Lag Pressure Talk
- Thread starter Ringer
- Start date
- Status
A negative acceleration
Yup.. would be accurate too.
So, once impact occurs clubhead speed is declining, but since the club is still moving there is an acceleration, which has gone from positive to negative?
Biffer, that's what I would think but there's a question that still remains unanswered.
Sure the SPEED has decresed, and perhaps even the direction. But 5-1 is still greater than 4-1. If you can make the INITIAL accelleration greater going into impact, the speed and directional change after impact should be greater as well.
Sure the SPEED has decresed, and perhaps even the direction. But 5-1 is still greater than 4-1. If you can make the INITIAL accelleration greater going into impact, the speed and directional change after impact should be greater as well.
Ringer, I agree with you on that, but the clubhead speed at impact is the crucial factor, isn't it? Once the clubhead meets the ball, the clubhead begins to slow down and the ball departs so rapidly that there is nothing a player can do to increase the departure speed. It doesn't matter if the clubhead is traveling in an arc or a straight line. At least, that's the way I understand it.
Due to COAM, the clubhead has actually picked up speed just prior to impact then loses approximately 30% of that speed after impact, then, 50% or more going up on followthrough.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Conservation of Angular Momentum
COAM
I asked Dr. Aaron Zick about it at last years TGM Summit.
He said, that in the golf swing, it really doesn't exist.
You like apples?
COAM
I asked Dr. Aaron Zick about it at last years TGM Summit.
He said, that in the golf swing, it really doesn't exist.
You like apples?
I agree, but we're not just talking speed. That's what I'm saying. We're also talking about a changing direction of the club. Since the clubhead is following a circular arc, any continuation of that arc will be a change in direction.
Now, that change in direction may be slowed by the inertia of the ball, but it does not completely go away. So if you can have a GREATER change of angle, it would be beneficial to that of a smaller change of angle.
By maintaining lag later into the forward swing, that will cause the angle that the clubhead is changing to a much greater one than if you cast the club early.
mandrin
New
...and moreover, Dr. Aaron Zick reads with sustained interest mandrin’s posts where this has been explained on several occasions.
Brian, you don't necessarily have to go to a summit to get this information, it has been right under your nose on your own forum.
And, that change of angle is supposed to do what? Create more clubhead speed? If so, is it before contact with the ball, or during, or both? I'm not quite sure exactly what you are trying to say.
...and moreover, Dr. Aaron Zick reads with sustained interest mandrin’s posts where this has been explained on several occasions.
Brian, you don't necessarily have to go to a summit to get this information, it has been right under your nose on your own forum.
However, the idea of displaced energy does not appear in any threads I've been refered to. The concept of lag was discussed, but even then not with regards to the change in direction through impact, only on the account of concervation of angular momentum. I am not talking about concervation of angular momentum, and I am not talking about centrifugal force which were the topics previously covered.
This thread was specific to the change in direction that the clubhead has during impact... then it ventured slightly into the concept of pre-stressing the shaft to limit displacement of energy (which was then completely blown over in favor of raking me over the perverbial coals).
mandrin
New
Biffer,
Ringer has just recently discovered that velocity and acceleration are vector quantities, hence determined by both direction and magnitude.
He probably now feels that this has been completely overseen by everyone and thinks to have found a new approach for explaining impact.
(It is just too bad that he is a bit late - vectors became integral part of science a little over 150 years ago.
)No since speed alone is not what we are truely concerned with. We are concerned with the exchange of energy from the clubhead to the ball. By having a change of direction you are ensuring that the velocity of the clubhead is greater than if it were simply following a straight line. That will cause the clubhead to have more momentum and thus more energy.
mandrin
New
Thought experiment and simple question
You have been explainig to us throughout many posts the great virtue of your theory. I have set up a very easy thought experiment to give you the occasion to explain it to us all, without any ambiguity, using this elegant scientific tool.
A small mass M moving with constant velocity V is restrained at time t = t1 to follow a circular path having radius R. Hence a straight line motion being converted into a circular motion, using a thin massless constraint.
Ringer, clearly, according to your theory this leads to an increase in momentum and kinetic energy. Could you please confirm. A simple yes or no will suffice but a coherent rational explanation would be very much appreciated.
Ringer,
You have been explainig to us throughout many posts the great virtue of your theory. I have set up a very easy thought experiment to give you the occasion to explain it to us all, without any ambiguity, using this elegant scientific tool.
A small mass M moving with constant velocity V is restrained at time t = t1 to follow a circular path having radius R. Hence a straight line motion being converted into a circular motion, using a thin massless constraint.
Ringer, clearly, according to your theory this leads to an increase in momentum and kinetic energy. Could you please confirm. A simple yes or no will suffice but a coherent rational explanation would be very much appreciated.
