Power Accumulator – science or metaphor?

[mandrin]

Probably like many who have Homer Kelley’s book laying around, I do pick it up once in a while, but get each time very quickly impatient with the circular referencing, feeling I am getting trapped in a labyrinth.

It is interesting to observe that the TGM forums conserve this particular aspect of the book. Not that much discussion, usually questions with answers given by the few that know and usually with direct quotes from Kelley’s book.

That makes it for newcomers difficult to understand TGM, Homer’s ideas being explained by using his expressions and phrases, which are a bit particular. People seemingly study Homer’s book for years and yet not feeling they really understand.

However Kelley’s ideas are based on science and one should therefore be able to understand his ideas using a scientific approach. This is what I have tried to do, analyzing his concept of Power Accumulator. Have a look here and enjoy.

mandrin

 

[6bee1dee]

Mr. Kelley says to read the book without detouring to the cross references. Sorry if you missed that point with the book "laying around."

Homer's book is based of proved LAWS of geometry and physics. One can use Homer's book without ever going into chapter 2. Mr. Kelly's book has proved to produce better golfers then from any side show act that dwells on other forums.

Your web link is truely one of the most pretentious posts to date.

 

[Ringer]

Saying it does not make it so 6bee1dee... if you have something of his to disprove please provide the evidence. mandrin put a lot of effort into the post... the least you can do is offer the REASONS why it is incorrect. I look forward to some posts by BM and Lynn that might be able to shed some light on it.

 

[cdog]

Mandrin could add a lot to this board, even tho his discussions are usually over my head.
Steve...good post!

 

[Brian Manzella]

Mandrin....

Do you read my posts much??

I certainly don't 'quote the book' when I answer questions.

It is MY JOB to make the 'so-called' difficult DOable & UNDERSTANDable.

Why don't you ask ME a specific question about the Power-Accumulators and se if you get a "stock answer" sir.

 

[6bee1dee]

Homer based his book on the LAWS of geometry and Physics. He did not write in a scientific language, he wrote in english. It may be a tough read but you don’t need to understand calculus or read graphs to understand what is explained. If you saw the Martee make-over CD, attended any of the workshop by Yoda or followed along with Brian’s posts and articles, you would discover how simply TGM can be. Its application not chalkboard.

Can anyone here find the mistake in the calculations that was posted?

 

[corky05]

Mandrin, I got the impression that you heavily discount gravity and the flail. With regards to gravity, you stated, it was "Limpid". How so? Could you elaborate? Thanks, Rich

 

[mandrin]

quote:Originally posted by brianman

Mandrin....

Do you read my posts much??

I certainly don't 'quote the book' when I answer questions.

It is MY JOB to make the 'so-called' difficult DOable & UNDERSTANDable.

Why don't you ask ME a specific question about the Power-Accumulators and se if you get a "stock answer" sir.

Brian, thanks, for showing such moderation in your response. I am sure that you wonder what kind of fish this mandrin fellow is starting to swim around in your pool. No fear, I am not a piranha, just an amateur golfer with some incline toward science.

I feel there is a sharp division to be made between feel and real. Both perfectly valid in their own domain. The problems starts when people start thinking that their particular feel should equate to real. A typical instruction in golf (feel) is valid if it produces valuable results even if the reasons given (real) don’t make any sense, scientifically.

Therefore, when I am putting forward that Kelley’s notion of Power Accumulator is not quite correct from a scientific point of view, doesn’t in any way, for me, take away the validity of his ideas as a means to learn golf. Homer suggests himself that his approach is based on science. Science however is more than geometry or kinematics.

I don’t want to be perceived as someone trying to break down or destroy. Simply attracted by the beauty of mathematics and the light it might bring, even if modestly, into some aspects of golf. Homer’s efforts, especially when putting in into the context of the time it was done, represents a remarkable feat of patience, a life time of passion and devotion to bridge the gap between feel and real. However nothing is really perfect or completely finished - such is life.

