Whippy shafts
- Thread starter mandrin
- Start date
- Status
mandrin
New
nmgolfer, thank you for your kind words.
If you can’t win with rational arguments resort to insults. I can show you in detail but I won’t drag a horse to the fountain if it does not want to drink. Hope you did not forget to show my post to your colleagues.
Last edited:
mandrin
New
It is getting pathetic that someone like nmgolfer, roaming around on golf forums as a Don Quichotte, claiming to eradicate scientific myths in golf, to be so ignorant. Again I am forced to spend precious time to point out his basic misunderstanding of multibody dynamics and continuous systems.
He disputes,
-1- The flexing of the shaft as shown in Fig3a.
-2- Increase of 29 % in kinetic energy……and,
-3- Uses a mass at the end of a string to support his claims.
First of all I have to point out that nmgolfer’s reading skills are very poor. I did not mention 29% more kinetic energy but rather 29% more velocity.
Now let’s have a closer look at his arguments.
For anyone even only faintly familiar with multibody dynamics and continuous system dynamics will immediately conclude from nmgolfer’s remarks that he is seemingly totally unaware of the interaction between the adjacent particles of continuous systems or between multiple linked bodies.
His misunderstanding is not with details but on a very basic level. See for yourself. He basically disputes my ideas using as example a point mass at the end of a string.
There is only one mass, how on earth can there be any interaction with anything?
This interaction is fundamental to understanding the behavior of continuous and linked bodies. His misunderstanding even implies denial of the typical flail action discovered and used by peasants eons ago, but is now suddenly denied any existence in nmgofler’s limited and erroneous views.
Let’s again use mathematics, the universal language of true scientists, to show how bodies interact and exchange momentum/kinetic energy. This requires as a minimum two bodies. So let investigate this simple case to convince each and everyone. There will be a surprising close resemblance to the flexing shaft case.
Two rods connected together and pinned at one end to a stable pivot. Two distinct experiments, characterized by either using a rigid joint or a revolute joint between the two segments. Release is done form a horizontal position to resemble the case of the flexible shaft.
The results of the mathematical analysis are shown in Figs1,2 below.
Inner segment: m1 = 0.8 kg; L1 = 0.65 m; Outer segment: m2 = 0.45 kg; L2 = 1.0 m;
Notice in Figs2a,2b,2c how the inner segment virtually comes to a halt, see Fig2b. This implies that all the kinetic energy is now momentarily concentrated into the outer segment, see Fig2c.
The increase in velocity of the distal point of the outer segment due to the interaction, allowed by the revolute joint, when compared to the rigid joint, is 35.2 %. Notice the rather close resemblance of Fig2a,b,c with Fig3a,b,c for the flexible shaft.
I hope people enjoye these tidbits of science as they are directly related to a basic mechanism in the golf swing, i.e., velocity multiplication through interaction of linked bodies, i.e., the kinetic chain constituted by the golfer/club ensemble.
Let review...
First you asked the readers of this forum to consider using a 1.6 meter long 5.5 kilogram shaft (That's a 12 pound shaft folks) attached to a 250 gram head.
Now you're asking them to consider using a 1.65 meter long shaft weighing a mere 1.25 kg attached to an unspecified club head.
You've posted multiple "gee-wiz look a that color for dummies" graphs... output from a black box computer program you don't even understand. We know why... your pretty pictures are meant only to impress not inform. What you've "modeled" is completely meaningless... Your equations are less than worthless.. they're absolute garbage.
Your models, even if they were consistent with the physics, which they arn't, are completely unrelated to anything close to modern golf equipment and or existing materials. And yet you have the gaul to claim you're not wasting anyone's time? You have the temerity to call yourself a scientist? What a joke. what a pathetic joke.
One more thing mandrin... Since mass is not changing (you're not spilling lead pellets out the back end of that club head as it is swing are you?) velocity IS proportional to kinetic energy. Must I tell you what kinetic energy is again? The ONLY mass that matters is in the club head Mandrin. You claim the club head end of your model is moving 29% faster. THEREFORE mandrin, it MUST have 1.66 times more kinetic energy. That's not 29% but its equally absurd.
Mandrin... its clear you consider the readers of this fine forum fools. But Mandrin... Ringer showed everyone on this forum who the real fool is. When are you going to answer Ringer's challenge like you said you would Mandrin? Where's your CF powered release "model: mandrin?
Mandrin... I think you'd better learn to crawl before you try to walk let alone run. To show you there's no hard feelings between us, PM with your location and I'll locate a high school that accepts adult students for you... be forewarned though... you'll probably need to complete remedial math first.
