Power Accumulator – science or metaphor?
- Thread starter mandrin
- Start date
- Status
Mandrin:
Would you care to give us a bit of insight as to your background? I will listen to any/all discussions and theories, so long as one that uses science, has the stuff 'between the ears' to be knowlegeable of the subject?
Scientist? Physicist? Golf Swing Educator?
One last question if I might...in business, I always ask of one my associates to not just point out the problem, but come to me with a suggested solution as well...is our problem here namely with the exactness of words/theories used by HK?
Is there a solution or suggestion that you offer to us forum dwellers?
Thanks
FL-John
Would you care to give us a bit of insight as to your background? I will listen to any/all discussions and theories, so long as one that uses science, has the stuff 'between the ears' to be knowlegeable of the subject?
Scientist? Physicist? Golf Swing Educator?
One last question if I might...in business, I always ask of one my associates to not just point out the problem, but come to me with a suggested solution as well...is our problem here namely with the exactness of words/theories used by HK?
Is there a solution or suggestion that you offer to us forum dwellers?
Thanks
FL-John
Sorry Mandrin, You are quite correct in that I inadvertently misspelled your name. If I re-post my observations using the correct spelling will you be more likely to address my comments? Or will you continue to dodge and evade.
Your conclusions are your conclusions. I did not overly-interpret them I merely quoted them.
I have read your piece, in fact I have read, read, read. Unfortunately all I see is jibber, jibber jabber, not science, reason or reality.
I give your paper a D for content, a B for pretty charts and an A for at least keeping your drivel brief. You may revise and re-submit your work at any time between now and the end of your Freshman Science 101 midterm.
Brian Manzella
Administrator
by FL-John
Mandrin is quite the scholar, or so it may seem. He has many of the finer points of physics, etc. down pretty good. I need to look more at his diagrams, etc, however, I would like to point out a few things:
(1) Kinetic Energy is applied while a mass in motion vs Potential Energy which is due to the position (height) ob an object. Since our clubhead does travel in 3-D space and we all hope to bring it up, back and in, I would say that our clubhead does have Potential Energy once it leaves the ground!!!
(2) Mandrin is correct in stating that Kinetic Energy is energy of motion. He did forget to mention that Mechanical Energy (aka Total Energy of an object) is equal to:
Total Energy = Kinectic Energy (KE) + Potential Energy (PE)
Since TE or Total Energy is always constant while an object is in motion, the KE or PE may change during motion, however, Total Energy remains constant. Saying that, I would say Kinetic Energy is being used to take the club, up, back and in, HOWEVER, as the cluhead reaches the Top (Hitter) or End (Swinger), KE becomes less and Potential Energy, as used by Homer, is building (or storing OR being LOADED!!!).
Anyway, I really thought I had almost forgotten my Math, Statistics and Physics from my beer/bond infested college days (sorry Mom & Dad), but nothing like a trip down ole memory lane!
Hey, why do we care if our Kinetic Energy is Increasing while our Potential Energy is decreasing....just drive the PP#3 at the inside aft quandrant of the ball! Thats enough for me to worry about...especially since that equation = Sustating the Line of Compression!
FL-JOhn
Mandrin is quite the scholar, or so it may seem. He has many of the finer points of physics, etc. down pretty good. I need to look more at his diagrams, etc, however, I would like to point out a few things:
(1) Kinetic Energy is applied while a mass in motion vs Potential Energy which is due to the position (height) ob an object. Since our clubhead does travel in 3-D space and we all hope to bring it up, back and in, I would say that our clubhead does have Potential Energy once it leaves the ground!!!
(2) Mandrin is correct in stating that Kinetic Energy is energy of motion. He did forget to mention that Mechanical Energy (aka Total Energy of an object) is equal to:
Total Energy = Kinectic Energy (KE) + Potential Energy (PE)
Since TE or Total Energy is always constant while an object is in motion, the KE or PE may change during motion, however, Total Energy remains constant. Saying that, I would say Kinetic Energy is being used to take the club, up, back and in, HOWEVER, as the cluhead reaches the Top (Hitter) or End (Swinger), KE becomes less and Potential Energy, as used by Homer, is building (or storing OR being LOADED!!!).
Anyway, I really thought I had almost forgotten my Math, Statistics and Physics from my beer/bond infested college days (sorry Mom & Dad), but nothing like a trip down ole memory lane!
Hey, why do we care if our Kinetic Energy is Increasing while our Potential Energy is decreasing....just drive the PP#3 at the inside aft quandrant of the ball! Thats enough for me to worry about...especially since that equation = Sustating the Line of Compression!
