Power Accumulator – science or metaphor?

[mandrin]

quote:Originally posted by corky05

What specifically would you call the "heavier proximal elements of the body"? Anatomically. Thanks, Rich.

As it is obvious from previous posts that you are just looking for any tidbit you can find to “criticize”, putting in very mildly, I will take the requested information directly form a dictionary, so that you can quibble with a dictionary entry. [B)]

In biomechanical articles, 'proximal' and 'distal' are taken to have the meaning as below,

PROXIMAL - Refers to that end of a segment, bone, or muscle attachment that closer to the axial skeleton.

DISTAL - Refers to the end of a segment, bone or muscle attachment that is further from the axial skeleton.

The more general and usual meaning is as given from the dictionary,

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

proximal - nearer to a point of reference such as an origin, a point of attachment, or the midline of the body.

distal - anatomically located far from a point of reference, such as an origin or a point of attachment.

mandrin

 

[mandrin]

quote:Originally posted by mb6606

Mandrin if there is no accumulation in the out of line condition of the backswing then why do golfers bother to cock their left wrist??? Wht not just keep the club inline the entire swing??

mb6606, I hope you don't mind that I suggest to start reading this topic from the beginning. Take a look at Figs2a,b and Figs3a,b in my linked post.

mandrin

 

[corky05]

I don't think you understood my post? I'm very familiar with terms like distal and proximal. I meant anatomically, as in specific bodypart or parts. I'm curious, if maximum kinetic energy develops there, I would find that important. I hope that clears up why I wanted to know. I'm not picking.

(Mandrin Quote)
Keeping the angular inertia low results in maximum kinetic energy developed in the heavier proximal elements of the body. The reward is obtained, approaching impact, when the proximal kinetic energy starts flowing towards the distal elements and ultimately into the clubhead.

mandrin

 

[MizunoJoe]

See folks,

As I told you he isn't here to discuss anything, most especially his misconceptions and misunderstandings of TGM.

If this is about Homer's concept of Power Accumulators, why is it that he can discuss Hitters and CF in his treatise, but a reply about it indicates a "reading problem"?

Had he read TGM, he would know EXACTLY what my statements, which were written in the plainest of English, meant!

No, he isn't here to discuss or debate, he is here to expostulate, and you are here to absorb his "precision". You MAY ask questions in a reverent way, and, unless he is ABSTAINING at the moment, or you ask in a way which might challenge his self-proclaimed superiority, you might get an answer.

AND, oh boy! , we are going to get the skinny on shaft loading in the "rigorous language of mathematics".

 

[mandrin]

Corkey05,

Interesting strategy starting to unfold. Firing away, as rapidly as you can type, many general, ‘why this’, ‘why that’, type of question without any input of any form or substance on your side.

Hoping anxiously that in this turmoil I might slip just once, and than being able to put me to the stakes to burn alive till there are only ashes left.

Corky, corky you are really being very naughty.

mandrin

quote:Originally posted by corky05

Why would you segregate the backswing when discussing power accumulation?

quote:Originally posted by mandrin

quote:Originally posted by MizunoJoe

The Hitter doesn't "reduce" CF, he preempts it. And, the Straight Line Delivery Path is available to both Swingers or Hitters, but required by neither.

Will you explain how pivot lag, and clubhead lag due to the change of direction in Swinging or the acceleration in Hitting, does not load the shaft?

MizunoJoe, I can’t help coming to the conclusion that you are really having a serious reading problem. You are knocking on the wrong door. This thread is about the Homer’s concept of power accumulator and what it might possibly accumulate in the backswing.

Tell me what is your opinion about this specific subject. Have you given it any serious thought. Have you read Homer’s book? He is really encouraging a golfer to think. You do know what that means? - being critical, not taking anything for granted.

Easy challenge for. You said -

“The Hitter doesn't "reduce" CF, he preempts it. And, the Straight Line Delivery Path is available to both Swingers or Hitters, but required by neither”.

Just explain this to me in detail, without restoring to simply quoting the book in any way or form, and in normal standard English. I will then carefully dissect with pleasure, anything you might have to say. It might be really fun. Give it a try.

I will eventually with great pleasure discuss ‘loading the golf shaft’. But only when I have finished doing my home work, hence having gone through the arduous and time consuming task of formulating it, using the rigorous language of mathematics.

