Power Accumulator – science or metaphor?

[MizunoJoe]

mandrin,

"it has its place as it tends to be objective" - It also tends to be meaningless for those without a math background. I think you knew before posting, that probably none of those few would be on this board. And, I'm also sure that you're aware that the mathematical equations required in a TRULY REALISTIC model of a 3-D golf swing are beyond even you.

But, with respect to your question about accumulators, I believe they accumulate or store "motion potential" with their loading.

 

[Triad]

quote:Originally posted by 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

Mandarin,

I don't really know where to begin. Clearly HK understood the scientific subtleties between Power and Energy. If we look in the glossary we find : Potential energy is the energy of position, Kinetic energy is the energy of motion.

and: Power Acumulation is the process of acquiring a CONDITION of POTENTIAL ENERGY.

Also, the Power accumulators do not, strictly by virtue of their out of line condition, accumulate power(potential energy). They must be LOADED. This loading is accomplished by stressing the fully assembled Power Package at the appropriate Pressure Points. These pressure points serve as the spring you mentioned, or as HK preffered, a slingshot. Clearly there is a FORCE, or potential force to act on the Accumulators.

Your Figure 3A seems to validate the point that an out of line Accumulator, in this case the #2, creates a condition of significantly greater potential energy versus 2A (where the #2 is zeroed out). In the case of 3A, the #2 accumulator is 'loaded' against the fabricated pressure point created by the mechanical limitation of the range of motion of the swingle (hinge). In fact, I find it quite interesting that even after your discussion of the difference between Power and Energy you refer to the angle of the out of line condition of the secondary lever assembly as the 'Power Angle' in your study.

Maybe I am missing the point, but I find it very telling that, despite heralding the innate objectivity of Science, your conclusion is basicaly totaly subjective and based on your own 'feelings'.

Your words: "One sees on occasion in golf literature the expression - ‘one can then from the top release the power generated in the back swing’. This seems to be intuitively correct - one kind of feels powerful, being tightly wound up in the back swing. However, I just think of this as the brain screaming to release the uncomfortable feeling created due to a tight windup."

Not a very Scientiic conclusion, IMHO.

Best regards,
Triad

 

[mandrin]

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Ringer, the arguments mentioned in your post are indeed appearing so sound and logical that everyone goes for it without any second thought, even Homer Kelley.

This is also true for ‘conservation of angular momentum’, many use it for explanation and yet it is not true for a golf swing. You can probably sense why a bit of science and mathematics could be salutary to golf.

Let me in plain english try to formulate basically the same as in my linked article.

If you attach a mass m to the end of a spring and compress or extend it, the mass m acquires some potential energy.

One can say that the mass m moves in a force field created as it going along either compressing or extending the spring.

Similarly a mass m moving up or down is moving around in a gravitational field, which exists between it and the earth.

Important to realize that whenever the mass m is stationary the force of spring or gravitation does not disappear. It is a only function of the position of the mass.

In the back swing arms and club don’t move around in a force field hence no potential energy and no power accumulator.

However as soon as the arms/club start to take their curvilinear path towards the ball a centrifugal force is generated which is both a function of velocity and position.

This centrifugal force is acting on each mass particle of golfer and club. As soon as the motion stops however it disappears completely.

Therefore in a golfer we have something happening similarly when moving a particle at the end of a spring or in gravity but it is first of all associated with speed of motion.

The golfer is generating, and accumulating for a short while, kinetic energy in the downswing, not potential energy in the upswing, as every one is seemingly so doggedly convinced of doing.

As I have mentioned in my linked post the first phase' function is primarily to generate/accumulate kinetic energy. We optimize by keeping things close to the main vertical axis of rotation.

Making this first part of the down swing as linear as possible to diminish the magnitude of the centrifugal force, makes it easier to maintain the angles deeper into the downswing.

mandrin

 

[Ringer]

Triad - Not a very scientific one, but no more so than the notion that is is a release of power generated in the backswing. Baseball players do not have a "backswing" per se. They simply start with the bat back there. One could say "In a position of produding power", but the backswing in and of it self is actually a hinderance to the forward swings potential if the two processes overlap. Momentum back, is negative to the momentum going forward. A harsh transition is the only option which now induces tension and inevitably, manipulation. I have concluded, however unscientifically it is, that the backswing is merely the process of positioning the club in a manner for the proceedure to move the club along the forward arc that FEELS most effective. Or simply put, you put it back there, so you can move it forward with more force. Sometimes though, the mind plays tricks on us and makes us believe that EFFORT equals FORCE... some effort detracts from the force we are trying to create... such as improper direction control, or tension.

