ACCELERATING Force! Monitoring ACCELERATION rate is easier for some while pushing/hitting. Many swingers are actually coasting or actually DEcelerating into impact. Given identical impact speeds the question becomes is the club accelerating/coasting/decelerating? Hitters have an easier time delivering an accelerating club. Well timed Swingers can reach impact while still accelerating
Real physics in action
- Thread starter mandrin
- Start date
- Status
ACCELERATING Force! Monitoring ACCELERATION rate is easier for some while pushing/hitting. Many swingers are actually coasting or actually DEcelerating into impact. Given identical impact speeds the question becomes is the club accelerating/coasting/decelerating? Hitters have an easier time delivering an accelerating club. Well timed Swingers can reach impact while still accelerating
...
Jim,
In simplistic terms it could be like the difference between hitting a nail into a wooden board with a light hammer or a heavy hammer...
Both travelling at the same speed, but the heavy hammer would transfer more energy to the nail, thus hitting it into the board further..
Perhaps the "hitters" create an increased effective "weight" to the clubhead at impact, thus transfering more energy into the ball...
Jim,
In simplistic terms it could be like the difference between hitting a nail into a wooden board with a light hammer or a heavy hammer...
Both travelling at the same speed, but the heavy hammer would transfer more energy to the nail, thus hitting it into the board further..
Perhaps the "hitters" create an increased effective "weight" to the clubhead at impact, thus transfering more energy into the ball...
Jim Kobylinski
Super Moderator
puttmad but i thought mandrin disproved this.
....
I'm not a scientist Jim, but from what I read Mandarin was talking about duration of the applied force, rather than the different effective weight....I could be wrong though...
I'm not a scientist Jim, but from what I read Mandarin was talking about duration of the applied force, rather than the different effective weight....I could be wrong though...
Who da Man"drin"
Mandrin,
How do we STLOC (Sustain the line of Compression)? Or, should we toss this concept and just max-out our acceleration into impact? Do you think Homer's description of the law of the Flail has merit? If so can there be two Flails, as some suggest, one for the Left arm Flying Wedge and another for the Right Arm Flying Wedge is this the way?
Thanks for your insights.
Mandrin,
How do we STLOC (Sustain the line of Compression)? Or, should we toss this concept and just max-out our acceleration into impact? Do you think Homer's description of the law of the Flail has merit? If so can there be two Flails, as some suggest, one for the Left arm Flying Wedge and another for the Right Arm Flying Wedge is this the way?
Thanks for your insights.
Perfect Impact
New
Mandrin was saying that you can NOT increase the effective weight by pressing the shaft harder. You can only increase the impact speed. -using the middle of the clubface, obviously, in order TO maximize its impact mass.
mandrin
New
Slippery road
This is a rather slippery road to take trying to answer your questions.
Let me just say that HK should not have tried to establish so closely a link between golf instructions/concepts and science. Golf instruction is not really a science affair but much more a sweet complex wonderland of paradoxes. Takes a lot of time to understand the mutiple subtle shades.
Moreover, it is quite feasible to have feel instructions which scientifically make no sense which however are still very useful. Moreover each golfer is unique hence the big challenge for golf instruction to be able to adapt to each individual and not just vice versa.
Just as a small reminder of the frequent discrepancy between feel and real. Our eyes actually see the world upside down and yet the brain has learned to trick to turn the actual images 180 degrees around. The body is very complex machinery indeed and we often take it too much for granted.
There is not really a law of the flail.
The basic idea behind a whip or a flail - really a very primitive 2 segment whip - is the possibility to multiply the speed of the distal parts by having momentum/energy flow towards ever lesser mass. This leads to the possibility of very efficient speed multiplication of the most distal part.
Some people (e.g., EdZ) use this very broad concept behind flail and do think of the whole body from the ground up to the clubhead sweet spot as being made up of flails. One can possibly view the trail upper arm and forearm as being a flail operating within the lead arm golf club flail.
