Power Accumulator – science or metaphor?

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:Originally posted by TGMfan

Horton,

Would you care to share your sources for those tests and calculations that prove "that the left hand and club 'freewheel' around the left wrist whether the wrist is flat, cupped or arched during final Release into Impact"? Other than your Saturday morning foursome, that is, where the average hacker's left wrist does more breaking down than staying flat.

You seem to miss the point of keeping the left wrist flat, though, if you think it's "to prevent uncocking". Perhaps you should reread Mr. Kelley's work with the intention of understanding what he's saying, rather than finding reasons to criticize the way he says it. Someone with your obvious intellectual ability should at least be able to figure out how to uncock your left wrist, while keeping it flat at the same time. Maybe then you can appreciate what Mr. Kelley says in 6-C-2-B without feeling the need to call it "total rubbish".
TGMfan,

Just two points.

-1- You are quick to demand for sources for tests and calculations for Horton to prove his points. So hence you are seeing value in scientific tests and scientific calculations.

Then it is extremely interesting to observe that you are, relative to Homer, very gullible and just take anything he might say as the final truth. Please, do me a favor, point me to the tests and calculations, which in any way or form, are used by Homer to prove any of his scientific ideas.

-2- Since you point to 6-C-2-B, I will let you in to a big secret which I explained in my linked post but is conveniently forgotten by everybody. Homer invokes in 6-C-2-B the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum to explain his idea about clubhead “overtaking”

Homer is wrong, this law can’t be invoked for the golfer’s down swing. It can only be invoked in closed systems where the total moment of angular momentum remains constant. At the beginning of the downswing there is no angular momentum, so please tell me what is the entity to be conserved.

mandrin
 
Hcw,You are in the right place to learn it inside out. Mandrin and Horton are in denial, but, they have never been happier. They have finally found a place where people are cognizant of what is going on in the golf swing. Gloves are off, but at least they are being challenged and stimulated. They can't go back. To what? A one dimensional, one size fits all approach of golf. They'll never go back! The hook is set.
 
TGM is three members stronger than it was four days ago. The SA tribe will be members in good standing with the Manzella Forum by 2005. Why? Because the Yellow book is the truth! They are tired of chasing lightning in a bottle.
 
quote:Originally posted by fdb2

Could this " Horton " be THE Peter Dillard of the SA forum? Horton, I see, posts one thought and then a follow-up in much the same fashion as Mr. Dullard.

I don't know about peter, but I would entertain the possibility that mr. horton could possibly be don horton who I believe has some affiliation with Scott Hazeldine and Scigolf. Just a thought.

It's a shame EdZ hasn't been around for this one.:)

I also think it would be interesting for these enlightened people regardless of their afilliation to state their education and professional credentials along with their handicap. Unless your all about tearing down rather than building up. I'm all about scoring and I'm not a TGM cult member, but i have learned several things from Brian and others at this site that have helped my 3 handicap that is still dropping that was a 9 very well thank you. I don't see how anybody could watch Yoda or Brian swing and not think, "you know they might have something there."

Later you people are giving me a headache.
 
mandrin,

I'd be happy to provide proof of at least one of Mr. Kelley's assertions, provided that we can agree on which one. The one that I think would most clearly show the difference between Mr. Kelley's machine and your model is stated in 2-P:

"The true Angular Speed (RPM) of the Clubhead is identical to that of the Hands due to the mandatory Flat Left Wrist".

Let's restrict our test to the Release Interval, say from the position on the downstroke where the clubshaft is horizontal to the position where both arms are straight. Mr. Kelley said that the hands and clubhead would be moving through this interval at the same angular rate - due to the Flat Left Wrist; you (or, at least, your model) said that the clubhead should be traveling faster along its circle than the hands along theirs - due to the flow of energy from the heavier inner segment to the lighter outer one. In either case the clubhead would be traveling faster than the hands (MPH) because it's farther from the swing center; in the case of your model it would also be traveling faster around its circle (RPM).

Have I stated the two positions accurately, and would you agree that it's an interesting contradiction to discuss?

As for your second point, there's also a difference between your model and Mr. Kelley's machine with respect to torque. In your model you stated that you're applying a constant torque, which clearly isn't possible in a closed system. Mr. Kelley's Swinging procedure (and surely we're talking about Swinging when Centrifugal Force is so important) assumes an initial torque at the beginning of the downstroke (Yoda's spin, spin, spin of the shoulders) and then just hanging on to let CF do its thing. Once the torque's been applied, the hanging on part is, as far as I can tell, a closed system.
 
quote:Originally posted by horton

quote:Originally posted by Ringer



This is the type of post the TGM side needs to make more of.