FL-JOhn
mandrin
New
"Anyway, I really thought I had almost forgotten my Math, Statistics and Physics from my beer/bond infested college days (sorry Mom & Dad), but nothing like a trip down ole memory lane!"
FL-John, I think you summed it up quite eloquently by saying that your knowlege about science having been acquired through the sweet vapours of alcohol. It all too clearly shows in your post.
mandrin
FL-John, I think you summed it up quite eloquently by saying that your knowlege about science having been acquired through the sweet vapours of alcohol. It all too clearly shows in your post.
mandrin
Mandrin:
He who has not spoken the truth can throw the first stone! Its easy to fire away at my post without any backup. I could have easily made ramblings about yours without merit. The equations and formulas come directly from Physics 101...if you care to dispute the physics, please go ahead.
I say that not to be crass, but hear to learn!
FL-John
He who has not spoken the truth can throw the first stone! Its easy to fire away at my post without any backup. I could have easily made ramblings about yours without merit. The equations and formulas come directly from Physics 101...if you care to dispute the physics, please go ahead.
I say that not to be crass, but hear to learn!
FL-John
"Jono" is/was a medical student who frequented golf forums. The last I heard of him, he was modifying the "SwingGYDE" training device in order to use it in some non-standard way, and enlisting others who had one, to participate in some sort of swing experiments. He disappeared some time ago. Were he a member of this forum, I'm sure that he would use the Jono id, just as he's done on other forums.
Mandrin,
Please don't take this as an insult. Could you please explain how this hole you poked into Mr. Kelley's theory of Power Accumulators will help in producing better ball striking?
I'm for sure a numbnutt, but I still can't figure out what impact the conclusion of your work has on producing lower scores. In golf anyway, the most important math is adding up the scores over 18 or 72 holes. That is about as high level math as my feeble brain can handle.
thanks!
Richard
Please don't take this as an insult. Could you please explain how this hole you poked into Mr. Kelley's theory of Power Accumulators will help in producing better ball striking?
I'm for sure a numbnutt, but I still can't figure out what impact the conclusion of your work has on producing lower scores. In golf anyway, the most important math is adding up the scores over 18 or 72 holes. That is about as high level math as my feeble brain can handle.
thanks!
Richard
mandrin
New
Richard, don’t you agree that what drives mankind is to forever ask questions, to look for new things to discover and trying to unravel the mystery and understand the unknown.
Had it not been for the scientific curiosty of Homer and his patient quest there would not be any G.O.L.F. system around. I am sure he did initially face the same question you are now asking.
It always intrigues me that golfers, at least the way they are appear on forums, are so doggedly anti science. Imediately insults and bad temper. Tell me what are they afaid off?
It is funny, probably each and every TGMer will readily admit they have a hard time understanding Homer’s ideas but nevertheless see him as a bright star way above anyone else.
The relation between science and golf is not easy. The main reason is that we are not robots, we have very complicated relationships between our feelings and motions.
To come back to your question. If all things in life were judged by plain down to earth practical reasons their would no scientific research, no arts, etc., ec.. Stagnation and back to the caves.
Is it not possible for you to see, without me spending a lot of words, that a solid basic understanding of the science behind the mechanism of a gof swing could only be very beneficial?
Most people in any sphere and activity would immediately agree with this philosophy, yet it is hard for golfers to get it into their head. Does golf perhaps attract a different type of people?
mandrin
Had it not been for the scientific curiosty of Homer and his patient quest there would not be any G.O.L.F. system around. I am sure he did initially face the same question you are now asking.
It always intrigues me that golfers, at least the way they are appear on forums, are so doggedly anti science. Imediately insults and bad temper. Tell me what are they afaid off?
It is funny, probably each and every TGMer will readily admit they have a hard time understanding Homer’s ideas but nevertheless see him as a bright star way above anyone else.
The relation between science and golf is not easy. The main reason is that we are not robots, we have very complicated relationships between our feelings and motions.
To come back to your question. If all things in life were judged by plain down to earth practical reasons their would no scientific research, no arts, etc., ec.. Stagnation and back to the caves.
Is it not possible for you to see, without me spending a lot of words, that a solid basic understanding of the science behind the mechanism of a gof swing could only be very beneficial?
Most people in any sphere and activity would immediately agree with this philosophy, yet it is hard for golfers to get it into their head. Does golf perhaps attract a different type of people?
mandrin
Brian Manzella
Administrator
Mandrin...Have you ever seen me teach?
.....didn't think so.
.....didn't think so.
Mandrin,
You will get no insults from me. I respect what you are trying to do and your curiosity. I'm also curious, but unfortunately do not have the training in mathmatics and physics to follow the equations that you have put forth. Certainly the science is important, but I doubt many of the greatest players in the world could pass a high school science exam. Heck I'm not sure I could. Aloha Mr. Hand.
