Real physics in action

[Burner]

You might well smile.

His post is nicely written and uses the typical pseudo scientific language which people like to hear.

Not my psuedo scientific language, I am not well versed enough in all this stuff to originate such. The best I can manage is to search the net and then quote from authenticated stuff that appears in many places and seems to me to be relevant to the point at issue.

His basic premise is that we can increase impact dwell time with an external force applied by the golfer.

Another “mandrinism”, meaning a misrepresentation of what is actually being said in order to further ones own argument.

I quoted from a physics tutorial site regarding the appliance of force and how its prolonged application has a positive impact on the velocity of the object that is fleeing the collision. i.e Golf ball leaves club face faster if the incidence of impact, the application of force, can be prolonged. It is something to do with the “ the impulse momentum change theorem” – sadly, not my theorem but just one I pass on for others to gain from.

This conclusion dispels hence completely and convincingly with Burner’s theory - since he believes increasing velocity to be associated with increasing dwell time.

Some major grammatical "inexactitudes" in the text prior to the hyphen but I will not put you down for your lack of understanding, or incorrect use, of the English language, despite your willingness to put others down whom you consider to be inferior in their understanding of the matters that you claim to be expert in.

However, the text post hyphen is yet another “mandrinism”.
The reality of the situation is that I harbour no such beliefs (that is "beliefs", by the way, and not “believes” as you have been seen to mis-use the term on occasion) not being sufficiently knowledgeable in these matters. It would appear, however, that increases in velocity can be achieves if the time during which the collision force is applied can be extended. Our old friend, "the impulse momentum change theorem”, is responsible for what you refer to as my belief.

Burner, I don’t have the impression that you really know what it is all about.

That is probably the truest statement you have made in this whole thread.

What you are hence clearly implying is that Prof Jones doesn’t know what he is doing when using the Herzian theory for collisions between ball and clubhead. It takes some darned impressive credentials and quite some guts to discredit a well known expert’s experimental findings.

I am implying nothing, least of all that your Hero might be mistaken. I merely pass on stuff that I have gleaned from authentic physics tutorial web sites.

Question is, was Prof. Jones trying to verify Hertz theory on collisions or to disprove the “impulse momentum change theorem”, as I can find no evidence of the latter having occurred as a result of his experiments.

It is clear from above that you have a very romantic and very personal interpretation of the science dealing with impacts. There is no prolonged application of the force on the ball right through impact and beyond. Hence your statement, “This prolonged application of the force of impact changes things”, has no meaning, it doesn't change anything.

Not me, Benny! Don’t shoot the messenger. Save your attacks for those who provided the information in the first place. They hold that prolonging the application of the force applied by the object with the greater mass, golf club for the purpose of this argument, will alter the impulse involved thereby increasing the velocity of other object involved in the collision, the departing golf ball.

You are obviously thinking in terms of a force acting on one object only. Impact however involves two colliding objects.

I have explained that these are not my thoughts, neither are they confined to a force acting only on one object. My posts are very clear in that regard. Please be kind enough to explain how such a force could occur.

Let me remind you that this thread is about Burner’s idea that one can increase the dwell time of impact. Hence, it is not about picking on any myth or convictions that have survived over the ages.
It is neither about Homer, effective mass, dragging wet mops, lagging sweet spots or trapping the ball in the ground.

For what other purpose on a golf related forum would such a discussion be useful?
It might have escaped your attention but the majority of us are here to further our golfing wisdom and, hopefully, expertise as a result.
Others, thankfully in a minority hovering around one, seem to have other motives.

Mandrin, whilst I enjoy your participation in the forum I do have to ask myself, on occasion, why exactly it is that you do so.

 

[Erik_K]

You might well smile.



Not my psuedo scientific language, I am not well versed enough in all this stuff to originate such. The best I can manage is to search the net and then quote from authenticated stuff that appears in many places and seems to me to be relevant to the point at issue.



Another “mandrinism”, meaning a misrepresentation of what is actually being said in order to further ones own argument.

I quoted from a physics tutorial site regarding the appliance of force and how its prolonged application has a positive impact on the velocity of the object that is fleeing the collision. i.e Golf ball leaves club face faster if the incidence of impact, the application of force, can be prolonged. It is something to do with the “ the impulse momentum change theorem” – sadly, not my theorem but just one I pass on for others to gain from.



Some major grammatical "inexactitudes" in the text prior to the hyphen but I will not put you down for your lack of understanding, or incorrect use, of the English language, despite your willingness to put others down whom you consider to be inferior in their understanding of the matters that you claim to be expert in.