But Ringer, my response to rhw's post explained why he was patently wrong. Perhaps you missed reading my post and fyi:

quote:Yes the overall swing radius increases when the Left Arm and club extend during the downswing.

No the mass (or weight) of the arm and club does not increase, it stays constant.

What increases is the Inertia of the arm-club assembly when the swing radius increases. Simplistically, inertia is the mass (constant) times the swing radius (increasing)^squared.
I hope that helps you better understand Homer's small gaffe.

Guard your comments carefully Horton, you do not want me throwing my weight into this conversation. I did read your reply...
 
quote:Originally posted by TGMfan

mandrin,

I'd be happy to provide proof of at least one of Mr. Kelley's assertions, provided that we can agree on which one. The one that I think would most clearly show the difference between Mr. Kelley's machine and your model is stated in 2-P:

"The true Angular Speed (RPM) of the Clubhead is identical to that of the Hands due to the mandatory Flat Left Wrist".

Let's restrict our test to the Release Interval, say from the position on the downstroke where the clubshaft is horizontal to the position where both arms are straight. Mr. Kelley said that the hands and clubhead would be moving through this interval at the same angular rate - due to the Flat Left Wrist; you (or, at least, your model) said that the clubhead should be traveling faster along its circle than the hands along theirs - due to the flow of energy from the heavier inner segment to the lighter outer one. In either case the clubhead would be traveling faster than the hands (MPH) because it's farther from the swing center; in the case of your model it would also be traveling faster around its circle (RPM).

Have I stated the two positions accurately, and would you agree that it's an interesting contradiction to discuss?

As for your second point, there's also a difference between your model and Mr. Kelley's machine with respect to torque. In your model you stated that you're applying a constant torque, which clearly isn't possible in a closed system. Mr. Kelley's Swinging procedure (and surely we're talking about Swinging when Centrifugal Force is so important) assumes an initial torque at the beginning of the downstroke (Yoda's spin, spin, spin of the shoulders) and then just hanging on to let CF do its thing. Once the torque's been applied, the hanging on part is, as far as I can tell, a closed system.
A mathematical model, as used in science, is the simplest way possible to represent the essential elements of a complex problem so to be able to study it conveniently. A simple 2 or 3 lever model can’t be used for telling in detail what to do with all the various body parts, but it allows to understand the basic underlying mechanisms at work.

My model is based on mathematics. The statements and graphs can be readily verified by anyone who is so inclined. Kelley makes statements without either calculations or measurements.

Therefore any statement you might make, I am going to ask, where is the scientific formulation or alternatively where is the description of the experimental research work. Apples with apples not oranges.

Homer has like so many enthusiastic amateurs hit balls into a net and patiently transferred his feelings into a complex catalog of indeed very interesting information. However, this isn’t science.

It is so silly the attitude on this forum. Many, if not most, show total indifference to science in golf, but immediately show raw anger when this same ‘useless science stuff’ is said to be inadequate in Homer’s work.

TGMfan, this is really fascinating to me, this duality. Can you explain it to me? Is it perhaps that you like being a member of an elite group, possessing the ultimate truth, expressed in a special language?

Why is it that not a single person on this forum dares to even simply admit that Homer could possibly be wrong with his scientific ideas, notwithstanding being a golf genius with regard to instruction?

Science has permeated many sports. Why is it that in golf people are so backwards? They readily buy the latest high tech equipment but resist science for the golf swing itself. Why so different from the rest of humanity?

mandrin
 
mandrin,

Cut the philosophising - do you want me to prove your model wrong or not? Do you agree with Horton's statement that:

"...true scientific testing and calculations have proven that the left hand and club "freewheel" around the left wrist whether the wrist is flat, cupped or arched during final Release into Impact. Under these freewheeling conditions the club rotation will increase as the hands slow down with the flow of momentum outwards"?

It certainly seems to be one of the "basic underlying mechanisms at work" in your model.
 
quote:Originally posted by Ringer

mandrin, you forget those around you... or perhaps you have short term memory problems. I know I do. :D

Science has permeated many sports. Why is it that in golf people are so backwards? They readily buy the latest high tech equipment but resist science for the golf swing itself. Why so different from the rest of humanity?

Ringer, I did not forget those around me. My statement above speaks for itself. It is rather broad, don’t you think? Posted very similarly on SA forum. :) I am intrigued by the modest amount of science in golf in general and specifically the very aggressive science bashing by people posting on forums. Do you have possibly an explanation?
 
