Lag Pressure Talk

[Biffer]

Mandrin,

I don't understand half of what you say, but I love your posts. Obviously, we are all entitled to our anonymity, but would you be willing to share a little about your background? I'm also very curious as to what you consider to be Homer's major errors. Next, have you considered publishing about the golf swing? Finally, how does your knowledge of science help real-world golfers? By no means am I attacking you. I'm just trying to wade through your posts and figure out how they will help me score better. Does your knowledge help you?

I would be the first person to purchase anything that you and Brian worked on jointly!

gumper

P.S.- Do you know/agree with the theories of Dr. Zick, whom Brian has mentioned on occasion?

Go here to read mandrin's bio http://jmcp.chez-alice.fr/mandrin.htm

 

[puttmad]

....

Ok, how do you purpose that lag creates a situation for maximum clubhead speed? You say it's to get to an in line condition. Well, the longer the radius the slower the RPM with the same force... like a skater that extends their arms in a spin.

Ah, we are talking crossed-purposes here Steve...

I didn't say lag's purpose was to get to an "in-line" position, I said the longer you can hold the smaller radius/lag (as exampled by your skater) the faster the clubhead would have to travel when released to reach the in-line condition on time.

 

[lia41985]

That's assuming you will get to an in-line condition. From the way you describe it, this method is fool proof. As per "Search for the Perfect Swing" or golf based in reality, you can have too much forward lean at impact--not desirable.

 

[birdie_man]

Go here to read mandrin's bio http://jmcp.chez-alice.fr/mandrin.htm

Yup.....pretty darn badass.

Not quite Rambo though.

But more knowledgeable in physics.

 

[Ringer]

Ringer,

I am afraid that like Homer you are not quite up to par with science.
This subject has been discussed previously but let me try to explain such so that everyone can see immediately the basic fallacy inherent in Homer’s ‘scientific’ ideas re to impact.

(HK) "Zero Deceleration is what would give maximum ball speed for any and all approach speeds.”

- Impact occurs between to small masses – a fast moving clubhead and a stationary golf ball.
- The ball gets its kinetic energy / momentum from the impacting clubhead, which hence decelerates and slows down.
- Therefore zero clubhead deceleration implies no energy/momentum transfer taking place from clubhead to ball.

Alright, I've done my homework and can now get to a bit more of the nitty gritty.

The concept of pre-stressing is not about how much the shaft flexes but rather the transfer of energy back up the shaft instead of transfered to the ball. If the shaft flexes as a result of impact, then some of the energy is transfered to the shaft which could otherwise be given to the ball. However if the shaft is already flexed it will resist impact and therefor transfer more energy back to the ball.

If the club were to slow down a sugnificant amount during impact that would not be an indication that energy went to the ball but rather that energy was transfered SOMEWHERE. If the shaft is not stressed at the time of this energy transfer then it would BECOME stressed and therefore take some of that energy away that could have been transfered to the ball.

Homer’s idea that "Zero Deceleration is what would give maximum ball speed for any and all approach speeds” is hence clearly not conform to standard Newtonian physics.

Although zero deceleration is not possible, it would be ideal based on concept of reduced energy displacement. He could have been more accurate in saying "Zero deceleration minus the balls inertia" would give maximum ball speed but that isn't exactly as beautiful in concept as just saying Zero deceleration.

(HK) “Speed and Prestress stiffen the Clubshaft for consistent resistance to Impact Deceleration."

Stiffness of the shaft is immaterial for all practical purpose during impact.
The force generated by the resistance of the shaft is negligible re to the very large forces generated during the 0.0005 sec of impact.

Then I guess you also believe that the energy displaced as noise is negligible.

I think you're also forgetting that since we are dealing with .0005 sec, any variation or displacement of energy is magnified. Otherwise, using your statement, it would be impossible to create spin since forces generated during the .0005 sec of impact are negligible.

(R) “And just how does one pre-stress the shaft and resist impact deceleration?”

One does not resists impact deceleration. Impact simply happens lightning fast and totally out of control for the golfer.
Stressing the shaft is simply the consequence of torque being applied, it has no other significance.

Not true. You can resist deceleration BY ACCELLERATING and continuing the application of force to the club. It may be happening lightning fast but setting up the conditions to reduce energy displacement and create maximum energy transfer to the ball IS obtainable and a reasonable goal.