First you asked the readers of this forum to consider using a 1.6 meter long 5.5 kilogram shaft (That's a 12 pound shaft folks) attached to a 250 gram head.
Now you're asking them to consider using a 1.65 meter long shaft weighing a mere 1.25 kg attached to an unspecified club head.
You've posted multiple "gee-wiz look a that color for dummies" graphs... output from a black box computer program you don't even understand. We know why... your pretty pictures are meant only to impress not inform. What you've "modeled" is completely meaningless... Your equations are less than worthless.. they're absolute garbage.
Your models, even if they were consistent with the physics, which they arn't, are completely unrelated to anything close to modern golf equipment and or existing materials. And yet you have the gaul to claim you're not wasting anyone's time? You have the temerity to call yourself a scientist? What a joke. what a pathetic joke.
One more thing mandrin... Since mass is not changing (you're not spilling lead pellets out the back end of that club head as it is swing are you?) velocity IS proportional to kinetic energy. Must I tell you what kinetic energy is again? The ONLY mass that matters is in the club head Mandrin. You claim the club head end of your model is moving 29% faster. THEREFORE mandrin, it MUST have 1.66 times more kinetic energy. That's not 29% but its equally absurd.
Mandrin... its clear you consider the readers of this fine forum fools. But Mandrin... Ringer showed everyone on this forum who the real fool is. When are you going to answer Ringer's challenge like you said you would Mandrin? Where's your CF powered release "model: mandrin?
Mandrin... I think you'd better learn to crawl before you try to walk let alone run. To show you there's no hard feelings between us, PM with your location and I'll locate a high school that accepts adult students for you... be forewarned though... you'll probably need to complete remedial math first.
Last edited:
mandrin
New
Jim, thanks. I do appreciate your compliment.
When working with mathematical models one is forced to associate a precise numerical value with each and every parameter to be able to produce outputs such as graphs.
The numerical values chosen were taken to be somewhat near to those of the mass/length of arms and club. However very different values could equally have been chosen.
Jim Kobylinski
Super Moderator
That is really an eye opening comment..thanks mandrin..
This is a misleading statement (not on purpose however).
The shaft ITSELF will not contribute to any type of increased swing speed, HOWEVER, how YOU the golfer swingst that softer or stiffer shaft might.
There in lies the rub, how you react to the different flex profiles and THAT can increase/decrease swing speed.
mandrin
New
It is getting progressively worse. I am sure that nmgolfer is not used to being exposed as a freak and it has blinded his intelligence. I hope it is only temporary and not definite and I surely and sincerely pray for a speedy and complete recovery.Let review...
First you asked the readers of this forum to consider using a 1.6 meter long 5.5 kilogram shaft (That's a 12 pound shaft folks) attached to a 250 gram head.
Now you're asking them to consider using a 1.65 meter long shaft weighing a mere 1.25 kg attached to an unspecified club head.
You've posted multiple "gee-wiz look a that color for dummies" graphs... output from a black box computer program you don't even understand. We know why... your pretty pictures are meant only to impress not inform. What you've "modeled" is completely meaningless... Your equations are less than worthless.. they're absolute garbage.
Your models, even if they were consistent with the physics, which they arn't, are completely unrelated to anything close to modern golf equipment and or existing materials. And yet you have the gaul to claim you're not wasting anyone's time? You have the temerity to call yourself a scientist? What a joke. what a pathetic joke.
One more thing mandrin... Since mass is not changing (you're not spilling lead pellets out the back end of that club head as it is swing are you?) velocity IS proportional to kinetic energy. Must I tell you what kinetic energy is again? The ONLY mass that matters is in the club head Mandrin. You claim the club head end of your model is moving 29% faster. THEREFORE mandrin, it MUST have 1.66 times more kinetic energy. That's not 29% but its equally absurd.
Mandrin... its clear you consider the readers of this fine forum fools. But Mandrin... Ringer showed everyone on this forum who the real fool is. When are you going to answer Ringer's challenge like you said you would Mandrin? Where's your CF powered release "model: mandrin?
Mandrin... I think you'd better learn to crawl before you try to walk let alone run. To show you there's no hard feelings between us, PM with your location and I'll locate a high school that accepts adult students for you... be forewarned though... you'll probably need to complete remedial math first.
Let’s forget the usual generous amount of insults and concentrate specifically on the only tidbit of “scientific” argument hidden in his vicious rambling of his present post, i.e., velocity and kinetic energy are now claimed with great emphasis to be proportional entities. What happened to E=1/2 m v^2 ? It has now suddenly become E=1/2 m v ?
