pivot question

[Deadly_Scope]

Deadly-Scope: Centrifugal force is imaginary... not real... a mental / verbal construct used to try to explain a more complex subject to laymen. There is no centrifugal force acting on the club no matter what those two Brits once claimed. (we've gone over this ad infinitum see archive)

The author of the book has a B.Sc in physics and a Ph.D in nuclear physics.

The centrifugal debate has gone on for a pretty long time and dates back to prior to the authors qualifications. Now I have to believe that the author is aware of the subject matter at hand and in a pretty good position to talk about it.

Perhaps he is dumbing it down for the audience and/or deems it unnessesary to explain the whole debate and attempts to bypass this by using a term which is used in newtonian classical mechanics.

I also fail to see that because a term is commonly used to explain a force that cannot be shown in an inertial frame of reference - whereby using that term allows every man, child and physicist who takes the time to read his book understand the point of what he is getting at is somehow a bad thing nor do I see how it invalidates the point of discussion. When the physicist reads the book he will just have a greater appreciation and understanding of the point in question.

On a side note - I fail to see also how nationality has any pertainance to the subject at hand, its not like that if they were American they magically be more correct or that the American education system is somehow better than Britain's regarding scientific prowess...

 

[shortgamer]

These hips sure as hell ain't pulling. Well, they were but they're not now. Gipper Finau.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

To those who asked for me...we did not discuss the kinetic chain idea when i met with him.

 

[birdie_man]

That Gipper's pivot............unreal speed...

 

[nmgolfer]

DeadlyScope: Centrifugal force is used in Newtonian mechanics 2 (and only 2) times: 1) When labeling the very real reaction to a centripetal force, and 2) When a fudge factor is introduced in an analysis using a non-inertial coordinate system. Neither situation applies to the golf swing or release. Cochran and Stobbs who happen to be British (so what... there is nothing implied there) GOT IT WRONG! I could care less what scholastic hoops they jumped through, they got it WRONG (as did Dante).

Niblick1: Only fools and liars say the coffee cup slides on the dashboard because it is being acted on by centrifugal force. THE REALITY of what is happening is the car is moving underneath the cup. The REALITY is there is not enough friction (which could provide the required centripetal force if it were sufficient) to keep the cup turning along with the car.

Frankly that is about as "dumbed down" as the discussion can be made and all I will say on the matter. IF you still don't get it, that is a reflection on you not me because I guarantee both you and Don Villavaso (who ever the hell he is) I know exactly what I'm talking about. In this life we have a choice... remain ignorant or learn and grow. That choice is yours.

Brian, I'm not "trying to get you to believe" anything. I said the golf swing is nothing like a bull whip and that body parts need not so down to optimize the release. I sited Nesbit's test results which back up that assertion. There is your proof unless you discount Nesbit too. You can take it or leave it, It does not matter one wit to me.

 

[puttmad]

...

DeadlyScope: Centrifugal force is used in Newtonian mechanics 2 (and only 2) times: 1) When labeling the very real reaction to a centripetal force, and 2) When a fudge factor is introduced in an analysis using a non-inertial coordinate system. Neither situation applies to the golf swing or release. Cochran and Stobbs who happen to be British (so what... there is nothing implied there) GOT IT WRONG! I could care less what scholastic hoops they jumped through, they got it WRONG (as did Dante).

Niblick1: Only fools and liars say the coffee cup slides on the dashboard because it is being acted on by centrifugal force. THE REALITY of what is happening is the car is moving underneath the cup. The REALITY is there is not enough friction (which could provide the required centripetal force if it were sufficient) to keep the cup turning along with the car.

Frankly that is about as "dumbed down" as the discussion can be made and all I will say on the matter. IF you still don't get it, that is a reflection on you not me because I guarantee both you and Don Villavaso (who ever the hell he is) I know exactly what I'm talking about. In this life we have a choice... remain ignorant or learn and grow. That choice is yours.

Brian, I'm not "trying to get you to believe" anything. I said the golf swing is nothing like a bull whip and that body parts need not so down to optimize the release. I sited Nesbit's test results which back up that assertion. There is your proof unless you discount Nesbit too. You can take it or leave it, It does not matter one wit to me.

of course it matters to you nm, otherwise you wouldn't be here in the first place.....

 

[puttmad]

....

That Gipper's pivot............unreal speed...

no left heel slammed down there then........

 

[niblick1]

Niblick1: Only fools and liars say the coffee cup slides on the dashboard because it is being acted on by centrifugal force. THE REALITY of what is happening is the car is moving underneath the cup. The REALITY is there is not enough friction (which could provide the required centripetal force if it were sufficient) to keep the cup turning along with the car.

I think you misunderstood my comments. I was also stating the coffee cup analogy doesn't work.

