Question for mandrin

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JeffM

New member
Surely, David Tutelman's explanation is scientifically valid.

See - http://www.tutelman.com/golfclubs/DesignNotes/physics1.php?ref=golfcoast#Centrifugal_Force

See - http://www.tutelman.com/golfclubs/DesignNotes/swing1.php?ref=golfcoast

In another thread, Brian has supllied a video of the PingMan golfing machine, which obviously operates according to David Tutelamn's double pendulum swing action model. The machine only applies a torque force at the central hinge point, and that causes the central arm to swing at a "controllable" speed. The golf club releases because of the presence of centrifugal forces working at the peripheral hinge joint, working as a relaxed/passive "wrist" joint. If centrifugal forces don't exist, what is the nature of the 'force" that gets the club to release" at the peripheral hinge joint? Also, whether you believe in the existence of a centrifugal force, or not, David Tutelman claims that the equation needed to calculate "F" works. Steve - do you disagree?

Jeff.
 
Last edited:
lia41985

lia41985

New member
Ringer said:
Mach introduced the idea that if you had only empty space, you would not feel acceleration.
Click to expand...
Is golf played in an empty space? I'm pretty sure it's not :D

By the way, the rest of your post in nonsense plagarized material.

All in all, YOU ARE DESPERATE!
 
starretj

starretj

New
Brian Manzella said:
With a free wrist like the PING MAN, the weight of the club has a BUNCH to do with the release.
Click to expand...

Brian,
It appears that PingMan addressed the ball towards the hosel and also very high on the clubface. Is this just the camera angle or is the club still slightly lagging at impact and the clubshaft bowing enough to move where contact occurs on the face?

Thanks,
Jim S.
 
mandrin

mandrin

New
Bigwill said:
Just reposting the question so it dosen't get lost...
Click to expand...
Bigwill,

I am sure you are aware that it will take me a bit more time to answer your question in a scientific responsible way than the time it took you to type down your question. ;)

I usually do my own thing, which takes considerable time, and don’t, like some, resort to lazy copy-paste type of posting. I will come around to it. Just give me some time. :cool:
 
mandrin

mandrin

New
DOCW3 said:
The existence of a CF suggest to me a state of equilibrium. That being the case would there be a resultant force to keep the "body" moving in a circle ????

And, that just about empties my tank!
Click to expand...
DOCW3,

The centrifugal force acts on the center of rotation

The centripetal force acts on the moving mass.

Hence there is only one force acting on the mass.

Newtonian action-reaction force pairs can't balance, not acting on the same object.
 
T

tobell

New
Hacks

Mandrin,

Thanks for your posts; they are often as amusing as they are informative!

Everyone that has spent any time around a golf course or driving range has witnessed the clueless egotistical hack pontificating utter nonsense to some unwitting victim. Most of us have learned that the hack’s credibility will inevitably crumble after he takes a few swings himself, so we just let things play out. This must be the perspective Mandrin has when he witnesses the science hacks spew their nonsense. Mandrin simply lets them take a couple of swings so we can judge for ourselves their credibility—thanks!
 
golfbulldog

golfbulldog

New
starretj said:
Brian,
It appears that PingMan addressed the ball towards the hosel and also very high on the clubface. Is this just the camera angle or is the club still slightly lagging at impact and the clubshaft bowing enough to move where contact occurs on the face?

Thanks,
Jim S.
Click to expand...

Good point about the address position of the ball and hosel! had not noticed that...

Also i agree with Jeffman, if Mandrin and Dave Tutleman are happy with CF as a concept in golf then i am happy to accept it too... they know some physics !

The only person in physics and golf who might break down mandrin is Dr. Zick!! ( that guy at MIT?? i think that is his name).... unless he posts here then basically Mandrin is right... or we end up reading and copying some anti-CF stuff... but that should not stop the debate! sometimes the only way to believe and understand is to have all your arguments torn down.... then you rebuild. Its just that there are less painful ways!!:rolleyes: ;)

Calling Dr. Zick?
 
golfbulldog

golfbulldog

New
Brian Manzella said:
With a free wrist like the PING MAN, the weight of the club has a BUNCH to do with the release.
Click to expand...