It is interesting that I keep producing quantitative information based on mathematics and nmgolfer keeps simply saying that it is all garbage and not worth the ink used to write in down. However it does not escape anybody that there is no substance to his argumentation, only vicious insinuations and a generous amount of insults.
The only quantitative information given so far concerns a simple pendulum problem and he is, as I have clearly shown, totally and completely wrong. How much value are we going to put into someone claiming to be a scientist and not even being able to analyze correctly a very simple high school pendulum problem which moreover he used as the only “scientific” argument so far. Really not very impressive, I would not bet a penny on such a scientist.
Last edited:
starretj
New
Mandrin,
Thanks for the clarification,I wasn't considering the arms as the first segment, I was thinking that you were modeling the golf shaft as two segments, a stiffer butt section and a more flexible section to the club head.
Jim S.
mandrin
New
Jim,
I can see why the confusion. It is difficult in short posts, produced rather quickly, to cover always adequately all possible angles. So it is good to ask questions for further clarification. I tried in my opening post to convey the idea that loading/bending/flexing is not relevant to club head velocity but rather to clubhead/face impact alignments.
The analysis using a very flexible shaft is, as suggested, a bit of a teaser for us many mortals who dream about being able to hit 300 yards. I will eventually when I come to it use a more realistic flex for the shaft and incorporate that in a golf swing math model. There is however not too much to show since the bending of a normal shaft is not pronounced enough to show up very much in graphics display of the swing.
matt kluck
New
Response
Mandrin,
You are correct in your assumption of the impact alignments and clubhead speed relationships. Keep up the good work and remember, the shaft transmits force and gives the golfer the opportunity to create ball flight. This is usually the main ingredient to transference to the golf course. Thanks for your insight and provocative thought.
MK
Mandrin,
You are correct in your assumption of the impact alignments and clubhead speed relationships. Keep up the good work and remember, the shaft transmits force and gives the golfer the opportunity to create ball flight. This is usually the main ingredient to transference to the golf course. Thanks for your insight and provocative thought.
MK
mandrin
New
Jim,
Based on your experience, both as a golfer and teacher, do you think that flex affects the swing speed of a golfer? Do you have measured confirmation of this or is it strictly based on feel?
My guess is that you might mean that a golfer feeling comfortably with a club will likely be more prone to swing with greater ease and coordination and thus obtain greater swing speed.
Last edited:
mandrin
New
Thanks, I value your compliment.
matt, do you really feel that a shaft transmits force? Force at impact? The shaft exerts very little tangential force on the cluhead. I prefer to think the motivating force of a swing to be rather associated with the inner core and the shaft to be more an agent allowing the clubhead to obtain adequate velocity.
Must I inform Mandrin the Magnificent (in his own mind) that one thing can be call proportional to another if it is function of a known power to the other? Its covered in sixth grade mathematics mandrin. Look it up.
It also clear that Mandrin is as incompetent a communicator as he is a mathematician/scientist. Now he tells us his "model" is an arm and a club. When the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. You see... Mandrins math packages has a canned solution for a double pendulum so that is the ONLY model we will ever see from him, despite its many deficiencies and limitations. But apparently he has screwed even that "canned" model up and it stems from his repeating a mistake that I exposed in that now archived centrifugal force thread.
In that CF thread it was clear that Mandrin does not know the difference between internal and external loads. Internals load are just that... internal to the structure. Internal load do not manifest as external loads (and or increased velocity). In his ignorance Mandrin dreams of more club head speed originating from internal loads. But it is easy to see how someone, who is ignorant of mechanics like he is, might imagine just such a scenario.
Everyone is familiar with a bullwhip and how a seemingly small input energy at the grip is manifest as tremendous velocity at the tip. Those people, like mandrin who are ignorant of mechanics, might imagine the same thing happening with a very flexible golf club. That won't happen... ever. The bull whip is an example of wave propagation, down the medium of a braided leather whip. On the contrary, there is no wave propagating down the shaft of a golf club. Furthermore the bend in the shaft of a golf club represents INTERNAL loads that cannot manifest externally. Jim is correct. Shaft flex is all about feel. Thats it.
It also clear that Mandrin is as incompetent a communicator as he is a mathematician/scientist. Now he tells us his "model" is an arm and a club. When the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. You see... Mandrins math packages has a canned solution for a double pendulum so that is the ONLY model we will ever see from him, despite its many deficiencies and limitations. But apparently he has screwed even that "canned" model up and it stems from his repeating a mistake that I exposed in that now archived centrifugal force thread.