My basic point is that the "model" for how the human body works that demonstrates how a golf swing works best is the human body itself. If you want to understand how people can maximize distance and power in golf, or baseball, or hockey, study how really talented athletes, who have a very intuitive understanding of this "model" actually functions, hit a golf ball 325 yards and learn what they have in common. Why they are able to do this is something people with applied physics, physiology and other types of specialized scientific knowledge can work to explain.

To think that Tiger and Nicklaus have a lot in common primarily because they learned in the same general time frame is to miss the point that they have a great deal in common because the way they create motion is fundamental to hitting a golf ball with power using the human body as the device to do so.

 

[thefuture37]

of course it matters to you nm, otherwise you wouldn't be here in the first place.....

so true. the person that writes "it doesn't matter to me" might as well just write "I care so much I can't let it go".

 

[Deadly_Scope]

DeadlyScope: Centrifugal force is used in Newtonian mechanics 2 (and only 2) times: 1) When labeling the very real reaction to a centripetal force, and 2) When a fudge factor is introduced in an analysis using a non-inertial coordinate system. Neither situation applies to the golf swing or release. Cochran and Stobbs who happen to be British (so what... there is nothing implied there) GOT IT WRONG! I could care less what scholastic hoops they jumped through, they got it WRONG (as did Dante).

When it comes to practical mechanics it can be of great use to think of this fictious force as real whenever circular motion is present. I think it is safe to say a physicist who has a Bsc and Phd will know this (maybe not someone in a golf forum however) but yet choses to use a term to simplify to the general audience but any other physicist who has studied this principal should understand further what is meant.

Now you seem to think if you can point out the fallacious nature of centrifugal force that it somehow invalidates the whole topic in question but you have yet to say one word other than discussing semantics towards the wording used within my quote. Its like someone picking on someone elses spelling and then thinking that they have refuted the underlying principle which is absurd.

So let me translate this so you will have less of a problem with it....

There is a force that the lever assemblies (left arm and club) exerts on the clubhead and there is a force which the clubhead exerts on the lever assemblies (left arm and club) but there is no force radially outward from the clubhead itself. But since the clubhead exerts a force against the lever assemblies straightening it out radially (even though there is no radial force in the clubhead) on a line from the axis to the clubhead's center of mass - this motion slows down the speed of the left arm as the point between the lever assemblies moves backwards whilst the clubhead moves radially away from the rotating axis whilst this axis is constantly turning.

Since this is aimed at golfers do you think that this is nessesary????

I wish to talk about the point in question, I do not care about the terminology used...

 

[nmgolfer]

of course it matters to you nm, otherwise you wouldn't be here in the first place.....

No it doesn't matter a bit. I couldn't care less what you believe either. I'm here because of the occasional gem and because almighty mandrin occasionally needs correcting. Thats all.

 

[nmgolfer]

I think you misunderstood my comments. I was also stating the coffee cup analogy doesn't work.

My basic point is that the "model" for how the human body works that demonstrates how a golf swing works best is the human body itself. If you want to understand how people can maximize distance and power in golf, or baseball, or hockey, study how really talented athletes, who have a very intuitive understanding of this "model" actually functions, hit a golf ball 325 yards and learn what they have in common. Why they are able to do this is something people with applied physics, physiology and other types of specialized scientific knowledge can work to explain.

To think that Tiger and Nicklaus have a lot in common primarily because they learned in the same general time frame is to miss the point that they have a great deal in common because the way they create motion is fundamental to hitting a golf ball with power using the human body as the device to do so.

We best let it go. I won't argue (anymore). Sufice to say that whether man or machine how far that ball goes depends on club head speed. Club head speed depends mostly on kinematics. To solve any problem you must get to root-cause and in golf root-cause is kinematics (path) and dynamics (force) (mainly kinematics...).

 

[nmgolfer]

I've said plenty of words on the matter... Have you read the archives? Why go back over old ground. Go ahead and believe in CF if it helps you...I don't care... just know that you're wrong. Everyone you tell will be misinformed and your (and their) progress will be stunted because of a misunderstanding.... a myth. As to your translation... honestly I have no interest in trying to understand you so we best let it go. You go your way, I'll go mine. Yes? Best.

When it comes to practical mechanics it can be of great use to think of this fictious force as real whenever circular motion is present. I think it is safe to say a physicist who has a Bsc and Phd will know this (maybe not someone in a golf forum however) but yet choses to use a term to simplify to the general audience but any other physicist who has studied this principal should understand further what is meant.

Now you seem to think if you can point out the fallacious nature of centrifugal force that it somehow invalidates the whole topic in question but you have yet to say one word other than discussing semantics towards the wording used within my quote. Its like someone picking on someone elses spelling and then thinking that they have refuted the underlying principle which is absurd.

So let me translate this so you will have less of a problem with it....