 

[corky05]

(Mandrin Quote)The golfer is generating, and accumulating for a short while, kinetic energy in the downswing, not potential energy in the upswing, as every one is seemingly so doggedly convinced of doing.(End quote)
What role then does the clubhead mass play in loading the shaft?
Do I have more or less energy if I start my swing static from the parallel position at the top of my backswing? or does the sudden change of going from backswing to down swing load and create potential energy stored in the shaft? Where is this loading of energy accounted?

 

[rundmc]

quote:Originally posted by mandrin

quote:Originally posted by 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.

Ringer, the arguments mentioned in your post are indeed appearing so sound and logical that everyone goes for it without any second thought, even Homer Kelley.

This is also true for ‘conservation of angular momentum’, many use it for explanation and yet it is not true for a golf swing. You can probably sense why a bit of science and mathematics could be salutary to golf.

Let me in plain english try to formulate basically the same as in my linked article.

If you attach a mass m to the end of a spring and compress or extend it, the mass m acquires some potential energy.

One can say that the mass m moves in a force field created as it going along either compressing or extending the spring.

Similarly a mass m moving up or down is moving around in a gravitational field, which exists between it and the earth.

Important to realize that whenever the mass m is stationary the force of spring or gravitation does not disappear. It is a only function of the position of the mass.

In the back swing arms and club don’t move around in a force field hence no potential energy and no power accumulator.

However as soon as the arms/club start to take their curvilinear path towards the ball a centrifugal force is generated which is both a function of velocity and position.

This centrifugal force is acting on each mass particle of golfer and club. As soon as the motion stops however it disappears completely.

Therefore in a golfer we have something happening similarly when moving a particle at the end of a spring or in gravity but it is first of all associated with speed of motion.

The golfer is generating, and accumulating for a short while, kinetic energy in the downswing, not potential energy in the upswing, as every one is seemingly so doggedly convinced of doing.

As I have mentioned in my linked post the first phase' function is primarily to generate/accumulate kinetic energy. We optimize by keeping things close to the main vertical axis of rotation.

Making this first part of the down swing as linear as possible to diminish the magnitude of the centrifugal force, makes it easier to maintain the angles deeper into the downswing.

mandrin

Many people can create power, but isn't it the precise APPLICATION of power that matters?

 

[mandrin]

quote:Originally posted by brianman

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.

Brian, your post is certainly interesting and educational, ‘scrabbling’ with words and definitions. However, instead of starting to play around with hydraulic elevators, batteries and deep-sea dredging, splitting hairs here and there along the way, I will again explain my basic point, which is actually very simple, straightforward and scientific.

Some simple considerations:

- Things should be taken and discussed in their context.
- The context is defined by golf and science.
- Homer sees his G.O.L.F. system as being ruled by the universal laws of science.

I hope we agree that Homer want us to consider his G.O.L.F. system as being conform to the rules and laws of science. If not, further discussion is useless.

However, science is ONE not MANY. You just can’t take a bit of this and that, here and there, as you please, and maintain that you are still scientific. Therefore if Homer’s system is scientific then it is ruled by its strict rules and definitions. If you don’t accept this than you condemn Homer’s life-time efforts to be a form of pseudo science. Something to be used conveniently as sales hype.

Let’s take a look at the glossary entries for energy,

POTENTIAL AND KINETIC ENERGY

Mechanical - Potential energy ......... position. - - - - - Kinetic energy .........motion.
Golf - Loaded Accumulators are Potential Energy. - The Orbiting Clubhead is kinetic energy.

Now simply, look, look, look, at the definitions above. The ONLY conclusion possible is that Homer associates accumulators with potential energy and the orbiting clubhead with kinetic energy, exactly in the sense as used in science, not as a figure of speech.