In that CF thread it was clear that Mandrin does not know the difference between internal and external loads. Internals load are just that... internal to the structure. Internal load do not manifest as external loads (and or increased velocity). In his ignorance Mandrin dreams of more club head speed originating from internal loads. But it is easy to see how someone, who is ignorant of mechanics like he is, might imagine just such a scenario.
Everyone is familiar with a bullwhip and how a seemingly small input energy at the grip is manifest as tremendous velocity at the tip. Those people, like mandrin who are ignorant of mechanics, might imagine the same thing happening with a very flexible golf club. That won't happen... ever. The bull whip is an example of wave propagation, down the medium of a braided leather whip. On the contrary, there is no wave propagating down the shaft of a golf club. Furthermore the bend in the shaft of a golf club represents INTERNAL loads that cannot manifest externally. Jim is correct. Shaft flex is all about feel. Thats it.
Dariusz J.
New member
Shaft torque is much more about feel than shaft flex. Every good clubmaker/clubfitter will confirm it.
mandrin
New
nmgolfer, you must be really desperate to produce such a continuous flow of insults and childish insinuations. Is it because you finally decided to show my post to your colleagues and they laughed at you right in front of you? Or is it because I keep surprising you with your pants down making gross errors. Remember it is already strike #2, just one more major mistake and you are out altogether. BTW, you are making another major mistake in your post. I will just keep it for now and use this error or possibly some other scientific inaptitude of yours to try to slow down a bit your very productive flow of insults with another definite and chiurgical precise strike #3
Do you want me to spell out in detail how to calculate the velocity of a simple compound pendulum when reaching the vertical position? If you find it embarrassing just PM me and I will show you in detail step by step explain how it is done correctly. Why is it that you “say” so much and can’t deliver anything of some worth other than an avalanche of insults? You clearly show a complete lack of any form of scientific integrity.
You are twisting so much any information that I wonder how you keep track of all your messy arguments. I would not be surprised that as a venomous snake you are going to end up biting your own tail end. One typical example of your twisting tactics: I very clearly indicated in many posts over time, including several in this thread, that flex/loading of golf clubs has no bearing on clubhead speed. Yet you keep harping on and insinuating that I prone the opposite idea.
How far do you intend to go with your insults after all you have already thrown my direction? This is not your private place but a public forum where certain elementary rules have to be followed to keep things working peacefully and in good order. If you have an urgent need for saying all your crap, well you have your own web site visited by nobody where you can say anything you want without much harm done.
With your latest display of ignorance Mandrin, it is apparent you are not even familiar with commonly accepted pendulum terminology. Is it now a compound pendulum you are analyzing Mandrin? Why don't you decided what it is you are analyzing and get back to us OK...
Need I remind you that you are also a guest in this forum mandrin? What gives you the right to launch ad homenim attacks on all those whom disagree with the substance of your so-called "science" posts? Thus far Mandrin, I have kept my responses to your un-ending assaults civil and I don't owe you lessons in science.
You Mandrin are Don Quixote tilting at windmills. I am not your enemy. I'm merely the messenger who has a responsibility to point our your bumbling ineptitude. Know that should you attempt to get your "theories" accepted anywhere beyond this little known golf forum that you will be subjected to far more critical, far more eviscerating scrutiny than you've thus far been subjected to. I'm awaiting your PM... I'm sure we can find you a high school.
Need I remind you that you are also a guest in this forum mandrin? What gives you the right to launch ad homenim attacks on all those whom disagree with the substance of your so-called "science" posts? Thus far Mandrin, I have kept my responses to your un-ending assaults civil and I don't owe you lessons in science.
You Mandrin are Don Quixote tilting at windmills. I am not your enemy. I'm merely the messenger who has a responsibility to point our your bumbling ineptitude. Know that should you attempt to get your "theories" accepted anywhere beyond this little known golf forum that you will be subjected to far more critical, far more eviscerating scrutiny than you've thus far been subjected to. I'm awaiting your PM... I'm sure we can find you a high school.
Last edited:
mandrin
New
nmgolfer,
All those pedantic and hair-splitting phrases can’t hide away the fact that you don't even know how to handle a very simple pendulum problem.
mandrin
New
nmgolfer,Mandrin Its obvious you can't read, write or handle pendulums.... even one that comes pre-programmed for you in your math package!
No more beating around the bush. With regard to Fig2 simply indicate if you still hang on to your erroneous answer for the velocity.
- Status