There is a force that the lever assemblies (left arm and club) exerts on the clubhead and there is a force which the clubhead exerts on the lever assemblies (left arm and club) but there is no force radially outward from the clubhead itself. But since the clubhead exerts a force against the lever assemblies straightening it out radially (even though there is no radial force in the clubhead) on a line from the axis to the clubhead's center of mass - this motion slows down the speed of the left arm as the point between the lever assemblies moves backwards whilst the clubhead moves radially away from the rotating axis whilst this axis is constantly turning.

Since this is aimed at golfers do you think that this is nessesary????

I wish to talk about the point in question, I do not care about the terminology used...

 

[Bronco Billy]

Necesary and Sufficient Condition............

When it comes to practical mechanics it can be of great use to think of this fictious force as real whenever circular motion is present. I think it is safe to say a physicist who has a Bsc and Phd will know this (maybe not someone in a golf forum however) but yet choses to use a term to simplify to the general audience but any other physicist who has studied this principal should understand further what is meant.

Now you seem to think if you can point out the fallacious nature of centrifugal force that it somehow invalidates the whole topic in question but you have yet to say one word other than discussing semantics towards the wording used within my quote. Its like someone picking on someone elses spelling and then thinking that they have refuted the underlying principle which is absurd.

So let me translate this so you will have less of a problem with it....

There is a force that the lever assemblies (left arm and club) exerts on the clubhead and there is a force which the clubhead exerts on the lever assemblies (left arm and club) but there is no force radially outward from the clubhead itself. But since the clubhead exerts a force against the lever assemblies straightening it out radially (even though there is no radial force in the clubhead) on a line from the axis to the clubhead's center of mass - this motion slows down the speed of the left arm as the point between the lever assemblies moves backwards whilst the clubhead moves radially away from the rotating axis whilst this axis is constantly turning.
Since this is aimed at golfers do you think that this is nessesary????

I wish to talk about the point in question, I do not care about the terminology used...

Is it a Necessary and Sufficient Condition for the Left Arm to Slow Down for a Release to Occur?

Iron Byron's Left Arm Does NOT Slow Down and the Golf Club Still Releases.... Therefore The Slowing Down of the Left Arm is NOT a Necessary and Sufficient Condition for a Release to Occur...... I Cannot Dumb Dumb this Down Any Further.... Have a Great Day With Your New Found Knowledge.....

 

[dbl]

Good Lord, BB, Iron Byron is no model of a two-armed human golfer.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

Good Lord, BB, Iron Byron is no model of a two-armed human golfer.

exactly

 

[Bronco Billy]

The Hell it Ain't......

Good Lord, BB, Iron Byron is no model of a two-armed human golfer.

Iron Byron can be Modeled by a Double Pendulum Mathematical System.... The Double Pendulum Mathematical Model is the Basis of that "Scientific" Book Written by Those Two Limies....... Remember DiffyEQ...... Have a Great Day with Your New Found Knowledge.....

 

[Deadly_Scope]

I've said plenty of words on the matter... Have you read the archives? Why go back over old ground. Go ahead and believe in CF if it helps you...I don't care... just know that you're wrong. Everyone you tell will be misinformed and your (and their) progress will be stunted because of a misunderstanding.... a myth. As to your translation... honestly I have no interest in trying to understand you so we best let it go. You go your way, I'll go mine. Yes? Best.

You know when someone doesn't argue the point it usually means they know they are failing in the debate. You don't even make any attempt to refute despite me rewriting the wording so it makes no reference to the fictious 'centrifugal' force whatsoever...

My last post was dead on the money.

 

[thefuture37]

you know a thread is ready to be finished when bronco billy starts posting...

 

[Deadly_Scope]

Is it a Necessary and Sufficient Condition for the Left Arm to Slow Down for a Release to Occur?

Iron Byron's Left Arm Does NOT Slow Down and the Golf Club Still Releases.... Therefore The Slowing Down of the Left Arm is NOT a Necessary and Sufficient Condition for a Release to Occur...... I Cannot Dumb Dumb this Down Any Further.... Have a Great Day With Your New Found Knowledge.....

Iron Byron can be Modeled by a Double Pendulum Mathematical System.... The Double Pendulum Mathematical Model is the Basis of that "Scientific" Book Written by Those Two Limies....... Remember DiffyEQ...... Have a Great Day with Your New Found Knowledge.....

The design of the Iron Byron has a rotor and the upper lever is a fixed attachment to that rotor very much like the blades of a helicopter. The only pendulum is from that fixed attachment to the club therefore disqualifying it from being modeled as a 'double pendulum'.

The term pendulum is defined thus...

"A body suspended from a fixed point that can swing freely back and forth under the action of gravity and commonly used to regulate movements (as of clockwork)"

A motor driving a lever is not a 'suspension from a fixed point' unlike that of the human arm hanging from a ballsocket. Although the left arm does not in itself work like a dual pendulum in its intraspective state it does however somewhat act like one under the influence of the left shoulder moving in a circle. This arguement invalidates your use of the iron byron as a realistic model for the human arm.