[O.B.Left]

EXTENDING THE QUESTION:

Assuming arguendo –(That is my “bullet proof” vest) , that a golfer chooses a stroke pattern which starts at TSP location at top and transitions to EP for impact.

Keep in mind that while it is more common to shift from a TSP to an Elbow Plane, Homer did portray a zero shift along a (low) TSP , (high) Elbow Plane combo.....a single Plane Angle that meets both definitions. Its perhaps a little awkward and rare but .....just saying.

What are the available/best transition ALIGNMENTS?
Lay-off the shaft at start down ( Sergio, Hogan)?
Sweeping “D” (Stricker)?
Other- like between #2 and #3 release as shaft passes throug parallel to the PL?

Not sure what you mean by "transition" but this comes to mind assuming you mean the transition from one plane angle to another per your first sentence.

The Plane is one singular Plane but it shifts angles, tilts up and down in various manners. Meaning you can for sure ride it with your Clubshaft and be Plane compliant, despite the various shifts up and down. No problem....but it's takes some training of course. You are overriding pure CF in doing this to my mind. Manipulating. Making it harder to find your Delivery Line until you perfect the shifts.

What are the implications and effect of the 3rd dimension off plane/under plane forces of the transition?

A bent plane line. A non circular clubhead orbit that will tend to lose speed , direction and burn up upon reentering the earths atmosphere. Risking a total system failure.

and, what are the available COMPENSATIONS for this pattern??

Booster rockets. Anything you can muster to manipulate or muscle your way back on course. All is not necessarily lost but you are intervening to correct things and therefore have assembled an unnecessarily complicated , energy inefficient machine that is prone to inconsistencies, timing problems and breakdown to varying degrees. Well, as compared to a pure CF , zero shift model theoretically speaking of course....not saying there arent master manipulators out there.

This is a Machine and can/should be analyzed as a machine 1-L and 1-L-21??

HB

Couldnt agree more HB. It occurs to me that the Machine of 1-L (the underlying geometry of golf) has far more than the mere 21 listed implications. Homer just listed the greatest hits maybe? He could have kept going with that list.


PS I still think Homer's definitions and opinions on things evolved slightly over the course of the various editions and that not all of these revisions had the necessary accompanying weeding out of corresponding text in other parts of the book. I could be wrong of course, I often am.