Impatient to know the conclusion? Patience my friend. Homer took 28 years to derive his ideas.

mandrin

 

[corky05]

Its funny that you would mention that about abstaining? Because the most baffling thing to me has been the rythm and pace of his posts. Nothing has been spontaneous. He doesn't seem to just answer. He retreats, pulls out the Webster's dictionary and slide rule. The pace of the dialogue leads me to believe he's an imposter. The link was contrived. Who has come to this site and said, Hi! Look at my math equation? Nobody! Its such odd behavior that you can't help but be skeptical? I am! They're planned bursts of sentences, that just don't seem to fit. Hell, he has referred to the dictionary, as, opposed to just plainly answering multiple times in his very short stay here. Curious?



(MizJ Quote)
No, he isn't here to discuss or debate, he is here to expostulate, and you are here to absorb his "precision". You MAY ask questions in a reverent way, and, unless he is ABSTAINING at the moment, or you ask in a way which might challenge his self-proclaimed superiority, you might get an answer.

AND, oh boy! , we are going to get the skinny on shaft loading in the "rigorous language of mathematics".

 

[corky05]

Your cover was busted on your first post and link! It was pretty glaring! I don't do winky things!

 

[6bee1dee]

He gets his jollies off with equations, I personally like long legged gals myself but to each his own. Homer didn't work in equations, he built it from the ground up. If you like scientific equations, fine, but to ridicule a group of TGM ers just because we don't think the math is worth a hill of beans is narcissistic.

A hitter bypasses CF with a right arm thrust of the club using muscle power instead of letting the whirl of the club square itself using CF.
Straightening
I guess only you can quote form the book. Some of us use the correct words to described the motion. This was the reason Homer developed the so-called “all to difficult terminology” we love to use at secret meetings. We speak in English and play golf - you jack to equations and

Mandrin gets his rocks off with equations, I personally like long legged gals myself but to each his own. Homer didn't work in equations, he built it from the ground up. If you like scientific equations, fine, but to ridicule a group of TGM ers just because we don't think the math is worth a hill of beans is narcissistic.
--------------
Just explain this to me in detail, without restoring to simply quoting the book in any way or form, and in normal standard English. I will then carefully dissect with pleasure, anything you might have to say. It might be really fun. Give it a try.

A Hitter bypasses CF with a right arm thrust (that is a push) of the club. A Hitter using the muscle power of a driving and straightening right arm, instead of letting the whirl of the clubhead square itself using CF relies on the strength of the push.

(okay lets check the terms- Hitter, CF, right, arm, thrust, push, club, driving, straightening, whirl, clubhead, square, and strength are all words found in the book and its English, sorry if you don't understand them. Its not that tough is it? )
------------------
I guess only you can quote form the book. Some of us use the correct words to described the motion. This was the reason Homer developed the so-called “all to difficult terminology” we love to use at secret meetings. We speak in English and play golf - you hide your game in equations and do what?

If you really want to hit a golf ball better then anyone in your circle- go see Lynn - aka Yoda - and enjoy the new skill.

 

[TGMfan]

mandrin,

Perhaps you'd like to explain, in the interest of having a real discussion (as opposed to exchanging insults), how your idea of "keeping the angular inertia low" relates to Mr. Kelley's statement in 2-K that "With a short radius it can accelerate easily, and quickly acquire considerable Angular velocity". Consider that he made a very strict distinction between Accumulator #2 (wrist cock with its essential flat left wrist, which keeps the hands and clubhead moving at the same RPM) and Accumulator #3 (which allows the clubhead to overtake the hands).

 

[MizunoJoe]

TGMfan,

He doesn't do real discussions, he pontificates. Pontification only works if you're 100% correct about that which you are pontificating. In this case, he lectures us about Homer's MISCONCEPTIONS of Power Accumulators, and in doing so, makes errors and false implications about related TGM comcepts. If anyone does that on this forum, someone WILL correct him. That is NOT an insult.

It's obvious that he's a TGM "quick study" from his statements on shaft loading and other giveaways, such as suggesting that the Hitter "reduces CF", not understanding that the Hitter uses accums #1,2,3, and not #4, and that CF is never present and so cannot be "reduced". He cannot discuss shaft loading until he proves it exists mathematically, which means that he has only hit wiffle balls in his backyard. Do you honestly think he is capable of understanding and answering your question?