If we do agree that he meant potential energy, as used in science, then we also agree that, by definition, it is also subject to the rules and laws of science. Hence Homer is meaning the real thing, potential energy as in science.

What does science say about potential energy? -

Potential energy exists whenever an object, which has mass, has a position within a force field.
This force field, can be the due to compression or extension of a spring or due to pull of gravity

Let’s look at another glossary definition -

POWER ACCUMULATION

Mechanical, - The process of assuming or acquiring a condition of Potential Energy.
Golf - The process of Loading Power Accumulators during their Out-of-Line Conditions.

It is clear and self evident that Potential Energy is here associated with an Out-Of-Line condition.

(All this is perfectly scientific, except for the expression - 'Power Accumulation'. Potential Energy can be stored. Power however is, by definition, the rate of this conversion process, hence not an entity to be stored.)

There is however one extremely important ingredient missing to make it all perfectly sound and scientific. Where is the force field which in science is required to define potential energy? I can’t see any. If there isn’t any then Homer’s definition is not obeying the rules of science and henceforth his notion of Power Accumulator cannot be considered valid from a scientific point of view.

For those who are tempted to throw in their very personal interpretation what Homer might have meant or not, I just like to remind them of Homer’s very rigorous views with regard to science:

1-A. THE LAW All the laws operating in a golf stroke - Force and Motion, Geometry and Trigonometry, Materials and Structures, etc., etc., have been known since the days of Isaac Newton. No instructor, player or congressman put these laws into anything. Nor can they or anyone else be exempted from compliance with them. Laws are the Modus Operandi of their Principle.

mandrin

 

[corky05]

(Mandrin quote)This force field, can be the due to compression or extension of a spring or due to pull of gravity.(End Quote)

Isn't the force field by the definition you provided, the shaft? Isn't that where we accumulate power? The rate varying by an individuals ability to load that shaft and varying shaft flexes, then deliver it efficiently into the golf ball. Isn't the shaft the spring that you keep mentioning?

 

[mandrin]

quote:Originally posted by MizunoJoe

mandrin,

"it has its place as it tends to be objective" - It also tends to be meaningless for those without a math background. I think you knew before posting, that probably none of those few would be on this board. And, I'm also sure that you're aware that the mathematical equations required in a TRULY REALISTIC model of a 3-D golf swing are beyond even you.

But, with respect to your question about accumulators, I believe they accumulate or store "motion potential" with their loading.

MizunoJoe,

If you don’t understand something does not make it equate to being meaningless. One can also say that for many Homer’s ideas are meaningless yet they are very successful applying his ideas to their golfswing.

I am very precise yet you are vague, not quite a match. Why don’t you explain exactly what you mean by your “motion potential”, but don’t forget no poetry, keep it like Homer within the realm of science.

I assume that you love Homer for having created a G.O.L.F. system based on the rigors of science, but feel upset by the possibility that he might be wrong a bit here and there. It will heal, just needs a bit of time.

mandrin

 

[6bee1dee]

As I said very pretensions. For one who thinks Homer is unclear, you surely skate around plain jargon yourself. The bottom line is Homer laid out 24 swing components that work. Nothing produces golf shots better then 12-1-0 or 12-2-0.
If you want to stay lost in chapter 2, and continue this form of mental masterb..., go right ahead. I’ll stick to what Homer and Lynn taught and continue hitting golf balls better then ever. That is why Homer wrote the book. For golfers.

 

[rundmc]

Mandrin,

I read your thesis. I'm not sure that I'm smart enough or well trained in math to actually comprehend it. Please help me understand.

Could you define torque, power, and force field?

In TGM index, potential energy is referenced in two areas 2-E and 7-11. I read 2-E twice and couldn't find a reference to potential energy.

On the other hand in section 7-11 potential energy is explicitly mentioned:

"7-11 PRESSURE POINT COMBINATIONS - Fundamentally power must flow from its source (the Accumulators) and must be exerted against something (pressure points) that will direcltly or indirectly drive the club through impact. The 'indirect' drive is exerted against the 'Clubhead Lag.' . . . The 'On Plane' Pressure Point Thrust of the Power Accumulators translates thier POTENTIAL ENERGY into Clubhead 'On Plane' Kinetic Energy - always at right angles to the Clubshaft."