Could you say that the heavier the clubhead and the free-er the wrist the later the release you can get with CF?? Due to the greater inertial forces of the clubhead being heavier and the wrists being looser??

Peter Allis ( ex British Pro and current commentator ) used to use very heavy irons if i remember correctly... E4-5 range

So do you get later release but slower arm swing?

If so, do you then have to work out which gives your optimum clubhead speed?
 
B

Brian Manzella

Administrator
Dr. Zick!

Dr. Zick is a member of the forum, but never posted.

Of course, Dr. Zick had the Mandrin analysis on his laptop. :eek:;)

Either way, I will pay to spend a day with them both in the future if possible.

Robert Grober as well.
 
B

Bigwill

New
mandrin said:
Bigwill,

I am sure you are aware that it will take me a bit more time to answer your question in a scientific responsible way than the time it took you to type down your question. ;)

I usually do my own thing, which takes considerable time, and don’t, like some, resort to lazy copy-paste type of posting. I will come around to it. Just give me some time. :cool:
Click to expand...


Youd be surprised how long it takes to type things keyboard on a laptop when you have an 11" hand span...

Wasn't rushing you, man. Like I said, I didn't want the question to get lost in the thread; it's a busy one.
 
Last edited:
R

Ringer

New
mandrin said:
Ringer,

I can see that you have been skimming quickly through some sites to pick up a few notions and to drop a few big names just so to impress people. I will be really generous and not ask you to explain it all to us. :D

Perhaps you should have asked your co-workers for advice since it is you completely busting the little credibility you have left regarding scientific matters. Indeed you are just yet another time making a complete fool of yourself with your ‘scientific’ arguments, the basic fallacy neatly pointed out by holeout in his post #28 below yours.

(holeout) “But if you let go of a rotating object (i.e. spinning a ball on a rope in a circle), then wouldn't you eliminate that centripetal force, thereby eliminating the centrifugal force? If forces do indeed come in pairs, then wouldn't this be the case?”

I am fairly certain that you picked your argument from that truly hilarious character Jack Kuykendall, who claims to be the greatest golf scientist on earth. I can assure you that he is not!

I knew from the very start that you were desperately looking for something, some little crack to wiggle inside. You really are like a pit-bull, just not readily giving up. Better luck next time. Lots of fun. Keep trucking. ;)
Click to expand...

I did NOT go to a website for this info. This is genuine knowledge that I have about this subject which I can recite in person if necessary. I'm not as dumb as you keep saying I am. People keep backing you because of some sort of pride, but I clearly see your facade. You are a wannabe physicist who probably scours the net yourself looking for any info to back up your opinion. Oh please WOW us with another formula that only 1% of Americans could possibly comprehend. It makes you look so smart and boosts your credibility with everyone who can't understand it.

Holeout didn't bust anything. And I'm pleased to see you can't drum up any sort of actual counter argument to Mach. I busted "Rotating frame of reference" by simply changing what is in rotation and you have no recourse but to do more of the same ol same ol Mandrin. "Gee, let me post about how silly I want someone to look in front of everyone.. point, laugh.. and I win." What everyone fails to see is how little information you actuall give. WHERE is the astounding rebuttal with a wealth of knowledge everyone claims you posses? They just want me to drop it? Why? Are they afraid that they could be wrong about the all knowing Mandrin? Could he possibly be wrong about something so universal as Centrifugal force? It would shatter their pride for you and that just would be a shame wouldn't it.

Centrifugal force is a pseudo-force for a reason. Any ACTUAL physicist will tell you this for precisely the reasons I mention. That is, any physicist who isn't completely immersed in Newtonian physics and can't join us past the 19th century.

How about we do this with holeout's question. What happens when you do let go of the rope? If centrifugal force does exist and centripetal force is the counter force, which direction would the ball fly when we remove centripetal force? Why doesn't it fly straight away from the hand?
 
V

Vicious Circle

New
Ringer said:
How about we do this with holeout's question. What happens when you do let go of the rope? If centrifugal force does exist and centripetal force is the counter force, which direction would the ball fly when we remove centripetal force? Why doesn't it fly straight away from the hand?
Click to expand...