Ty Webb,Ty Webb said:
This is a rather slippery road to take trying to answer your questions.
Let me just say that HK should not have tried to establish so closely a link between golf instructions/concepts and science. Golf instruction is not really a science affair but much more a sweet complex wonderland of paradoxes. Takes a lot of time to understand the mutiple subtle shades.
Moreover, it is quite feasible to have feel instructions which scientifically make no sense which however are still very useful. Moreover each golfer is unique hence the big challenge for golf instruction to be able to adapt to each individual and not just vice versa.
Just as a small reminder of the frequent discrepancy between feel and real. Our eyes actually see the world upside down and yet the brain has learned to trick to turn the actual images 180 degrees around. The body is very complex machinery indeed and we often take it too much for granted.
There is not really a law of the flail.
The basic idea behind a whip or a flail - really a very primitive 2 segment whip - is the possibility to multiply the speed of the distal parts by having momentum/energy flow towards ever lesser mass. This leads to the possibility of very efficient speed multiplication of the most distal part.
Some people (e.g., EdZ) use this very broad concept behind flail and do think of the whole body from the ground up to the clubhead sweet spot as being made up of flails. One can possibly view the trail upper arm and forearm as being a flail operating within the lead arm golf club flail.
mondeoclub
New
Please note that mass of club head is also an factor in the impact physics.
In order for the heavyer hammer to travel the same speed as the lighter one, much more energy is required.
You need to compare apple to apple, not to orange.
...
But that is exactly waht I ws trying to say..Perhaps the golfers action creates an effective increased mass.....
But that is exactly waht I ws trying to say..Perhaps the golfers action creates an effective increased mass.....
Perfect Impact
New
To someone else reading the above post, it would seem that there is an impression that energy applied to a 200 gm clubhead can somehow be made to make it into a 220 gm clubhead by the application of force. It takes more force to drive an already existing 220 gm clubhead to a speed of 100 mph than to drive a 200 gm clubhead to that speed. But no matter what you do to GET to a given speed, force applied on the way will not raise its mass from 200 to 220. More force will only change its mph at impact.
mondeoclub
New
I don't get your point. If a golfer is using a lighter driver, he would reach a faster speed than using a heavier driver.
How can he add more "mass" during impact with a single club? If he can swing a heavier driver at say 100mph, he might achieve may be 110mph with lighter one.
That is why I say compare apple to apple.
How can he add more "mass" during impact with a single club? If he can swing a heavier driver at say 100mph, he might achieve may be 110mph with lighter one.
That is why I say compare apple to apple.
mondeoclub
New
I am wondering if there is a difference in the following cases with same speed at the point of impact:
1. Club at constant speed
2. Club at accelerating speed
3. Club at decending speed
Same ball speed?
1. Club at constant speed
2. Club at accelerating speed
3. Club at decending speed
Same ball speed?
Ty Webb,
This is a rather slippery road to take trying to answer your questions.
Let me just say that HK should not have tried to establish so closely a link between golf instructions/concepts and science. Golf instruction is not really a science affair but much more a sweet complex wonderland of paradoxes. Takes a lot of time to understand the mutiple subtle shades.
Moreover, it is quite feasible to have feel instructions which scientifically make no sense which however are still very useful. Moreover each golfer is unique hence the big challenge for golf instruction to be able to adapt to each individual and not just vice versa.
Just as a small reminder of the frequent discrepancy between feel and real. Our eyes actually see the world upside down and yet the brain has learned to trick to turn the actual images 180 degrees around. The body is very complex machinery indeed and we often take it too much for granted.
There is not really a law of the flail.
The basic idea behind a whip or a flail - really a very primitive 2 segment whip - is the possibility to multiply the speed of the distal parts by having momentum/energy flow towards ever lesser mass. This leads to the possibility of very efficient speed multiplication of the most distal part.
