Illustration of kinetic chain

[mandrin]

Noticing the pleasure shown by tongzilla looking at one of my diagrams, making him even feel smarter, I decided to make a few more, just for him, as I realize that most aren't really interested.

I am surprised by the number of people mentioning snapping their kinetic chain as if it was something that is obvious, self understood, and not requiring any further explanation.

For those who didn't quite dare to ask what this is all about, seemingly being so obvious, I put together an easy example illustrating a kinetic chain and its characteristic action.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Noticing the pleasure shown by tongzilla looking at one of my diagrams, making him even feel smarter, I decided to make a few more, just for him, as I realize that most aren't really interested.

I am surprised by the number of people mentioning snapping their kinetic chain as if it was something that is obvious, self understood, and not requiring any further explanation.

For those who didn't quite dare to ask what this is all about, seemingly being so obvious, I put together an easy example illustrating a kinetic chain and its characteristic action.

Thanks, Mandrin!

Great work.

I realize I have helped create interest in the idea, but your diagram makes more discussion likely.

 

[mandrin]

Thanks, Mandrin!

Great work.

I realize I have helped create interest in the idea, but your diagram makes more discussion likely.

Brian,
I am not so sure. There is presently very little interest as soon as there appears some science involved. Just think of your interesting post, “Hitting and Swinging...redefined. “ Normally any of your posts draws attention, but not this one, quite likely there being a scientific approach mentioned.

 

[Kevin Shields]

Mandrin, I wouldn't take the lack of posts as a lack of interest because science is involved. I, for one, always try to digest your information as much as possible in hopes that it will make me a better player and teacher. So please keep them coming. I just don't post because I A) Don't understand a single word B) Understand completely, can't argue, so no reply is necessary or C) don't want to embarass myself by joining a discussions I'm not equipped to partake in Either way, this one was great. Good diagram.

 

[Damon Lucas]

Mandrin,

Plenty of interest on my part.
I am not going to post to fawn over you.
You drill anyone who disagrees with you, even if they're merely trying to understand more, or if they're slightly confused and looking for clarification, and especially if they have an opposing point of view.
The 'perceived' lack of interest is in large part due to you, zero offense intended.

 

[Damon Lucas]

Mandrin,

If one managed to increase the speed at the 'proximal' segments, should one even be concerned about the distal segments, or the club(parts) itself?

 

[drulf]

Mr Fabersham´s view

So the secret downswing tip for Mr Fabersham from all this is...

toss the pendulum away in the backswing

give the pendulum to gravity in late backswing/ at the top

don´t interfere at all (no torque) in the downswing

at least not until towards the bottom of the swing where you can help it a bit

you don´t have to apply a breaking force to have great tip speed

the more joints you can have in your pendulum, the higher the speed (Vardon/Jorgensen elbow bend triple pendulum a simpler example)

anybody ever tried quad pendulum, Mr F cannot find the third joint to bend

Seems simple, how come we all mess it up so much?

 

[Bigwill]

Mandrin, I wouldn't take the lack of posts as a lack of interest because science is involved. I, for one, always try to digest your information as much as possible in hopes that it will make me a better player and teacher. So please keep them coming. I just don't post because I A) Don't understand a single word B) Understand completely, can't argue, so no reply is necessary or C) don't want to embarass myself by joining a discussions I'm not equipped to partake in Either way, this one was great. Good diagram.

That's a great post. I don't think you're the only one in that boat, Kevin; it probably describes most of the members on this forum.

Don't take it personally, Mandrin. It's just that sometimes I think you and the other "science guys" talk over the head of the average Joe.

Keep posting your stuff.

 

[golfspike]

Thanks, Mandrin!

Great work.

I realize I have helped create interest in the idea, but your diagram makes more discussion likely.

what is the view on the kinematic charts from tpi? do you base the snapping the kinetic chain from working with this tech?

 

[hcw]

Because...

So the secret downswing tip for Mr Fabersham from all this is...

toss the system away in the backswing

give the system to gravity in the late backswing/ at the top

don´t interfere at all (no torque) in the downswing

you don´t have to apply a breaking force to have great tip speed

Seems simple, how come we all mess it up so much?

...while it is an elegant illustration of a kinetic chain...people don't swing a golf club by just allowing gravity to take over, we use our muscles to power the swing...

 

[matt kluck]

Mandrin, great post!

Mandrin,
I, like many others feed on posts like yours and appreciate the information you provide as food for thought. As Kevin so aptly stated, many forum participants are a bit hesitant to contribute, me included, because the information can be overwhelming. A useful debate regarding the information you post is, at times, very intimidating. Anyway, would you please answer a couple of questions?
1. Why did you pick 1 metre for your segment lengths? Do they correspond with certain segments in the body and the golf club and why the 1.28kg for the arbitrary weight?
I understand the halving of the mass and is 1.28 just convenient to illustrate or is there a direct relationship among the segments used in the golf swing?
Thank you for you consideration.
Matt Kluck

 

[twitch127]

Mandrin,

Interesting post and good diagram. Just after some clarification of concepts;

How does the kinetic energy caused from 'snapping the chain' differ from the conservation of angular momentum. Also is centrifugal force not created in this example for simplicity or is it because you need centripetal force to CREATE centrifugal REACTION.

Thanks,

Twitch

 

[mandrin]

Mandrin,

You drill anyone who disagrees with you, even if they're merely trying to understand more, or if they're slightly confused and looking for clarification, and especially if they have an opposing point of view.

The 'perceived' lack of interest is in large part due to you, zero offense intended.

Damon,

I disagree. It appears that you have not read many of my posts over the years. If I would sum up the time I have spent answering genuine questions it would be really an eye opener. Answering in a responsible scientific way takes a surprising amount of time. Even nmgolfer would agree with me on this point. Showing the mathematics required to produce the opening post many would just get a severe head ache just simply quickly looking at the complex mathematics.

