards to posting on Centrifugal force at this forum, but I do know that Homer Kelley was fully aware of the "fictictious force", yet still decided to use the term (centrifugal force) since it was commonly used and referenced in the literature and the culture of the time. I guess by reading the book, many might think that Homer Kelley did not understand that centrifugal force does not exist- of course, if you thought that then you severely under estimated the depth of his intellect.

Mike O:

Thank you for your comments on Homer Kelley and his reasons for including centrifugal force in the book. I first picked up The Golfing Machine in the early 80's and regret that I did not understand its significance enough to seek out Kelley before his untimely passing.

I must admit, however, that I am a little confused by your last sentence. I do not recall anything in this thread which would lead one to conclude that there are many that might think Homer Kelley did not understand the true nature of centrifugal force or that he was not an individual of considerable intellect. The discussion has been about scientific analogies in the book that are possibly incorrect and misleading. My only reason for participating in this thread has been to suggest that if an error has been made, that it be rectified to make the book not only scientifically correct, but easier to understand as well. This is why I asked the original poster (who pointed out the alleged error) to suggest a scientifically correct alternative.

If you are the same Mike O that posts on Lynn Blake's site, then I trust that you would also champion any changes that would correct the errors and aid in understanding Kelley's concepts.

hiro

 

[Mike O]

Hiroshiro quote:
"Mike O:

Thank you for your comments on Homer Kelley and his reasons for including centrifugal force in the book. I first picked up The Golfing Machine in the early 80's and regret that I did not understand its significance enough to seek out Kelley before his untimely passing.

I must admit, however, that I am a little confused by your last sentence. I do not recall anything in this thread which would lead one to conclude that there are many that might think Homer Kelley did not understand the true nature of centrifugal force or that he was not an individual of considerable intellect. The discussion has been about scientific analogies in the book that are possibly incorrect and misleading. My only reason for participating in this thread has been to suggest that if an error has been made, that it be rectified to make the book not only scientifically correct, but easier to understand as well. This is why I asked the original poster (who pointed out the alleged error) to suggest a scientifically correct alternative. Absolutely, and it wasn't my thought or intent to imply that you thought that Mr. Kelley did not understand the concept- but I can understand you wanting to clear your name from any implied accusation. That said, I'll do my best to unconfuse my post- First, I agree with everything you said, That's why I stated that I didn't know what had been discussed before- and I said "many" for the following reasons 1) That since Homer Kelley used the term in his book- a common sense assumption would be that he didn't really realize that Centrifugal force doesn't exist i.e. that outward force isn't there. 2) As noted on many other sites (and evidently this site in the past) using that term would bring on an attack that (my guess) would imply that you don't know what you're talking about. Or detractors of The Golfing Machine book would use that as ammunition against the validity of the system or the validity of Homer Kelley's level of understanding. My only point was IF ANYONE thought that- then as Brian pointed out above - they under estimated the depth of his intellect.[b][/b]

If you are the same Mike O that posts on Lynn Blake's site, then I trust that you would also champion any changes that would correct the errors and aid in understanding Kelley's concepts.

If there are errors then absolutely I would definitely like to see them corrected. Certainly, it's my perspective that the more crucial aspect is to have the existing concepts clearly stated and elaborated on. Then I've always felt that the book allows for so much growth from where it is now- for example his coverage of anatomy is very basic and could be covered in much more detail as long as it retained the proper context of applying it to basic principle of the hinge action of an angular motion on an inclined plane. But let's face it, the book will probably just have to stand on it's own- it is what it is- any further elaboration will need to be done outside of the book.

hiro"

 

[hiroshiro]

Mike O:

Thank you for your comments.

hiro

 

[Mike O]

quote:Originally posted by hiroshiro

Mike O:

Thank you for your comments.

hiro

You're welcome-

I did notice that you live in Hermosa Beach- If you'd like to come down and be my guest at Pauma Valley CC in San Diego- give me a ring. Cell#760-672-0703.

 

[mandrin]

quote:Originally posted by bbftx

mandrin,
I played golf this morning with a friend in the alternative energy biz. We had a good discussion about wind turbines. I learned a lot, including how gyroscopic behavior and gryoscopic mathematics are used to design multi-blade turbines. Now these aren't "gyroscopes" and they aren't "perfectly symmetric" about the spin axis obviously. Neither are the rotors on a gyrocopter for that matter. Yet, gyroscopic mathematics and behavior can be applied to great use in the design and operation of these devices.
[ In fact, among the wind farms here in Tejas are a type of turbine called teetered-rotor wind turbines. The rotors can be adjusted such that they aren't even perpendicular to the spin axis. They apparently exhibit some interesting "gyroscopically asymmetric" behavior.]

Perhaps, if you're openminded, you could take a look at some of the work in this area and look for similarities in your swing math and how these rotors behave? In particular, you might consider some of the gyroscopic instability and response of the rotor blades that can be observed at start-up on these turbines and how they are controlled. There are apparently similar mathematics at work, even in the first cycle of the rotors, that are analogous to a single-cycle golf swing. Specifically, I think you'll find similar "self-corrective actions" and mathematics between your "centrifugal golf swing engine" and the gyroscopic calcs on these asymmetric rotors. And I'm sure you'll find differences too. But maybe you can find something that will help your own math quest perhaps?

It's interesting to speculate that Kelley, being a technician in the aeronautics biz, might have seen these analogies at work between the golf swing and rotors and gyrocopters, ---- where "gyroscopic behavior" can be useful tools of analysis, even though none of these things are "gyroscopes" in a strict sense.

bbftx, I am sure that having had your interesting conversation with your golfing buddy about 'asymmetric gyroscopic effects' there remains that lingering doubt about my views re to golfswing and gyroscopes. [?]

To put an end to that mental suffering I have gone through the effort of a simple analysis to show to you that perhaps it is worth considering another time and also reconsider your allusion being not quite open-minded.