Ringer,
You have been explainig to us throughout many posts the great virtue of your theory. I have set up a very easy thought experiment to give you the occasion to explain it to us all, without any ambiguity, using this elegant scientific tool.
A small mass M moving with constant velocity V is restrained at time t = t1 to follow a circular path having radius R. Hence a straight line motion being converted into a circular motion, using a thin massless constraint.
Ringer, clearly, according to your theory this leads to an increase in momentum and kinetic energy. Could you please confirm. A simple yes or no will suffice but a coherent rational explanation would be very much appreciated.
Define "restrained" and how does using a thin massless constraint cause a non-linear motion to become linear?
mandrin
New
Dictionaries define words for all to consult
Throwing up some dirt trying to hide behind it. Last resort tactics. No FAA meetings anymore? Be a man and admit you just have dug yourself such a big hole you don’t know how to get out if it.
I will repeat my question,
Ringer,
You have been explainig to us throughout many posts the great virtue of your theory. I have set up a very easy thought experiment to give you the occasion to explain it to us all, without any ambiguity, using this elegant scientific tool.
A small mass M moving with constant velocity V is restrained at time t = t1 to follow a circular path having radius R. Hence a straight line motion being converted into a circular motion, using a thin massless constraint.
Ringer, clearly, according to your theory this leads to an increase in momentum and kinetic energy. Could you please confirm. A simple yes or no will suffice but a coherent rational explanation would be very much appreciated.
Above a very simple non ambiguous thought experiment often used by scientists to discuss problems. I am sure that there are quite a few members who could readily answer in your place without any difficulty, there being no tricks, just a very simple thought experiment. Just common sense, not really even complicated science.
Ringer,
Throwing up some dirt trying to hide behind it.
Last resort tactics. No FAA meetings anymore? Be a man and admit you just have dug yourself such a big hole you don’t know how to get out if it. I will repeat my question,
Ringer,
You have been explainig to us throughout many posts the great virtue of your theory. I have set up a very easy thought experiment to give you the occasion to explain it to us all, without any ambiguity, using this elegant scientific tool.
A small mass M moving with constant velocity V is restrained at time t = t1 to follow a circular path having radius R. Hence a straight line motion being converted into a circular motion, using a thin massless constraint.
Ringer, clearly, according to your theory this leads to an increase in momentum and kinetic energy. Could you please confirm. A simple yes or no will suffice but a coherent rational explanation would be very much appreciated.
Above a very simple non ambiguous thought experiment often used by scientists to discuss problems. I am sure that there are quite a few members who could readily answer in your place without any difficulty, there being no tricks, just a very simple thought experiment. Just common sense, not really even complicated science.
A= dV/dt = dVx/dt + dVy/dt + dVz/dt
We have determined that we need to have acceleration through impact in a good golf swing. Thus acceleration is always positive until Vmax where Vmax happens post impact. Can someone explain to me what it means by 'change in direction through impact"? Can your clubhead actually change direction when V has not reach Vmax?
In the circular path, acceleration may actually reduce through impact. But can the clubhead actually change direction (in it's circular path) as Ringer suggests?
I don't want to take sides but 'change in direction of the clubhead through impact" does not make any sense to me at all.
cheers,
daniel
We have determined that we need to have acceleration through impact in a good golf swing. Thus acceleration is always positive until Vmax where Vmax happens post impact. Can someone explain to me what it means by 'change in direction through impact"? Can your clubhead actually change direction when V has not reach Vmax?
In the circular path, acceleration may actually reduce through impact. But can the clubhead actually change direction (in it's circular path) as Ringer suggests?
I don't want to take sides but 'change in direction of the clubhead through impact" does not make any sense to me at all.
cheers,
daniel
Ringer,
Throwing up some dirt trying to hide behind it.
I will repeat my question,
Ringer,
You have been explainig to us throughout many posts the great virtue of your theory. I have set up a very easy thought experiment to give you the occasion to explain it to us all, without any ambiguity, using this elegant scientific tool.
A small mass M moving with constant velocity V is restrained at time t = t1 to follow a circular path having radius R. Hence a straight line motion being converted into a circular motion, using a thin massless constraint.
Ringer, clearly, according to your theory this leads to an increase in momentum and kinetic energy. Could you please confirm. A simple yes or no will suffice but a coherent rational explanation would be very much appreciated.
Above a very simple non ambiguous thought experiment often used by scientists to discuss problems. I am sure that there are quite a few members who could readily answer in your place without any difficulty, there being no tricks, just a very simple thought experiment. Just common sense, not really even complicated science.
No mandrin, I'm not a physicist so your "thought experiment" is Chinese to me. I guess that's just another something for you to put me down with huh. Good for you.. Found another reason to be a jack ass. Glad you're the belittling and jackoff sort instead of the informative and helpful. Lord help us if you actually were nice to someone who is trying to learn.
- Status