BTW, how can you say stressing of the shaft has no significance? In golf even the smallest variation during that .0005 is significant because of how little time it has to effect the ball.

Impact is governed by ‘conservation of momentum’, one of the most basic laws in classical mechanics since it remains valid in nuclear physics.

It is tell-taling Homer being completely wrong with regard with this very simple but fundamental law – Conservation of Momentum.

How was he wrong with reguards to conservation of momentum?

 

[mandrin]

Since velocity is also a measure of direction, any SMALL change of direction during the .0005 seconds the clubface and ball are in contact is just as important as any other factor. Since speed is NOT the only factor in the golf balls behavior we must consider this possibility: A change in direction, however small it may be, could be an acceleration during impact which results in a minor increase of time that the ball and clubface are in contact.

In science, contrary to your believe strongly expressed above, it is very important to know the relative magnitudes of the various parameters and variables involved. Moreover telling us that “A change in direction, however small it may be, could be an acceleration during impact which results in a minor increase of time that the ball and clubface are in contact”, is like stating that any dust particle on the ball, however small, will decrease the departure velocity of the ball. Interesting? Perhaps. But really significant?

If the clubface were going at a constant velocity it would obviously cause a deceleration of the clubhead during impact. But that is not the case. We are not dealing with a zero accelleration situation. The clubhead IS changing direction even for that .0005. By sustaining the lag even longer into the forward swing we are ensuring that the change in direction is greater than it would if the person were casting the club.

I don’t mind discussing your particular concept of clubhead changing direction during impact. But then you have to tell us much more in detail what you actually mean by it and how it relates to lag and for good measure to HK’s ‘Line of Compression’ concept.

 

[mandrin]

Ringer,

I am really intrigued by your very particular and rather esoteric manner of discussing things.

First in Post #47 you readily admit re. to my post #44:

"Hmmm.. this is a very good and concise answer Mandrin.. thank you."

Subsequently in your post # 65, with regard to exactly the same post #44, you now suddenly have a whole bag full of recriminations.

What did you smoke between these two posts ?

I had a quick look at your arguments in #65 and it looks a lot of work if I decided to put you straight on each and every element of your ‘scientific ‘opinions. I really wonder if it is worth the effort, you might just again smoke some more of whatever you smoke.

 

[Ringer]

Ringer,

I am really intrigued by your very particular and rather esoteric manner of discussing things.

First in Post #47 you readily admit re. to my post #44:

"Hmmm.. this is a very good and concise answer Mandrin.. thank you."

Subsequently in your post # 65, with regard to exactly the same post #44, you now suddenly have a whole bag full of recriminations.

What did you smoke between these two posts ?

I had a quick look at your arguments in #65 and it looks a lot of work if I decided to put you straight on each and every element of your ‘scientific ‘opinions. I really wonder if it is worth the effort, you might just again smoke some more of whatever you smoke.

As I said, I am in discussion with my colleagues on these issues and we are comming to some conclusions.

Interesting you didn't go after my pre-stress argument here.

In science, contrary to your believe strongly expressed above, it is very important to know the relative magnitudes of the various parameters and variables involved. Moreover telling us that “A change in direction, however small it may be, could be an acceleration during impact which results in a minor increase of time that the ball and clubface are in contact”, is like stating that any dust particle on the ball, however small, will decrease the departure velocity of the ball. Interesting? Perhaps. But really significant?

You might be better off comparing it to a blade of grass. Which is really significant now isn't it? Afterall, a change of direction IS part of velocity and velocity is part of determining the COR (or conservation of momentum), that sure makes it seem like something important.

How exactly do we produce spin again?

 

[mandrin]

As I said, I am in discussion with my colleagues on these issues and we are comming to some conclusions.

Interesting you didn't go after my pre-stress argument here.

You might be better off comparing it to a blade of grass. Which is really significant now isn't it? Afterall, a change of direction IS part of velocity and velocity is part of determining the COR (or conservation of momentum), that sure makes it seem like something important.

How exactly do we produce spin again?

Ringer,

I knew immediately from this surprising sudden change in your opinion that you had gone in despair to your buddies to get some ammunition, since it is clear that you have not much of a clue regarding scientific matters.