However, the text post hyphen is yet another “mandrinism”.
The reality of the situation is that I harbour no such beliefs (that is "beliefs", by the way, and not “believes” as you have been seen to mis-use the term on occasion) not being sufficiently knowledgeable in these matters. It would appear, however, that increases in velocity can be achieves if the time during which the collision force is applied can be extended. Our old friend, "the impulse momentum change theorem”, is responsible for what you refer to as my belief.



That is probably the truest statement you have made in this whole thread.



I am implying nothing, least of all that your Hero might be mistaken. I merely pass on stuff that I have gleaned from authentic physics tutorial web sites.

Question is, was Prof. Jones trying to verify Hertz theory on collisions or to disprove the “impulse momentum change theorem”, as I can find no evidence of the latter having occurred as a result of his experiments.



Not me, Benny! Don’t shoot the messenger. Save your attacks for those who provided the information in the first place. They hold that prolonging the application of the force applied by the object with the greater mass, golf club for the purpose of this argument, will alter the impulse involved thereby increasing the velocity of other object involved in the collision, the departing golf ball.



I have explained that these are not my thoughts, neither are they confined to a force acting only on one object. My posts are very clear in that regard. Please be kind enough to explain how such a force could occur.



For what other purpose on a golf related forum would such a discussion be useful?
It might have escaped your attention but the majority of us are here to further our golfing wisdom and, hopefully, expertise as a result.
Others, thankfully in a minority hovering around one, seem to have other motives.

Mandrin, whilst I enjoy your participation in the forum I do have to ask myself, on occasion, why exactly it is that you do so.

Well said, Burner.

I, too, would like to know what Mandrin does for a living besides moonlighting as a physicist.

 

[mandrin]

Burner,

Don’t you see that you cover yourself with ridicule to analyze a text to such great detail such as you have done? Oh, well, to each his own. I suggest that you enlarge your area of analysis to that of many other posters and to see if they also write in proper Shakespearean prose.

Whilst you are probably doodling around in your mother tongue I am laboring diligently using my third language. It is very astute to go for a trivial diversion but it simply does not hide the fact that the ideas in your post are clearly not correct.

Citing from sources without understanding leads indeed to the kind of untrue scientific statements as you have produced. It would be a decent gesture to admit simply that you were all wrong instead of harping on some totally insignificant details.

That ‘minority hovering around one’ seems to be rather large. Seems you are also not very good at reading and interpreting numerical information, likely prefer poetry.

I know you are here only to further your golfing wisdom. However may I remind you of a statement made by Brian not too long ago:

“Mandrin, you and TRUE SCIENCE will always have a place on this forum.”

Brian is striving to become the best golfer/instructor around BUT seems to be open to virtually all kind of views, including golf related scientific notions.

Why don’t you ask your friend Erik_K if he shares your assertion that,

- - - hitting right through the ball, sustaining the line of compression, increases the time of collision between ball and clubhead and subsequently contributes to an increase in the velocity given to the ball through its impact with the clubhead.

p.s., some of the errors in your post:
Psuedo ( pseudo ), i.e ( i.e.,), can be achieves (can be achieved).

 

[Brian Manzella]

Folks...

It is really quite simple.

I thought that there was such a thing as "heavy impact."

Nope.

I was wrong.

Well, I was more wrong than right.

So I went out and RESEARCHED it, and BANG, the friggin' ball goes much further.

We have Mandrin to thank for that.

Now, to be very honest, let's focus on something else. Like shaft strees and kick.

Mandrin, thanks Bud.

Everything else is sour grapes.

 

[Erik_K]

Burner,

Don’t you see that you cover yourself with ridicule to analyze a text to such great detail such as you have done? Oh, well, to each his own. I suggest that you enlarge your area of analysis to that of many other posters and to see if they also write in proper Shakespearean prose.

Whilst you are probably doodling around in your mother tongue I am laboring diligently using my third language. It is very astute to go for a trivial diversion but it simply does not hide the fact that the ideas in your post are clearly not correct.

Citing from sources without understanding leads indeed to the kind of untrue scientific statements as you have produced. It would be a decent gesture to admit simply that you were all wrong instead of harping on some totally insignificant details.

That ‘minority hovering around one’ seems to be rather large. Seems you are also not very good at reading and interpreting numerical information, likely prefer poetry.

I know you are here only to further your golfing wisdom. However may I remind you of a statement made by Brian not too long ago:

“Mandrin, you and TRUE SCIENCE will always have a place on this forum.”

Brian is striving to become the best golfer/instructor around BUT seems to be open to virtually all kind of views, including golf related scientific notions.