Brian, I agree, you are being quite different, not using quotes in the book as answers. I fully realize however that it is very tempting as it constitutes a very compact way to convey very complex/subtle ideas but the danger with this approach is that it avoids thinking, becoming a closed shop, where everyone repeats the same mantra’s.

As to asking you a specific question, a very simple one - Brian, what is the entity/quantity you accumulate into a Power Accumulator?

mandrin

 

[TYORKE1]

Mandrin good post, I think the TGM principals are very sound. I tried to understand the book but to me it was too much work and I really don't want to think that much. Brian gives explanations of the book, sometimes too short of answers but I believe this is based on time rather then effort. I have several times asked that answers are based on feel rather then the language of the book. I really admire the loyalty of TGM and I think it is great the the internet offers an area that they can discuss what they are reading. If a TGM teacher was close to me I would not hesitate to go , BTW if you are going to argue the principals you better pack a lunch because you have some knowledgeable stubborn son of guns posting on this site, glad you are here TIM

 

[mandrin]

quote:Originally posted by corky05

Mandrin, I got the impression that you heavily discount gravity and the flail. With regards to gravity, you stated, it was "Limpid". How so? Could you elaborate? Thanks, Rich

Rich, I have to guess a bit as to the sense of your question, but here it goes -

When you extend a spring you sense the force of the spring resisting being extended. When you lift an object vertically you sense its weight, the pull of gravity on the object.

Hence in both cases there is an object moving in a force field. This is the reason for the potential energy, the force acting on the end of the spring or the object raised against gravity pull.

Take a backswing in small steps and ask yourself at each step what do I sense as the force driving my arms back to the address position (forget gravity, being a minor contributor). There is none. There is only an increasing discomfort and your neurons programmed to swing back from the top.

Therefore, if there is no force to resist the back swing taking place, striving to maintain the address position, there is, as a consequence, no potential energy.

If you struggle to get a heavy weight up a ladder you know intuitively that the higher you get, the more there is potential for damage if you let it slip.

However, if you push on a heavy object on a very slippery horizontal surface there is no real force resisting you and hence no potential to be gained by pushing the object to any particular position.


Gravity - perhaps going against intuition but gravity plays a minor role. In the 2D model eliminating gravity reduces the speed approximately 10 %.

Flail - I don’t discount flail. On the contrary the 2D model typically is that of a flail.

mandrin

 

[TGMfan]

Mandrin,

Nice piece of work, but I'm unclear about what you're arguing against. You start with Homer's definition:

Homer Kelley in his glossary of TGM indicates the out-of-line configuration of the power accumulators as being the source for power accumulation.

You then spend a great deal of effort to show that Case 2 (where the shaft starts out-of-line) gives a greater angular velocity than Case 1 (where the shaft starts in-line). You seem to be agreeing that the out-of-line configuration is the source for greater clubhead speed. Is it just the use of the word "power" that you disagree with?

 

[Brian Manzella]

Lets start with this guys...ok?

accumulator

Ac*cu"mu*la`tor, n. [L.] 1. One who, or that which, accumulates, collects, or amasses.

2. (Mech.) An apparatus by means of which energy or power can be stored, such as the cylinder or tank for storing water for hydraulic elevators, the secondary or storage battery used for accumulating the energy of electrical charges, etc.

3. A system of elastic springs for relieving the strain upon a rope, as in deep-sea dredging.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

 

[rwh]

mandrin,

This is what you wrote in your linked paper:

"Homer Kelley in his glossary of TGM indicates the out-of-line configuration of the power accumulators as being the source for power accumulation. This definition is only valid if the out of line configuration is situated in an appropriate force field. At the top of the backswing and with the power angles set, what then can be identified as this force field required to be able to define some form of potential energy?

