This whole "effective mass deal" ENGLISH LANGUAGE version

[birdie_man]

Nice title eh? Wasn't feeling very creative....

Anyhoo...

I haven't really read any of those mandrin threads....(although it seems things are happening in there)

I find it a lot to get into to be truthful....(waiting for some kind of nice summary )

So ya I dunno that YALL have been thru this yet...

But.....there seems to be a new support for "having a well structured Impact does nothing to increase distance"......

1. But what about accuracy? Consistency of impact quality maybe? (dunno) etc.

Are there other benefits?

2. How come you hear all this "His ball sounded different" when ppl talk about the top TOP ballstrikers? Just a load of crap? Coincidence?

(no I'm not trying to hold onto HK's ideas BTW....I'm just thinking about things)

 

[Brian Manzella]

The Answers.....

You resist "Clubhead Deceleration" and therefore have an optimum impact interval by:

1. USING "Clubhead Sweetspot Lag Pressure" to AIM the sweetspot and STRESS the shaft (by pulling or pushing or both).
2. USING a PIVOT that CREATES force and AIMS it as well,
3. USING #1 and #2 to put that SWEETSPOT and the GOLF CLUB in "position" at and through impact.
4. UNDERSTANDING and UTILIZING the fact that the Sweetspot partially GETS IN this "position" by way of a FORWARD KICKING SHAFT that propels this sweetspot "Through the ball"---the LINE of Compression. When the sweetspot is being propeled by this forward (and downward, AND AROUND-ward [torque]) kicking shaft, the CLUBHEAD at least somewhat acts as if it is "disconnected" to the rest of the club and therefore the golfer.

 

[mandrin]

I haven't really read any of those mandrin threads....(although it seems things are happening in there)

Not interesting enough to be read, just enough to be high jacked.

I find it a lot to get into to be truthful....(waiting for some kind of nice summary)

You lazy brain. I thought you to be genuinely interested in golf?

 

[birdie_man]

Haha.

U have to admit the stuff in there ain't 2 + 2 = 4 mandrin....

 

[hcw]

The "effective mass deal" ENGLISH LANGUAGE summary

Birdie,
All these equations have been used in various posts:
Force = mass X acceleration (F=ma)
Momentum = mass X velocity (P=mv)
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 X mass X velocity squared (KE=1/2mv^2)

What do they have in common? In each case, the term on the left side of the equals sign is directly proportional to the mass of the object (ie if you keep every other term on the right side of the equals sign constant and you double the mass, then you double the force, momentum, or kinetic energy). But during/between golf swings (for any given club) the mass in question does not vary signifcantly. So how would you increase "effective mass"? By increasing either the acceleration or velocity (depending on which equation you prefer to use) because increasing either of these increases the "effect" of the mass involved.

-hcw

PS- As I've stated elsewhere I believe F=ma is the most pertinent while others have their own opinions and our differences have been documented elsewhere. I have no plans to rehash them here, no matter what stones might be thrown from glass houses.

 

[Burner]

In golf we are encouraged to hit right through when striking a ball. This, in the Physics context of the impulse-momentum change theorem serves to increase the time over which the collision between clubhead and ball occurs.

This increase in time results in a change in variables in the impulse-momentum change theorem. However, the variable which is dependent upon the time in such a situation is not the force being applied, the force in hitting the golf ball is dependent upon how hard the hitter swings the club, nor the time of impact. But, the 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 the ball through its impact with the clubhead.

By hitting right through the ball, sustaining the line of compression, it leaves the clubhead with more velocity - i.e., the ball moves faster and flies further in consequence.

Trying to resist the loss of momentum of the clubhead through the impact interval, sustaining the line of compression, by the continued application of thrust, applied by the hands and delivered through the shaft of the club against the inertia of the clubhead, is merely what we are all trying to acheive no matter how we fumble and stumble in our attempts to describe it.

Now that's physics in action.

 

[birdie_man]

Birdie,
All these equations have been used in various posts:
Force = mass X acceleration (F=ma)
Momentum = mass X velocity (P=mv)
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 X mass X velocity squared (KE=1/2mv^2)

What do they have in common? In each case, the term on the left side of the equals sign is directly proportional to the mass of the object (ie if you keep every other term on the right side of the equals sign constant and you double the mass, then you double the force, momentum, or kinetic energy). But during/between golf swings (for any given club) the mass in question does not vary signifcantly. So how would you increase "effective mass"? By increasing either the acceleration or velocity (depending on which equation you prefer to use) because increasing either of these increases the "effect" of the mass involved.

-hcw

PS- As I've stated elsewhere I believe F=ma is the most pertinent while others have their own opinions and our differences have been documented elsewhere. I have no plans to rehash them here, no matter what stones might be thrown from glass houses.

Ok well those euqations are basic enough.

I just quickly looked at that thread and saw lots of math and equations.....ack! Not my thing.

It's cool that you guys are going through it though. Someone has to that's for sure.

 

[Spike]

In golf we are encouraged to hit right through when striking a ball. This, in the Physics context of the impulse-momentum change theorem serves to increase the time over which the collision between clubhead and ball occurs.

This increase in time results in a change in variables in the impulse-momentum change theorem. However, the variable which is dependent upon the time in such a situation is not the force being applied, the force in hitting the golf ball is dependent upon how hard the hitter swings the club, nor the time of impact. But, the 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 the ball through its impact with the clubhead.