Why don’t you ask your friend Erik_K if he shares your assertion that,

- - - hitting right through the ball, sustaining the line of compression, increases the time of collision between ball and clubhead and subsequently contributes to an increase in the velocity given to the ball through its impact with the clubhead.

p.s., some of the errors in your post:
Psuedo ( pseudo ), i.e ( i.e.,), can be achieves (can be achieved).

I agree with Burner in that the thought/feeling of trying to mash/compress the ball as much as you can is a positive one. The thought of trying to swing through (and accelerate through the ball) as opposed to quitting and manipulating the swing with your wrists is indeed a great idea for those looking to improve their ball striking.

One always has to be careful when he/she tries to delve into the actual physics of something as complicated as the golf swing.

So I am not saying that Burner is right or wrong (neither is Mandrin always 100% right or wrong).

 

[rwh]

It is really quite simple.

I thought that there was such a thing as "heavy impact."

Nope.

I was wrong.

Well, I was more wrong than right.

So I went out and RESEARCHED it, and BANG, the friggin' ball goes much further.

We have Mandrin to thank for that.

Now, to be very honest, let's focus on something else. Like shaft strees and kick.

Mandrin, thanks Bud.

Everything else is sour grapes.

What did you change?

 

[mandrin]

I agree with Burner in that the thought/feeling of trying to mash/compress the ball as much as you can is a positive one. The thought of trying to swing through (and accelerate through the ball) as opposed to quitting and manipulating the swing with your wrists is indeed a great idea for those looking to improve their ball striking.

One always has to be careful when he/she tries to delve into the actual physics of something as complicated as the golf swing.

So I am not saying that Burner is right or wrong (neither is Mandrin always 100% right or wrong).

Erik_K,

You are now like a politician not a scientist. I hope that there is more rigor in your thesis submitted as part of PhD.

You are just spinning around on a dime trying to help Burner out of the hole he has dug for himself.

You know very well that Burner is not invoking thoughts/feelings but just plain science.

He was simply proud thinking to be able to beat this mandrin fellow on his own turf, i.e., science.

Only one little problem, as you said, physics and golf, rather complicated, and Burner burned his fingers.

Erik_K, let me ask you the question again, no ifs or buts, as a scientist, do you agree with the assertion below?

- - - hitting right through the ball, sustaining the line of compression, increases the time of collision between ball and clubhead and subsequently contributes to an increase in the velocity given to the ball through its impact with the clubhead.

 

[Erik_K]

Erik_K,

You are now like a politician not a scientist. I hope that there is more rigor in your thesis submitted as part of PhD.

You are just spinning around on a dime trying to help Burner out of the hole he has dug for himself.

You know very well that Burner is not invoking thoughts/feelings but just plain science.

He was simply proud thinking to be able to beat this mandrin fellow on his own turf, i.e., science.

Only one little problem, as you said, physics and golf, rather complicated, and Burner burned his fingers.

Erik_K, let me ask you the question again, no ifs or buts, as a scientist, do you agree with the assertion below?

- - - hitting right through the ball, sustaining the line of compression, increases the time of collision between ball and clubhead and subsequently contributes to an increase in the velocity given to the ball through its impact with the clubhead.

No, mandrin. I was trying to lend some credence to Burner's thoughts/ideas even if the math he is using (might be) somewhat incorrect (but I admit, I don't know if it is or isn't). I can't speak for Burner, but maybe when he was trying to defend the idea of a sustained line of compression, what first occured to him the notion of trying to accelerate through the ball-the feeling of trying to make the ball 'stick' to the face is a desirable one (in my opinion).

Granted, that may not actually happen and maybe in real life it's virtually impossible to try to physically 'add' to this dwell time (whatever the hell that is).

I never said I agreed with either Burner's or your analysis of this concept. I admit that I DON'T KNOW if he is right because I don't have the time to sit down and get into the nitty-gritty of the impulse-momentum theories. I know you think you are always right. You have lots of posts with pictures and fancy Maple pictures and graphs and I know you think you are right 100% of the time and any attempt to question your reasoning is just wrong, so I am not going to sit here and banter back and forth with you (because that's what you want-to show off how smart you are).

Oh, and thanks for making fun of my PhD thesis.

At least I have one.

So please, feel free to pick apart this post and once more label me as someone who a) doesn't care about the physics b) is only to trying to 'play nice and help burner' c) isn't smart enough to challenge you to a debate (or, for that matter, have an opinion contrary to yours).