Your premise is false. First, Mr. Kelley doesn't say that power accumulators are "the source" for power accumulation. What he does is to define the term for purposes of the book, i.e., an "out-of-line conditions of the Power Package Components [which]means not in a straight line from end to end. Releasing them to seek their in-line condition releases their stored potential" (my emphasis).

The "top of the backswing" has nothing to do with power accumulators, other than being a point where they could be assembled and loaded. It is the "release" of the lag loaded accumulator about which Mr. Kelley writes and that occurs very late in the swing -- where the hands are at about the right leg -- after rotational "throw-out" forces have been introduced into the swing.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Looks like Homer made a good enough choice acording to Mr. Webster, no?

 

[Ringer]

Wait wait wait.. so NOW dictionaries are worth something? Are you sure you want to open that door back open BM. I might get kicked off your forum afterall.

 

[Brian Manzella]

Ringer, Ringer, Ringer....

Homer Kelley used the DICTIONARY to name the items that didn't have names.

I don't kick people off...I win them over

 

[Ringer]

Why aren't you an advocate of swinging then?

 

[mandrin]

quote:Originally posted by rwh

mandrin,

This is what you wrote in your linked paper:

"Homer Kelley in his glossary of TGM indicates the out-of-line configuration of the power accumulators as being the source for power accumulation. This definition is only valid if the out of line configuration is situated in an appropriate force field. At the top of the backswing and with the power angles set, what then can be identified as this force field required to be able to define some form of potential energy?

Your premise is false. First, Mr. Kelley doesn't say that power accumulators are "the source" for power accumulation. What he does is to define the term for purposes of the book, i.e., an "out-of-line conditions of the Power Package Components [which]means not in a straight line from end to end. Releasing them to seek their in-line condition releases their stored potential" (my emphasis).

The "top of the backswing" has nothing to do with power accumulators, other than being a point where they could be assembled and loaded. It is the "release" of the lag loaded accumulator about which Mr. Kelley writes and that occurs very late in the swing -- where the hands are at about the right leg -- after rotational "throw-out" forces have been introduced into the swing.

rhw, please, do me a favour, close the book and define for me, a simple rookie, in simple english and conform to commonly accepted scientifc notions, the following terms:

-1- power
-2- power accumulator
-3- stored potential
-4- potential energy
-5- lag loaded accumulator
-6- rotational throw out forces
-7- assembly and load process of a power accumulator

BTW, try to read more carefully. I did not write as in your statement about a false premise that power accumulators are being the source for power accumulation but instead the out-of--line configuration, very different indead.

mandrin

 

[mandrin]

quote:Originally posted by Ringer

Saying it does not make it so 6bee1dee... if you have something of his to disprove please provide the evidence. mandrin put a lot of effort into the post... the least you can do is offer the REASONS why it is incorrect. I look forward to some posts by BM and Lynn that might be able to shed some light on it.

Ringer, I appreciate your comments. Rare commodity, an open free mind on a forum.

Scientifically colored posts tend to be disliked, they have something definitive, closing arguments, and tend to stir up anguish, some even getting aggressive.

Some prefer to think of their golf as an art or as an cult and don’t really want to disturbed with cold blooded annoying science stuff. Mathematics however has its peculiar charm and beauty.

As you mentioned my post did indeed take a substantial amount of time. Only a very few on our little planet do mingle with both golf and mathematics, it has its place as it tends to be objective.

mandrin

 

[Ringer]

mandrin - open minded is not a quality 95% of the people on this forum would say I have. I might have a total 3 people who think I do.. and one of them is me. I challenge a lot, and I've got a lot of ammo... so they think I'm the enemy. But I digress...

I appreciate the time and effort you put into a difficult post. You bring up one thing that I have always felt, but never decided that Homer was wrong about it.. I just never looked into being that specific. I have always felt that the angles were designed to conserve momentum. Then, in order to release the stored potential energy, another force had to be applied. Either centrifugal, or muscular. But it never struck me to challenge them as "power" accumulators. I just never concerned myself with the difference.