Maybe the right messenger with the appropriate bed side manner. You may be one of the rudest individuals to ever grace this place. And thats saying alot. Leads one to believe that your motivation was not to spread the benefits of science and math, but to mock something and somebody, we all love and admire. Maybe, a little more home training and a little less calculus would be useful to you. It will never matter how compelling your ideas are, if you don't find a way to warm people to you, before you present. You have alienated people from the onset and then you recruit a little punk sidekick who is equally goofy. Happiest of Christmases to you and the riddler! Hope Santa brings both of you, personalities and manners!
 
Anyone else wondering about the status of the rigorous mathematical proof that a prestressed Clubshaft will NOT resist the added weight of the ball during Impact, and, therefore, prove scientifically that an unstressed Clubshaft DOES NOT cushion the Impact?
 
I'm wondering MizJoe, however, I'm sure that Horton is trying to come up with mathematical equation as to why he and his 'partner' can't get same-sex domestic partner coverage!

Ahh, that was pretty cheap of me.....

FL-John
 
Paranoia is the first sign of cult-like close-minded thinking, when you fear the challenge to your dogmatic faith in Homer, Hogan, Jack, Moe, whoever. Obviously those who attempt to smear a new member of this fine forum are insecure in their faith and knowledge.

My only hope is that Brian Manzella responds to my postings in a clear and rational manner. I appreciate the learning aspect of this forum, but I challenge TGMers to face up to Homer's incompetent presentation of Newtonian Physics as the foundation of his golfswing theories.

I can accept that TGM can be successfully taught by competent instructors who have extracted the essence of Homer from all the sham science that Homer so tragically included to justify his legitimate golfswing mechanics. Why would somebody with such excellent insights into the golfswing attempt to coat it in useless science and then reveal his technical incompetence?

That's why I sincerely believe that TGM should be edited to eliminate scientific claims and just present the facts in a clear and cogent manner. I think that would give TGM the credibility and recognition that it deserves.

Golfers with a scientific background immediately recognize Homer's fake science and that causes doubt and rejection. Something must be done to sanitize TGM, which has much to offer to the advancement of the golfswing. Golfswing yes, Science NO .. !!!!!!!
 
Not looking for a scientist but what about a lawyer? Could not the ownwer's of TGM sue and win against those defaming the book, H.K.?
 
quote:Originally posted by wally888

Not looking for a scientist but what about a lawyer? Could not the ownwer's of TGM sue and win against those defaming the book, H.K.?

Exactly how is TGM being defamed? What injury are they suffering from what is being discussed on this private forum?

Perhaps you can convince some lawyer to sue on your behalf because your feelings were hurt ... what with tort law being what it is ..... [B)]
 
quote:Originally posted by horton

quote:Originally posted by wally888

Not looking for a scientist but what about a lawyer? Could not the ownwer's of TGM sue and win against those defaming the book, H.K.?

Exactly how is TGM being defamed? What injury are they suffering from what is being discussed on this private forum?

Perhaps you can convince some lawyer to sue on your behalf because your feelings were hurt ... what with tort law being what it is ..... [B)]

The book and all rights to it, were purchased by a corporation. Tis a $$$ venture.
If this forum were private forum, you and your hacker friends would back from whence you came. (not the wombs) I suspect from under a rock.
After reconsidering, guess everyone had a mother. Bet yours is proud of you.
 
quote:Originally posted by horton
TGM which has much to offer to the advancement of the golfswing. Golfswing yes, Science NO .. !!!!!!!

Did I miss something, Peter? TGM is not to advance science but to teach the golfswing. When Chapter 2 and 1-L is presented in the class room, it all translates to the range. Too bad you aren't sanitized.
 
quote:Originally posted by MizunoJoe

Anyone else wondering about the status of the rigorous mathematical proof that a prestressed Clubshaft will NOT resist the added weight of the ball during Impact, and, therefore, prove scientifically that an unstressed Clubshaft DOES NOT cushion the Impact?
MizunoJoe,

You are playing with fire. Are you really sure you want to know? What are you going to do if proven wrong? No more brawling and chest pounding?

At the moment you and others are having sooo much fun ganging up against those two evil characters who are disturbing the quite and peaceful ambiance of the inbreed talking.

You really want to give all this up by knowing the truth? Truth can be very painful for those wo are lacking the maturity to be able to understand the implications.

mandrin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top