By hitting right through the ball, sustaining the line of compression, it leaves the clubhead with more velocity - i.e., the ball moves faster and flies further in consequence.

Trying to resist the loss of momentum of the clubhead through the impact interval, sustaining the line of compression, by the continued application of thrust, applied by the hands and delivered through the shaft of the club against the inertia of the clubhead, is merely what we are all trying to acheive no matter how we fumble and stumble in our attempts to describe it.

Now that's physics in action.

I've learned a lot from the scientific posts of mandrin and the other guys and I say thanks.

But, I find much more solice in the words of the burner....I love it when he talks dirty like this!

 

[flogger]

Birdie,
All these equations have been used in various posts:
Force = mass X acceleration (F=ma)
Momentum = mass X velocity (P=mv)
Kinetic Energy = 1/2 X mass X velocity squared (KE=1/2mv^2)

...during/between golf swings (for any given club) the mass in question does not vary signifcantly. So how would you increase "effective mass"?

-hcw

If I were a big dude, strong like bull, would I be able to benefit from (much) heavier clubs? How strong would I have to be?

 

[Perfect Impact]

Even with an infinite mass striking the ball, where all the clubhead speed would remain during the impact interval, the ball speed after impact will still only be the clubhead speed plus about 65% or so (in the best golf balls) of the impact speed of the club: so a 100 mph speed of an infinite mass clubhead can only produce a ball speed of 165 mph - more likely only 160. Which is the speed produced by these PGA tour guys swinging clubheads just a little lighter than infinite mass (200 gm) at about 120.

I wonder if it is easier to swing 200 gm at 120 than infininte mass at 100...

 

[Brian Manzella]

Here it is:

"what Kelley calls the "secret" of golf---sustaining the line of compression. He defines sustaining the line of compression as keeping the original impact points of the clubface and the ball in contact with each other for the 3/4ths of an inch that it takes for the ball to spring off the clubface after impact."​

 

[Perfect Impact]

Does he say HOW to do this sustaining? Maybe my right ear could come into play for this purpose. Of course which body part does this is the secret that will be published in the 8th edition...

 

[Brian Manzella]

George...

Does he say HOW to do this sustaining? Maybe my right ear could come into play for this purpose. Of course which body part does this is the secret that will be published in the 8th edition...

You need to go "somewhere else" with all of that...

The POINT I am making is...

Is that you could do this:
You resist "Clubhead Deceleration" and therefore have an optimum impact interval by:

1. USING "Clubhead Sweetspot Lag Pressure" to AIM the sweetspot and STRESS the shaft (by pulling or pushing or both).
2. USING a PIVOT that CREATES force and AIMS it as well,
3. USING #1 and #2 to put that SWEETSPOT and the GOLF CLUB in "position" at and through impact.
4. UNDERSTANDING and UTILIZING the fact that the Sweetspot partially GETS IN this "position" by way of a FORWARD KICKING SHAFT that propels this sweetspot "Through the ball"---the LINE of Compression. When the sweetspot is being propeled by this forward (and downward, AND AROUND-ward [torque]) kicking shaft, the CLUBHEAD at least somewhat acts as if it is "disconnected" to the rest of the club and therefore the golfer.

And satisfy this:
"what Kelley calls the "secret" of golf---sustaining the line of compression. He defines sustaining the line of compression as keeping the original impact points of the clubface and the ball in contact with each other for the 3/4ths of an inch that it takes for the ball to spring off the clubface after impact."

 

[hcw]

mass benefit

If I were a big dude, strong like bull, would I be able to benefit from (much) heavier clubs? How strong would I have to be?

...strong enough to achieve essentially the same acceleration/velocity you had with the lighter clubs...

 

[mandrin]

But during/between golf swings (for any given club) the mass in question does not vary signifcantly.

Not correct. Mass stays definitely constant. A basic law in physics - ‘conservation of mass’. No ifs and buts.

So how would you increase "effective mass"? By increasing either the acceleration or velocity because increasing either of these increases the "effect" of the mass involved.

Not correct. You can’t increase either acceleration or velocity. They do increase simultaneously.

When you apply torque, velocity and acceleration increase, mass however stays constant.

hcw, if you use the symbols of science try to use them correctly otherwise you are confusing everybody with your pseudo- scientific language.

 

[hcw]

Weak and Lame

Not correct. Mass stays definitely constant. A basic law in physics - ‘conservation of mass’. No ifs and buts.

And if you hit a rock and lose some of your clubhead on it, does the mass of the clubhead stay the same for the next swing? How about if there is some dirt added to the grooves? In both cases no, but it doesn't change much and this was my point (hence the "during/between golf swings").

Not correct. You can’t increase either acceleration or velocity. They do increase simultaneously.

Oh my, the honorable mandrin who's been know to screech in protest when he feels he's misquoted (or even just misunderstood) blatantly leaves out "(depending on which equation you prefer to use)" from "So how would you increase "effective mass"? By increasing either the acceleration or velocity (depending on which equation you prefer to use) because increasing either of these increases the "effect" of the mass involved." As anyone reading honestly and unbiasedly could see, the "acceleration or velocity" pertained to the equations, not the swing.

When you apply torque, velocity and acceleration increase, mass however stays constant.

Uhm, yeah duh. That's what I said.

hcw, if you use the symbols of science try to use them correctly otherwise you are confusing everybody with your pseudo- scientific language.

Ya know mandy, I used to think you had a clue what you were talking about. But these last few weak and lame attempts have pretty much convinced me otherwise. Cheers!

-hcw