 

[mandrin]

Congratulations for PhD

No, mandrin. I was trying to lend some credence to Burner's thoughts/ideas even if the math he is using (might be) somewhat incorrect (but I admit, I don't know if it is or isn't). I can't speak for Burner, but maybe when he was trying to defend the idea of a sustained line of compression, what first occured to him the notion of trying to accelerate through the ball-the feeling of trying to make the ball 'stick' to the face is a desirable one (in my opinion).

Granted, that may not actually happen and maybe in real life it's virtually impossible to try to physically 'add' to this dwell time (whatever the hell that is).

I never said I agreed with either Burner's or your analysis of this concept. I admit that I DON'T KNOW if he is right because I don't have the time to sit down and get into the nitty-gritty of the impulse-momentum theories. I know you think you are always right. You have lots of posts with pictures and fancy Maple pictures and graphs and I know you think you are right 100% of the time and any attempt to question your reasoning is just wrong, so I am not going to sit here and banter back and forth with you (because that's what you want-to show off how smart you are).

Oh, and thanks for making fun of my PhD thesis.

At least I have one.

So please, feel free to pick apart this post and once more label me as someone who a) doesn't care about the physics b) is only to trying to 'play nice and help burner' c) isn't smart enough to challenge you to a debate (or, for that matter, have an opinion contrary to yours).

Erik_K,

One of the desirable features of science is that it prefers to use facts and figures, striving to be objective; emotions and feelings are not usually an important part of the discussion. Your post is not about science but about emotions, thoughts and feelings. Poor Burner he said this, but actually meant something else, etc., etc., whilst bad mandrin is being qualifed rather negatively.

A scientist needs virtually no time to figure out the answer to my question. Don’t play the game being so busy. Simply consider what a small force of around 4 lbs can do in 0.0004 sec. Any high school kid can do it.

So hence again my question. Do you agree with the assertion below?

- - - hitting right through the ball, sustaining the line of compression, increases the time of collision between ball and clubhead and subsequently contributes to an increase in the velocity given to the ball through its impact with the clubhead.

Please, don’t refer to Burner, to mandrin, to anyone else or anything else for diversion. Just take the assertion as stated. It should take less time to analyze than it takes to make a few golf swings for which you probably have plenty of the time.

 

[Brian Manzella]

So...

"- - - hitting right through the ball, sustaining the line of compression, increases the time of collision between ball and clubhead and subsequently contributes to an increase in the velocity given to the ball through its impact with the clubhead."

I am pretty sure NO ONE thinks this is the case anymore, unless they drink "the drink."

 

[Erik_K]

Erik_K,

One of the desirable features of science is that it prefers to use facts and figures, striving to be objective; emotions and feelings are not usually an important part of the discussion. Your post is not about science but about emotions, thoughts and feelings. Poor Burner he said this, but actually meant something else, etc., etc., whilst bad mandrin is being qualifed rather negatively.

A scientist needs virtually no time to figure out the answer to my question. Don’t play the game being so busy. Simply consider what a small force of around 4 lbs can do in 0.0004 sec. Any high school kid can do it.

So hence again my question. Do you agree with the assertion below?

- - - hitting right through the ball, sustaining the line of compression, increases the time of collision between ball and clubhead and subsequently contributes to an increase in the velocity given to the ball through its impact with the clubhead.

Please, don’t refer to Burner, to mandrin, to anyone else or anything else for diversion. Just take the assertion as stated. It should take less time to analyze than it takes to make a few golf swings for which you probably have plenty of the time.

just ignoring you from now on.

have a nice day.

 

[RicoSuave]

lets move on

.....................................
Now, to be very honest, let's focus on something else. Like shaft strees and kick.
.................................................

shaft parameters and their importance is now the question !

 

[mandrin]

You will be missed

just ignoring you from now on.

have a nice day.

Erik_K,

Don’t tell me that you are willing to leave everybody with the impression that you don’t know how to use, F=ma, after having mentioned your impressive scientific qualifications.

I can’t help that most will conclude that you considered, having painted yourself into a corner, the only way out to be simply to ignore it all.

Too bad, I was just warming up to our charming and friendly discussion.

Have a nice day, good golf and happy science.

 

[RicoSuave]

peace on earth

is there any golf-playing-mediator outside ?

 

[birdie_man]

I am pretty sure NO ONE thinks this is the case anymore, unless they drink "the drink."

"the drink"....

lol...got me a little chuckle there I did.

 

[golfbulldog]

"the drink"....

lol...got me a little chuckle there I did.

I get it now...the reference took a bit of googling for me... the whole Jonestown stuff is not that big in the UK...

but this has been a key discussion! does not change anything about how you should try and swing ... just what happens... but it is important piece of jigsaw.