So what is "loaded" with "potential energy?" The Power Package is defined by Mr. Kelley as hands arms and shoulder including the Accumulators and their corresponding pressure points. Is the power package loaded? Or is the golf shaft loaded as a result of the weight (clubhead) on the end? Are the wrists loaded and does a greater "out-of-line" condition in the wrists equate to more "powerful" shots?

Also, you have used the example of a spring in your posts. Since muscles don't have any spring like qualities, is it correct to assume that the spring would be the lag loading of the clubshaft?

Could you help me understand what falsehood you have proved in Mr. Kelley's arguement? And how this can conceptually help me hit better golf shots?

Thanks!

Richard

 

[mandrin]

quote:Originally posted by corky05

(Mandrin Quote)The golfer is generating, and accumulating for a short while, kinetic energy in the downswing, not potential energy in the upswing, as every one is seemingly so doggedly convinced of doing.(End quote)
What role then does the clubhead mass play in loading the shaft?
Do I have more or less energy if I start my swing static from the parallel position at the top of my backswing? or does the sudden change of going from backswing to down swing load and create potential energy stored in the shaft? Where is this loading of energy accounted?

‘What role then does the clubhead mass play in loading the shaft?’

Corky05, you are pulling the discussion into a very different direction. If I answer I will get jumped on and I won’t answer, too much dispersion, it is a whole subject on itself. Anyhow in short - I don’t believe in loading the shaft.

‘Do I have more or less energy if I start my swing static from the parallel position at the top of my backswing?’

Your starting postion from the top does not relate to energy. It is mainly common sense - you have to create some ‘space’ to allow enough time for your muscles to be able to generate adequate clubhead speed. You maximize this by making an adequate turn in the back swing and folding nicely the various angles to be able to get arms and clubshaft/head close to the spine.

‘or does the sudden change of going from backswing to down swing load and create potential energy stored in the shaft? ‘

I don’t believe in storing energy in the shaft, contrary to common believe. The primary potential beneficial effect, using a dynamic recoil from the top, is that it might help starting a proper down swing sequence and especially facilitates, initially increasing the clubshaft lead arm angle, and subsequently holding this angle deeper into the downswing.

mandrin

 

[rundmc]

quote:

I don’t believe in storing energy in the shaft, contrary to common believe. The primary potential beneficial effect, using a dynamic recoil from the top, is that it might help starting a proper down swing sequence and especially facilitates, initially increasing the clubshaft lead arm angle, and subsequently holding this angle deeper into the downswing.

mandrin

I'm not a scientist nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but how do the physical qualities of the golf shaft not play a roll in hitting the ball? So if you were to hit a ball with a club that had all the mass in the shaft vs. having the mass in the clubhead the ball would go as far assuming equal velocity at impact?

Just trying to understand all this.

Thanks!

Richard

 

[MizunoJoe]

mandrin,

I've come full circle - yrs ago a teaching pro told me I was too smart to play golf, and now after looking at your differential equations, I realize that, in fact, I'm not smart enough!

When are you going to post the diff eqs for that realistic 3-D model?

 

[corky05]

Now you're the vague one with all the poetry,"I don't believe". I was expecting math? You are going to dismiss the sudden change of direction of this ball of mass at the end of a flexing shaft? That accumulating that energy(synonymower) and delivering it through the golf ball is counter to anything Homer said?
Sorry, but, maintaining lag and an effective flail have everything to do with power accumulation! And you cannot separate, or discount a flexing, energy/power storing shaft.

"I believe", You sure changed the rules, when it suits you!

(Mandrin Quote)
I am very precise yet you are vague, not quite a match. Why don’t you explain exactly what you mean by your “motion potential”, but don’t forget no poetry, keep it like Homer within the realm of science.