 

[Ringer]

It's funny to me. I ask my students all the time what a "swing" is.... and there are so few that can actually tell me. Oh sure, I think they all know one when they see one.... but they cannot put it into the correct words to actually describe what happens. Here we have someone who actually investigated a part of the wording Homer used and found it to be somewhat inaccurate.... and you all pull out the bag of tricks which never address what he says. Instead you belittle and berate. Even Brian doesn't actually challenge the evidence provided, but merely asks, "Have you seen me teach?" WTF does that have to do with whether or not he's right? Nearly every argument you have all had to mandrin has been of the same lineage... and I might just start asking you all.. WTF does it have to do with whether or not he's right? Don't you see how intollerable this attitude is? Has mandrin at any time stated that you are all so very wrong and Homer was an idiot? Has EdZ at any time stated it? Yet look at the way you have all treated him when he DARES bring up a small objection. Perhaps if it weren't from this very attitude, TGM would actually be more widely accepted. But oh no.. that has to do with everyone elses attitude toward TGM doesn't it. If you want to change the world, you have to start with yourself. And you cannot remove the sliver from your brothers eye, until you remove the plank from your own.

 

[corky05]

This must be the part where you remove the plank from Mandrin's and we all sing, "Kumbaya"! Yeah! HooRah! Ringer, you've saved the day! Yeeee Haaaaa!
Nobody has thrown the book at Mandrin. His opinion is like anyone's. If you have an idea, throw it out and see if it holds water.
I pray to God if I throw out an idea and it utterly sucks? I hope somebody tells me so. Spare me that Left coast touchy feely crap.
Not to say that Mandrin's idea sucks. He just really danced around answering any questions regarding it. And, the questions have been relevant and civil. Some immediate things stood out, and he got aloof, anxious, pompous.
Take the cape off, Ringer. I'm sure if he is as committed to this idea as I think he is, he'll dig around and think about the questions posed and everyone will be better for it.
Why do you think it would be any different in this forum than it would be out on the street? If I approached a bunch of people with that kind of arrogance, how do you think I would be received?
I have a math equation you yeehaw, rednecks, I don't have to be humble and unassuming! I'm gonna roll in here with this link to my Big Ass equation and you will be powerless. You will be awe struck by my ability to defer you to the dictionary! You think I would expend my own thoughts on you peons? What? Did you think I would come over here and court you and trade niceties, before I'd shove this formula right behind Ringer's plank? Surely you jest? I am MANDRIN, I have spoke!

 

[TGMfan]

Umm, Ringer, do you know what the point of mandrin's initial post was? I have to admit that I didn't get it at first, but after reading some of his later posts, and going back to the original, it seems that he was saying that the "real reason" for "setting the angles" is to allow a "given torque to obtain maximum angular velocity of the overall system", which is "the typical action of a flail".

How does that conclusion relate to Mr. Kelley's work? Well, what Mr. Kelley did was to design a machine to hit a golf ball, based on certain criteria that he thought were important. I suppose he could've used a flail as the centerpiece of his machine, but he probably asked himself some questions first.

Can you hit a golf ball with a flail? Probably, after a certain amount of practice.

Will the ball go far? Sure, look at the angular velocity you get out of it.

Do you know where the ball's going to go? Absolutely not, since there's no way to control the clubface with a flail.

Something along that line of reasoning led him to the belief that the most important of his design criteria - the First Imperative - was that his machine should be able to control the clubface. The mechanism he chose for that control was a flat left wrist, something that a flail doesn't have.

The upshot of all that is that mandrin has built a machine, mathematically, which has different components than the one that Mr. Kelley designed. Can the "science" of mandrin's machine shed any light on Mr. Kelley's machine? (Is the science of a motorcycle the same as the science of a bicycle?) I just think we're in danger of comparing apples to oranges unless we decide what the differences are, how they affect the machines we're comparing, and what science can be applied to both. Understanding Accumulator #2, its function and limitations, is a good place to start.