 

[Burner]

Don’t you see that you cover yourself with ridicule to analyze a text to such great detail such as you have done? Oh, well, to each his own. I suggest that you enlarge your area of analysis to that of many other posters and to see if they also write in proper Shakespearean prose.

No analysis required to identify such obvious grammatical distortion; and Shakespeare, as has his manner of speech, died long ago.

It is very astute to go for a trivial diversion but it simply does not hide the fact that the ideas in your post are clearly not correct.

From you I take that as a compliment. However, your observation only serves to show that I still have a lot to learn before I can get the better of the master obfuscator – yourself. Why don’t you just address the point I raised regarding the “impulse momentum change theorem” rather than trying to bury it under a mound of nonsense designed to deflect attention from it.

Citing from sources without understanding leads indeed to the kind of untrue scientific statements as you have produced. It would be a decent gesture to admit simply that you were all wrong instead of harping on some totally insignificant details.

Can’t admit that I was all wrong as I have yet to claim that I was right – that is your forte!
Perhaps you would care to tell us why the “impulse momentum change theorem” is, in your opinion, “some totally insignificant details”.

That ‘minority hovering around one’ seems to be rather large.

I have not seen much evidence of persons, other than yourself, whose motives I regard as questionable.

Why don’t you ask your friend Erik_K if he shares your assertion that,

- - - hitting right through the ball, sustaining the line of compression, increases the time of collision between ball and clubhead and subsequently contributes to an increase in the velocity given to the ball through its impact with the clubhead.

My “assertion” is only the appliance of that old friend “the impulse momentum change theorem” written in a golfing context that includes some of Homers little nuggets.

p.s., some of the errors in your post:
Psuedo ( pseudo ), i.e ( i.e.,), can be achieves (can be achieved).

Thanks for pointing out my “typos”. This your way of deflecting attention from your own grammatical distortions and “typos” far too numerous to mention in your many offerings?

As you have mistaken or, as is often your usual practise, ignored on the grounds of expediency, the reason for my criticisms of your strangulations of the English language, may I remind you that they were included only as a tit for tat in return for your admonishment of others whose “understanding of matters various” you have similarly passed judgement on.

Still waiting for you to disprove “the impulse momentum change theorem” but, in the meanwhile, would just settle for your explanation as to its lack of relevance in a collision between golf club and golf ball.

 

[Ty Webb]

MANDRIN IS CORRECT BUT TGM STILL OFFERS MUCH

"Effective Mass"--HK , clashes with Physics 101 when refererring to a closed system. The golfer and his club constitute a closed system.

"The Secret of Golf is sustaining the "Line of Compression"".--HK This is the central predicate of TGM.

How does one accomplhish this? A stroke deisgned to resist impact deceleration is inherently flawed as Mandrin has pointed out. See http://www.kettering.edu/~drussell/bats-new/grip.html regarding impact dynamics and forces exerted against the handle of a baseball bat. Exerting torque against the handle niether increases clubhead ball dwell time nor insulates against deceleration.

Assuming good clubhead to ball alignments how do we STLOC? Through the application of an ACCELERATING force.

How do we accomplish this?

Throwaway!

But what about enhancing "Effective Mass" by employing a large lever and a foward leaning shaft?

Sounds like Steering--educated steering but steering nontheless.

So how?

The Flail, let the Flail tell the tale.

 

[Jim Kobylinski]

Ok

I'm an idiot when it comes to science and physics so i really don't have much to add to this discussion

HOWEVER

Can someone explain this question to me:

For those that don't know, Smash factor (in golf terms) is a ratio of clubhead speed to ball speed. As an example:

150mph ball speed = X * 100mph swing speed

X = 1.5 smash factor and is regarded to be what you should be "striving" for when it comes to impact transfer.

---------

Now my experience has shown me that hitters (who are consciously pushing on the shaft) often times have higher smash factor ratios than their swinging counterparts. I have witnessed this at many driver launch monitor fittings.

Can anyone explain this to me?

 

[golfie]

Jim,

Are all parameters exactly the same? A delofted driver (relative to the path of the driver) for instance will produce a higher smash factor for same clubhead speed. Obviously you have taken into sidespin factor. ie the more square the ...

Golfie

EDIT: Which monitor type? Vector monitor only calculates clubhead speed. Achiever probably the same according to this http://www.golftek.com/robotAchiever.html

I think smash factor on these sorts of monitors is unreliable. END EDIT

EDIT #2: Thinking further, I think it was an Acheiver monitor. If the Achiever measures clubhead speed 9" past the ball, the Swingers clubhead will have accelerated post impact (horizontal hinging) and will be going faster than hitters clubhead for the impact velocity. This would produce a lower smash factor for the Swinger.