Some people (e.g., EdZ) use this very broad concept behind flail and do think of the whole body from the ground up to the clubhead sweet spot as being made up of flails. One can possibly view the trail upper arm and forearm as being a flail operating within the lead arm golf club flail.
Thanks Mandrin. HK setout to use science to explain what was really at play in the golf stroke so that we could then design the stroke in accordance and subsequently adapt feel to that design, quite a lofty endeavor. I understand your point regarding golf instruction and agree the onus of conveying student appropriate instruction (feels, images, etc.) is upon the instructor. Ideally the instructor would have an accurate understanding of the science of the swing from which to work. When the instructor accepts falsehoods as scientific fact his instruction may fall short of what he might accomplish if he were guided by fact. "Effective Mass", "Sustaining the line of Compression", "resisting impact declaration", are feel concepts that lead to very specific instruction that serve no scientific purpose. Yes these pseudo scientific concepts may help some students learn to load and deliver the club better. However many an instructor has accepted STLOC as the ultimate objective and smudged the "subtle shades". Clarifying the line between science and perception was one of Homer’s objectives. His gave us an earnest and enormous effort in his lofty endeavor. The endeavor endures; help us along, Divo is calling you “He blinded me with science, SCIENCE”!
Pseudo Scientific Concepts:
STLOC— is not scientifically achievable, correct?
EFFECTIVE MASS—does not exist in a closed system such as a golfer holding a club, correct?
RESISTANCE TO DECELERATOIN—cannot be achieved in the club to ball collusions, correct?
“SCIENCE!” -Divo
...
Ok here's a simplistic scenario..
You're sitting at the side of the road in your (strong) car and another car travelling at 30 mph impacts you from behind...
Same scenario again but this time a truck travelling at the same speed impacts you from behind..
Which impact sends your car furthest up the road?....
In other words, which of the colliding vehicles would release the most energy into the back of your car?...
Ok here's a simplistic scenario..
You're sitting at the side of the road in your (strong) car and another car travelling at 30 mph impacts you from behind...
Same scenario again but this time a truck travelling at the same speed impacts you from behind..
Which impact sends your car furthest up the road?....
In other words, which of the colliding vehicles would release the most energy into the back of your car?...
Swing a Clubhead
What if the said truck and car had a rock on a string (lagging behind) and were travelling in a circle at the same speed. You were standing in the path of the rock but not the car/truck. Would the rock hurt less in the car?
What if the said truck and car had a rock on a string (lagging behind) and were travelling in a circle at the same speed. You were standing in the path of the rock but not the car/truck. Would the rock hurt less in the car?
golfbulldog
New
Hi Puttmad,
Mandrin loves this concept and it has been done in another thread ( try search "Mandrin" and look under "helping hand" thread and "effective mass")
I have found a bit of Mandrin post which goes into this argument... we did it with golf club attached to train and heavy iron byron versus light iron byron... the answer is still the same... Mandrin is right!!!
11-09-2006, 09:10 PM
mandrin
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: .
Posts: 488 Effective striking mass of clubhead
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the thread ‘A Helping Hand” the discussion gravitated around the idea of resisting impact deceleration.
Several times there was mention of a heavy hit, dragging a wet mop, swinging slow and heavy, getting the body into the swing.
There are really two notions intertwined, -1- applying torque and -2-increasing the effective mass of the clubhead.
However, these two notions don’t quite stand for the same thing.
-1- A golfer can be convinced that he can resist impact deceleration by applying torque to the club shaft using his muscles.
-2- One can also compare a very beefy golfer with a very light weight golfer both developing the same clubhead speed at impact. Many if not most golfers intuitively feel that the heavy golfer will get more distance.
Let’s delve a bit into the second option.
We probably all have read posts which are about a club attached to a train or heavy vehicle and a tiny girl golfer both striking a ball with the same clubhead speed.
This translates very vividly the very strong intuitive notion of almost all golfers, convinced that one can somehow increase the effective striking mass of his clubhead.
TGMers are quite familiar with this notion. However does it correspond to reality?
- Status