 

[mandrin]

quote:Originally posted by TGMfan

mandrin,

Perhaps you'd like to explain, in the interest of having a real discussion (as opposed to exchanging insults), how your idea of "keeping the angular inertia low" relates to Mr. Kelley's statement in 2-K that "With a short radius it can accelerate easily, and quickly acquire considerable Angular velocity". Consider that he made a very strict distinction between Accumulator #2 (wrist cock with its essential flat left wrist, which keeps the hands and clubhead moving at the same RPM) and Accumulator #3 (which allows the clubhead to overtake the hands).

TGMfan, I have illustrated the matter in Fig1. Three interconnected masses M1, M2 and M3 are free hinging at their centers. Furthermore, M1 > M2 > M3. In this case it is very easy to see the effect of each mass on the total angular inertia J. The mass M3 is very small compared to M1 but can still have a considerable influence on the total angular inertia J through its larger instantaneous radius R3 being squared.

So, in a golf downswing, it is definitely important to keep the shaft and clubhead , even being light, close to the center of rotation. The same is true for the two arms. For arguments sake think of M3 as representing a clubhead, M2 as representing the arms and M1 somehow representing the mass of the body. (Just hoping somebody is not going to take this all literally).

The angular inertia is made small by varying the hinge angles alpha and beta in order to bring M2 and M3 closer to the center. If you were to rotate these three masses with the aim to obtain the maximum velocity for the M3, with the minimum energy expenditure, this is indeed what you would have to do.

Subsequently you would first release the angle alpha. This causes part of the accumulated kinetic energy of M1 to flow towards M2. The same argument for the release of angle beta and the ensuing energy transfer towards M3 from M2. This is typical kinetic linking, transferring energy from proximal to distal elements.

Homer mentions in 2-K a swing radius, but does not define it, hence can’t really comment on it. One can define, for instance, a radius defined by the location of the center of mass, there is also the instantaneous radius of curvature determined by the trajectory in space of the clubhead. It is not as simple to define a radius in a multiple linked mass system as one would take it from reading Homer.

mandrin

 

[Turfspanker]

Mandrin,

Wow! When Yoda's swing reaches the Single Axis forum, something is really going on.

I'm not familiar with SA Mandrin, I stumbled on it while reviewing your thesis. As you an SA expert and have exposure to TGM, what are the similarities and differences?

By the way, I sense an agenda here.

Turfspanker

 

[TGMfan]

mandrin,

Thanks for commenting on my question about 2-K. As you probably know from reading 1-F, Mr. Kelley defined the left shoulder as the center of the stroke, so he's measuring the swing radius from that point. Would you agree with that point and his statement in 2-P that "The wristcock shortens the Swing Radius"? It sounds like you and Mr. Kelley are in violent agreement about its effect on angular acceleration.

 

[wally888]

When B.M., Ben, Yoda or any of the other distinguished, learned, TGM educated post stating:
"We have reviewed ????'s post/theory and find he/she is correct, there is an error in TGM , page XX, Para xx ...........", I will continue to try to avoid those who post straight from their egos!

 

[MizunoJoe]

TGMfan is an SA forum import, posing as a "debate partner".

The last lecture provides us with new insight into TGM, such as "Subsequently you would first release angle alpha." Wow, Power Accumulator #4 is released before Power Accumulator #2. How many TGMers here would have known that without the lecture?

But what about Power Accumulator #3? Sorry, that doesn't exist in the 2-D model. And since, like shaft loading, it hasn't been modeled, there can be no "debate" on it.

 

[6bee1dee]

Single Axis swings have NO acc#3 and little or no Acc#2. No wonder they have a problem with four power accumulators.

 

[Turfspanker]

Don't people realize you lose credibility immediately when you pull this kind of thing?
Here a single axis guy jumps into this forum with an obvious agenda to discredit Homer. Brings in a few of his peers to help with the disguise. Never introduces the fact he is a Single Axis proponent.
There is probably room for some debate here, but put the cards on the table first.

That said, I've spent a few minutes over at the SA forum browsing and there appears to be a few folks attempting to clear the fog over there. But it's very thick and misinterpretion of TGM abounds.

After reviewing the SA threads on this subject. This discussion as all about terminology and it's interpretation, not about science. It seems to me that some of the SA folks don't like the term "Power Accumulation" as the words don't fit their model. Like hundreds of other golf terms that had to be invented at the time. Homer coined the term for the concept of the power package. Woops, there's another term to debate.

Turfspanker