Cause CF doesn't act on the ball, it acts on the hand. If the rope was severed just above the ball, the rope would snap back toward the centre of rotation.
 
mandrin

mandrin

New
Vicious Circle said:
Cause CF doesn't act on the ball, it acts on the hand. If the rope was severed just above the ball, the rope would snap back toward the centre of rotation.
Click to expand...
Vicious Circle,

It is true that the centrifugal force acts on the center of rotation but the rope isn't snapping back upon cutting close to the ball.

The rope has mass and is hence over its entire length subject to the action-reaction centrifugal centripetal force pair.

When cutting the rope close to the ball the rope does not snap back, it remains stretched out, continuing to turn around the center.
 
V

Vicious Circle

New
mandrin said:
Vicious Circle,

It is true that the centrifugal force acts on the center of rotation but the rope isn't snapping back upon cutting close to the ball.

The rope has mass and is hence over its entire length subject to the action-reaction centrifugal centripetal force pair.

When cutting the rope close to the ball the rope does not snap back, it remains stretched out, continuing to turn around the center.
Click to expand...

I agree partially here that it would remain at length as rotation continued - but rope adjusts its length under varying tension (like a spring), I feel there would have to be some snap-back observed initially,,,(scratching my head at this point, maybe a bad example for this discussion)
 
mandrin

mandrin

New
Vicious Circle said:
I agree partially here that it would remain at length as rotation continued - but rope adjusts its length under varying tension (like a spring), I feel there would have to be some snap-back observed initially,,,(scratching my head at this point, maybe a bad example for this discussion)
Click to expand...
Vicious Circle,

Ropes and springs are not quite the same thing. :p
Quite understandable inertial forces are not everybody’s cup of tea, but while golf is a multitude, science is not.
Hence let’s try to be precise otherwise we will continue to viciously turn around in circles. ;)
 
R

Ringer

New
holeout said:
I'm confused. If you wanted to have the same "relative motion" then the rink wouldn't spin at all. It would move in a manner in which the object (let's go back to spinning a ball on a string again) would move relatively the same. If the ball spins around its center, a given part of the ring would relatively move closer to, then away from the ball (and to the side some as well). It's hard for me to describe in writing, but it makes sense in my head :). But the rink would definitely not spin.

And I'm still confused about what relative motion has to do with forces.
Click to expand...

Ok, you're standing in the middle of an ice rink. You begin your spin. Your arms start to pull away from your body. This "force" is labled centrifugal as we all know.

But how do we know that YOU are the one spinning and not instead that it is the RINK that is spinning? That is what the theory of relativity is all about. You must define who is in motion and from what perspective. In our example of a spinning Rink all the same positions hold true (the skater and rink) except now your arms wouldn't pull away.

Ok, lets go to the question used in the science realm. A bucket hung by a chord filled with water. When you spin the bucket eventually the water begins to climb up the side of the bucket despite the fact that the water is at rest relative to the bucket itself. So then from what perspective is anything spinning at all? From the water's perspective there is no rotation, it is simply being pulled. From the buckets perspective only looking at the water, there is no rotation either, only water climbing up it's sides.

But only when you introduce a third perspective or mass, can any sense of rotation be considered. In other words, as the person doing the spinning of the rope, relative to you, the water and bucket are spinning. But compared to each other, there isn't.

So what happens if you theoretically remove ALL mass and leave just the bucket and water. There is no more frame of reference to say that either the bucket or water are spinning. That is how Newton came to the idea of "Absolute Space".

By having an "absolute space" as the only credible source of perspective, Newton's theory "holds water". (pun intended) And indeed APEARS completely compatible with what we observe. That's why it stood as the resonable answer for so long.

But as Einstein pointed out, physics MUST account for ALL perspectives. Rotating or not. And that is where special and general relativity blew Newton away.

In short, to believe in rotating frames of reference and "absolute space" is to believe that the Theory General Relativity is wrong and you're stuck in the perverbial doghouse with the Jordan-Brans-Dicke theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top