1-A. THE LAW All the laws operating in a golf stroke - Force and Motion, Geometry and Trigonometry, Materials and Structures, etc., etc., have been known since the days of Isaac Newton. No instructor, player or congressman put these laws into anything. Nor can they or anyone else be exempted from compliance with them. Laws are the Modus Operandi of their Principle.

mandrin

 

[Triad]

quote:Originally posted by Ringer

Triad - Not a very scientific one, but no more so than the notion that is is a release of power generated in the backswing. Baseball players do not have a "backswing" per se. They simply start with the bat back there. One could say "In a position of produding power", but the backswing in and of it self is actually a hinderance to the forward swings potential if the two processes overlap. Momentum back, is negative to the momentum going forward. A harsh transition is the only option which now induces tension and inevitably, manipulation. I have concluded, however unscientifically it is, that the backswing is merely the process of positioning the club in a manner for the proceedure to move the club along the forward arc that FEELS most effective. Or simply put, you put it back there, so you can move it forward with more force. Sometimes though, the mind plays tricks on us and makes us believe that EFFORT equals FORCE... some effort detracts from the force we are trying to create... such as improper direction control, or tension.

Thanks Ringer. I think that one of the key elements of the discussion is the relevance and application of the 'FORCE FIELD' concept, as described by MANDRIN.

I found the following link particularly useful in that regard. :

http://www.chem.umn.edu/groups/gao/qmmm_notes/LEC_ff.html

Hope this helps.

First of all, I don't believe that HK ever said that Power was created during the backswing. BTW, Baseball players DO have a backswing where power is stored and loaded, it is just very short. They set their power accumulators in an out of line condition and then LOAD them though the pivot as they enter the swing. Do you really believe what you write or is is just an excersise in creative typing?

Please comment on the Force Field discussion first. Thanks.

 

[corky05]

Hello! A golf ball is static. A baseball is moving 96mph. Exactly, when is there anytime for a full backswing? There is a slight pivot. The left knee moves back, then forward.

 

[Ringer]

Now you're scrapping for arguments to just be contrary to anything I say corky. A tactic you have used multiple times.

 

[mandrin]

quote:Originally posted by Triad

quote:Originally posted by 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

Mandarin,

I don't really know where to begin. Clearly HK understood the scientific subtleties between Power and Energy. If we look in the glossary we find : Potential energy is the energy of position, Kinetic energy is the energy of motion.

and: Power Acumulation is the process of acquiring a CONDITION of POTENTIAL ENERGY.

Also, the Power accumulators do not, strictly by virtue of their out of line condition, accumulate power(potential energy). They must be LOADED. This loading is accomplished by stressing the fully assembled Power Package at the appropriate Pressure Points. These pressure points serve as the spring you mentioned, or as HK preffered, a slingshot. Clearly there is a FORCE, or potential force to act on the Accumulators.

Your Figure 3A seems to validate the point that an out of line Accumulator, in this case the #2, creates a condition of significantly greater potential energy versus 2A (where the #2 is zeroed out). In the case of 3A, the #2 accumulator is 'loaded' against the fabricated pressure point created by the mechanical limitation of the range of motion of the swingle (hinge). In fact, I find it quite interesting that even after your discussion of the difference between Power and Energy you refer to the angle of the out of line condition of the secondary lever assembly as the 'Power Angle' in your study.

Maybe I am missing the point, but I find it very telling that, despite heralding the innate objectivity of Science, your conclusion is basicaly totaly subjective and based on your own 'feelings'.

Your words: "One sees on occasion in golf literature the expression - ‘one can then from the top release the power generated in the back swing’. This seems to be intuitively correct - one kind of feels powerful, being tightly wound up in the back swing. However, I just think of this as the brain screaming to release the uncomfortable feeling created due to a tight windup."

Not a very Scientiic conclusion, IMHO.

Best regards,
Triad

Triad, you might perhaps have humble opinions but certainly do have humble reading skills.

-1- The name is not Mandarin but mandrin.

-2- Furthermore, what you state as my conclusion is not my conclusion. You got it all topsy-turvy.

You say you dont know where to begin. May I make a humble suggestion? Read, read and read.!

Best regards,
mandrin

 

[MizunoJoe]

mandrin,

Can you give us an idea of when you will post the differential equations for the 3-D golf model of a Swinging procedure, which would include left arm angular motion, left wrist cocking/uncocking, and left wrist throw-out action?

Of lessor importance(speaking for myself only) would be the equations for a Hitting procedure, which would include right arm bending/thrusting, left wrist cocking/uncocking, and left wrist throwout action.