It will be quite fun to take apart slowly and methodically any of your ‘scientific’ arguments but I can’t argue which someone changing opinion every day and throws at me anything which comes to his mind or suggested by his buddies in the canteen during lunch brake.

So why don’t you have first a little meeting with your buddies and than come up with some form of consensus so that your posts don’t change every day. You can have them also check your posts to see if there are not any major errors creeping in.

I can only discuss one point at the time. Therefore as the discussion is presently about your famous theory regarding the clubhead ‘changing’ direction during the impact interval we will start discussing first this concept, more thoroughly.

However I am still waiting for some substance, more useful information with regard to this concept of yours of clubhead changing direction during impact interval. So give me something to put my teeth into. I am sure many members are anxious to see your theory exposed more in detail.

 

[Ringer]

Ringer,

I knew immediately from this surprising sudden change in your opinion that you had gone in despair to your buddies to get some ammunition, since it is clear that you have not much of a clue regarding scientific matters.

I stopped reading your post right there because you're obviously too wrapped up in your own narcisism to consider arguments carefully. Good day.

 

[lia41985]

Ringer, you keep getting owned by mandrin. It's ok if you don't want to play anymore. You're losing everytime anyways. Open your mind.

 

[Ringer]

Ringer, you keep getting owned by mandrin. It's ok if you don't want to play anymore. You're losing everytime anyways. Open your mind.

Excuse me? Mandrin is the one that stoped discussing the issue and resorted to personally attacking me. He quite clearly quit playing in favor of putting people down instead.

 

[lia41985]

Did you read what he wrote? You completely changed your tone, came up with some sort of new "point" to "defend" yourself. You're inconsistent. I think the issue of pre-stressing the shaft has also been discussed. That question was answered. Sorry.

 

[Ringer]

Did you read what he wrote? You completely changed your tone, came up with some sort of new "point" to "defend" yourself. You're inconsistent. I think the issue of pre-stressing the shaft has also been discussed. That question was answered. Sorry.

I see, so because I took some time to consider my response, discuss it with my peers, and forumlate a complete response, I have then changed my tone.

Wow, how narrowsighted can you be.

 

[lia41985]

How desperate can you be to defend TGM dogma? Simple as that. I'm done with you.

Lag creates, no lag is an effect, no lag prevents deceleration, no lag cannot prevent deceleration, no lag can prevent deceleration...(yawn)...

 

[Ringer]

How desperate can you be to defend TGM dogma? Simple as that. I'm done with you.

Lag creates, no lag is an effect, no lag prevents deceleration, no lag cannot prevent deceleration, no lag can prevent deceleration...(yawn)...

HAHAHAHA... this clearly shows how little you even know me. I am the LAST person who is here to defend TGM.

You just get your jollies out of putting others down. Good for you, at least you know where your niche is.

 

[puttmad]

...

Brian,
For the dumbos amongst us, could you clarify the procedure (physical input or otherwise) needed to, "snap the kinetic chain"...thanks

Bump....

 

[lia41985]

Sadness that I don't know you--I could care less.

You're defending TGM dogma blindly in this thread. That is clear.

Everything else you said distracts from your own desperation. Interesting how your thread about your profound thought is turning into a profound realization of YOUR myopia.

 

[Ringer]

Sadness that I don't know you--I could care less.

You're defending TGM dogma blindly in this thread. That is clear.

Everything else you said distracts from your own desperation. Interesting how your thread about your profound thought is turning into a profound realization of YOUR myopia.

Are you going to CONTRIBUTE to this thread or just keep getting your jollies from putting me down?

Some day you'll have to come out and play here and Phoenix. You'll find out just how myopic my golf game is.

 

[Bigwill]

Brian,
For the dumbos amongst us, could you clarify the procedure (physical input or otherwise) needed to, "snap the kinetic chain"...thanks

You'd do better to post this question in a separate thread. It'll get lost in this one. In the meantime, think of the different body parts as links in a chain. Each body part, from the ground up, passes it's energy to the next link in the chain as it slows down. The hips slow down, and pass their energy to the torso and shoulders, which slow down and pass their momentum to the arms, which slow down so that their momentum can be transferred to the clubhead.