 

[mandrin]

Mandrin,

If one managed to increase the speed at the 'proximal' segments, should one even be concerned about the distal segments, or the club(parts) itself?

Damon,

I am very hesitant to to try to extrapolate too much from a pure mechanical example. At best they furnish some interesting guidelines for experimenting in a real golf swing

However with this caution there is an interesting fact emerging from the complex 8 segment pendulum and that is that the segments nicely line up at some point in time.

In a golf swing there are similarly self regulating mechanisms at work, yet we are rarely aware of them. Without them it would be impossible to even decently hit a golf ball.

The physics of a mathematical or mechanical model are the same as for a golfer yet there is huge difference - the human golfer is definitely immensely more complex.

But coming back more specifically to your question, one can argue that with passive distal elements and primarily activating the center could result in a swing very close to a robot swing, as physics rules maximally.

However the crucial aspect of any swing is - does it allow a specific golfer both adequate clubhead speed and more important appropriate clubhead/face alignments.

My limited experience with a golf swing seems to make me believe that there are as many swings as there are golfers. However they all are subject to the same rules of physics.

 

[mandrin]

Mandrin,

I, like many others feed on posts like yours and appreciate the information you provide as food for thought. As Kevin so aptly stated, many forum participants are a bit hesitant to contribute, me included, because the information can be overwhelming. A useful debate regarding the information you post is, at times, very intimidating. Anyway, would you please answer a couple of questions?

1. Why did you pick 1 metre for your segment lengths? Do they correspond with certain segments in the body and the golf club and why the 1.28kg for the arbitrary weight?

I understand the halving of the mass and is 1.28 just convenient to illustrate or is there a direct relationship among the segments used in the golf swing?

Thank you for you consideration.

Matt Kluck

matt,

In a mathematical model to make it work I have to be specific re to all variables/parameters entering into the equations. Don't however pay too much attention to their specific values, I could have chosen quite different values and the graphs produced would be similar.

However the logic behind the mass decreasing for more distal segments is that it is a bit more golfer like. From trunk to shoulders, to arms to club there is less mass. Generally in a kinetic chain there is more velocity multiplication when the mass is progressively less for more distal elements. This is very evident in a whip.

 

[mandrin]

Mandrin, Interesting post and good diagram. Just after some clarification of concepts;

twitch, thanks. I don't quite understand your questions but will try to answer.

How does the kinetic energy caused from 'snapping the chain' differ from the conservation of angular momentum.

Kinetic energy is not caused by snapping a kinetic chain. It is caused by gravity force doing work on the segments. Conservation of angular momentum does not apply here. As the segments drop under the influence of gravity angular momentum is steadily increasing. Conservation laws only apply in a closed systems with no forces acting on the system.

Also is centrifugal force not created in this example for simplicity or is it because you need centripetal force to CREATE centrifugal REACTION.

One can't simply create forces, either they are there or they are not. Both centripetal and centrifugal forces are present as an inseparable twin whenever there is a curvilinear path, or stated more simply, rotation around a center.

 

[coophitter]

Muscle Power

...while it is an elegant illustration of a kinetic chain...people don't swing a golf club by just allowing gravity to take over, we use our muscles to power the swing...

This is my first post on this site and after reading quite a few threads, the last eight words of the above quote are the only ones I've both understood and agreed with concerning human golf swings.

 

[Deadly_Scope]

Noticing the pleasure shown by tongzilla looking at one of my diagrams, making him even feel smarter, I decided to make a few more, just for him, as I realize that most aren't really interested.

I am surprised by the number of people mentioning snapping their kinetic chain as if it was something that is obvious, self understood, and not requiring any further explanation.

For those who didn't quite dare to ask what this is all about, seemingly being so obvious, I put together an easy example illustrating a kinetic chain and its characteristic action.

I can see physically by the picture of what your trying to say however this doesn't seem to take into account for two features. Obviously it shows a physics concept of the movement progressively down from segment to segment until the 'whip' comes back inline but what you have to think is that if you reduce the segments to the number of centers that occurs in a real golf stroke - the left shoulder and left hand = 2... you have real problems with the model in terms of convincability. I would doubt that it also doesn't take in to account the mass difference between the arm and club, a form 3 lever..

 

[Mike O]

Comments- Food for thought

Noticing the pleasure shown by tongzilla looking at one of my diagrams, making him even feel smarter, I decided to make a few more, just for him, as I realize that most aren't really interested.

I am surprised by the number of people mentioning snapping their kinetic chain as if it was something that is obvious, self understood, and not requiring any further explanation.

For those who didn't quite dare to ask what this is all about, seemingly being so obvious, I put together an easy example illustrating a kinetic chain and its characteristic action.

Here's what I notice:

1) The last segment of the string of segments that is the fourth from the right - looks incorrect.
2) There is an interesting relationship in that each proximal segment accelerates until the next distal segment to it- reaches a point where it is 90 degrees to the force (in this case parallell to the ground given the vertical force of gravity). As that more distal segment moves beyond perpendicular to the force- this creates/corresponds to a deceleration of the more proximal segment- regardless of the location of the other distal segments in your example.
3) When you state "But is clear from above that all this takes place here automatically" - whether you know it or not it's a comment that really prevents further thought on the subject- a roadblock for an inquiring mind. I'd give you an "A-" for laying out the mathematics, a "C" for providing something of value in regards to understanding why those conditions are happening and a "D" for providing something out of it that could be useful for a golfer to understand and apply which would help their ball flight improve.

 

[Damon Lucas]

How much adjustment is made for the joints working on different planes in terms of the maths?
The models are excellent in their representations using stick figures....how much are biomechanics and physiology factored in?