I think that we can agree that Mr. Kelley was certainly an extremely curious and innovative human being. I would have never known the importance of many of his concepts, the flying-wedges in particular without the help of an AI. But I would say that the majority of people who love golf would rather improve their game without having to understand integration or diffy q's or whatever. I got to differential equations and posted a big fat F and decided I wasn't cut out to be a math major. So I have a tremendous respect for people who understand and utilize higher math. But I have even greater respect for a person that can help me improve my golf game.
I'm also amused by people who get so bent out of shape on golf forums. I'm sort of like "hey dude . . . it's just golf." I believe TGM is probably the best analysis and guide to improvement out there period. As you know there are people out here who are even more strong in their convictions on this. I think a lot of other non-TGM'ers are like "look at the TGM goofballs" and others want to poke holes in it. Bottom line is they have to respect Homer Kelley's work whether they agree with it or not.
I'm probably too big of a doofus to understand your arguement much less your conclusion. I have to say that my game has tremendously benefited from TGM and the AI that helps me. At the end of the day most people would rather make birdies than balance equations.
The beauty of TGM is its brevity and the concepts are relatively easy to understand if you have guidance on which ones are most important.
I still would like to understand torque, force field, and your ideas on the shaft being loaded or not.
Other than the Power Accumulators, are there any other concepts in TGM that you have issue with scientifically?
Regards,
Richard
Funny rundmc... this same "poking holes" thing is going on about the club throwing drill. Instead of seeing the obvious benefits. The one good thing about it (the club throwing discussion) is there is no personal attack going on about it. It's just a disagreement. I find that when TGM is the thing getting challenged... the high and mighty attitude shines.
mandrin
New
”I still would like to understand torque, force field, and your ideas on the shaft being loaded or not.”
Rundmc, as for explaining basic terms in science such as force, torque, energy or power, you get readily very clear explanations just typing the key words into any search engine. Here is a good starting point.
A general definition of a force field is to imagine that if a small particle were to be placed at any point (x,y,z), it would experience a force F. This allows to think of space as permeated or “mapped out” with the potential for generating a force. This is often used with gravitational, electrical and electromagnetic fields. It is a abstract tool use commonly in science, allows more visual approach. An amusing reference is to be found here.
Potential energy requires the presence of some force field acting. Therefore to be able have potential energy, which can be accumulated in the back swing, the arms/club have to move in a force field. They don’t, hence no potential energy and no accumulators, (ignoring the small contribution of gravity in a golf swing).
”Other than the Power Accumulators, are there any other concepts in TGM that you have issue with scientifically?”
Rundmc, I would love to answer your above question and on shaft loading but will abstain from doing so. There has been for now enough gun slinging in my direction.
I can do only so much at one time. There is a substantial amount of work involved in posts like mine about power accumulators. It is, unlike simply posting what comes to mind, a very demanding and time consuming activity.
I have been very careful, knowing in advance the type of responses I would get, to clearly distinguish, from the outset, between theory and instruction in golf.
One doesn’t have to know anything about the science behind the functioning of a TV to be able to make it function. Idem for golf. I am very pragmatic, no inclination to esoteric thinking.
A very amusing fact is that almost everyone, including Brian himself, posts that science does not make them better golfers, yet resisting vehemently having Homer’s science being put in doubt.
If science is not important, then why care if Homer is right or wrong as long as the practical aspects about his golf instruction are altogether valid and prefectly all right? Just a simple question.
mandrin
Rundmc, as for explaining basic terms in science such as force, torque, energy or power, you get readily very clear explanations just typing the key words into any search engine. Here is a good starting point.
A general definition of a force field is to imagine that if a small particle were to be placed at any point (x,y,z), it would experience a force F. This allows to think of space as permeated or “mapped out” with the potential for generating a force. This is often used with gravitational, electrical and electromagnetic fields. It is a abstract tool use commonly in science, allows more visual approach. An amusing reference is to be found here.
Potential energy requires the presence of some force field acting. Therefore to be able have potential energy, which can be accumulated in the back swing, the arms/club have to move in a force field. They don’t, hence no potential energy and no accumulators, (ignoring the small contribution of gravity in a golf swing).
”Other than the Power Accumulators, are there any other concepts in TGM that you have issue with scientifically?”
Rundmc, I would love to answer your above question and on shaft loading but will abstain from doing so. There has been for now enough gun slinging in my direction.
I can do only so much at one time. There is a substantial amount of work involved in posts like mine about power accumulators. It is, unlike simply posting what comes to mind, a very demanding and time consuming activity.
I have been very careful, knowing in advance the type of responses I would get, to clearly distinguish, from the outset, between theory and instruction in golf.
One doesn’t have to know anything about the science behind the functioning of a TV to be able to make it function. Idem for golf. I am very pragmatic, no inclination to esoteric thinking.
A very amusing fact is that almost everyone, including Brian himself, posts that science does not make them better golfers, yet resisting vehemently having Homer’s science being put in doubt.
If science is not important, then why care if Homer is right or wrong as long as the practical aspects about his golf instruction are altogether valid and prefectly all right? Just a simple question.
mandrin
Mandrin:
Hopefully (and I mean this sincerely) that we can all learn from your studies and from the scientific side. I think TGMers may not always understand everything about the work of Homer, however, we trust it enough knowing there is science behind it, plus, many of us have seen the results.
Anyway, feel free to post and elighten us....I did think it was a bit funny that you were able to right a paragraph or so saying you did not have enough time to explain, yet had enough time to write a well thought out reply....but I digress, welcome aboard
FL-John
Hopefully (and I mean this sincerely) that we can all learn from your studies and from the scientific side. I think TGMers may not always understand everything about the work of Homer, however, we trust it enough knowing there is science behind it, plus, many of us have seen the results.
Anyway, feel free to post and elighten us....I did think it was a bit funny that you were able to right a paragraph or so saying you did not have enough time to explain, yet had enough time to write a well thought out reply....but I digress, welcome aboard
FL-John
Miz:
Absolutely....I know we are all hear to learn and some take "picking" at HKs work a bit harsh at times...but, heck, if one can make TGM or HKs explanations better, more power to him and the golf world. I get annoyed at those who drop a quick tidbit, we (as usual) ask why or for the person to explain...then all of a sudden, the person will not explain as he cannot handle this ambush (so to speak).
I rarely pick a fight a try and belittle someone, for the mere fact of questioning HKs work. However, I have to have someone back up what they say. Mandrin's initial graphs and diagrams were well thought out and thorough, however, I would want more background and how he ran the tests/study...anyway, we go on!
FL-John
Absolutely....I know we are all hear to learn and some take "picking" at HKs work a bit harsh at times...but, heck, if one can make TGM or HKs explanations better, more power to him and the golf world. I get annoyed at those who drop a quick tidbit, we (as usual) ask why or for the person to explain...then all of a sudden, the person will not explain as he cannot handle this ambush (so to speak).
I rarely pick a fight a try and belittle someone, for the mere fact of questioning HKs work. However, I have to have someone back up what they say. Mandrin's initial graphs and diagrams were well thought out and thorough, however, I would want more background and how he ran the tests/study...anyway, we go on!
FL-John
Agreed. Seems like the shaft would have to have certain characteristics to transmit the energy or whatever the heck is the right term to the ball. I don't think you could strike a ball effectively with a clubhead on the end of a rope. Nor could you strike it well with a club that had most of the weight in the shaft and not the head.
mandrin
New
"I get annoyed at those who drop a quick tidbit, we (as usual) ask why or for the person to explain...then all of a sudden, the person will not explain as he cannot handle this ambush (so to speak)."
"I rarely pick a fight a try and belittle someone ... "
Your insinuation is simply cheap. I spent a lot of time responding carefully to many questions/opinions pertaining to the topic of power accumulator. However, I can’t throw myself into a dozen different directions at the same time. One thing at the time.
In business one wants the dollars to pile up as fast as possible. Fine, nothing wrong with that. Business and science are however not playing in the same ball park. Homer took 28 years of passionate efforts to get the material ready for his book.
Perhaps a surprise to you, my linked post - “quick tidbit”, in your opinion - took a bit more time than the few seconds required for you to write your post. A bit of patience, perhaps, my dear friend, would not be out of place.
Suggestion - keep a close eye on your business associates, they might waste precious time and sweet money reading mandrin’s posts during business hours.
mandrin
"I rarely pick a fight a try and belittle someone ... "
Your insinuation is simply cheap. I spent a lot of time responding carefully to many questions/opinions pertaining to the topic of power accumulator. However, I can’t throw myself into a dozen different directions at the same time. One thing at the time.
In business one wants the dollars to pile up as fast as possible. Fine, nothing wrong with that. Business and science are however not playing in the same ball park. Homer took 28 years of passionate efforts to get the material ready for his book.
Perhaps a surprise to you, my linked post - “quick tidbit”, in your opinion - took a bit more time than the few seconds required for you to write your post. A bit of patience, perhaps, my dear friend, would not be out of place.
Suggestion - keep a close eye on your business associates, they might waste precious time and sweet money reading mandrin’s posts during business hours.
mandrin
- Status