I'm a bit amused by all of it. If you've read that other forum (before the Manz deleted all of my posts that is) then you already know my answer. Lots of buzz words but from my vantage... very little substance and virtually nothing that's going to help your average golfer.
Frankly its not exactly clear to me what exactly it is they are trying to sell... that is...what problem it is they are trying to solve. If its not just technology for technology sake one thing is clear... they are leaving their potential customers with mistaken impressions with regards to what is and is not happening durning the swing. I assume you are familiar with the term "snap your chain"?[/quote]
He deletes posts and contradicts himself all the time nmgolfer so its a hard read.."snap your chain" could mean anything so I don't know what he is getting at ..maybe breaking the chain on the old toilet flush mechanism..
Let me elaborate... at any given instance Gravity is actin on the mass of the golfer and some combination of the golfers muscles are contracting. If we were to take a snapshot in time and add up all of those forces vectorially it would have a manitude and direction. That force must be reacted or our body will accelerate (move) and its reacted by shear and normal forces at our feet. The shear and normal forces at our feet are "equal" but "opposite" (direction) to our muscle forces and gravity. That direction is not directed (necesarily) through the axis or center of rotation so its not a "central" force.
At issue is verbage. Conservation by definition implies: "limited supply" . When are muscles and gravity are applying forces which create momments we are increaing (or decrease) alpha or angular acceleration and conservation does not apply. Only if those forces are directed through the axis of rotation and therefore cannot create a torque are they central forces. I'm saying COAM does not apply. I'm not saying as mass gets redistributed the system won't speed up or slow down... The only way to know whats happening is by solving the equations of motion at each instant in time.
Last edited by no_mind_golfer : 10-27-2008 at 02:30 PM.
Let me elaborate... at any given instance Gravity is actin on the mass of the golfer and some combination of the golfers muscles are contracting. If we were to take a snapshot in time and add up all of those forces vectorially it would have a manitude and direction. That force must be reacted or our body will accelerate (move) and its reacted by shear and normal forces at our feet. The shear and normal forces at our feet are "equal" but "opposite" (direction) to our muscle forces and gravity. That direction is not directed (necesarily) through the axis or center of rotation so its not a "central" force.
At issue is verbage. Conservation by definition implies: "limited supply" . When are muscles and gravity are applying forces which create momments we are increaing (or decrease) alpha or angular acceleration and conservation does not apply. Only if those forces are directed through the axis of rotation and therefore cannot create a torque are they central forces. I'm saying COAM does not apply. I'm not saying as mass gets redistributed the system won't speed up or slow down... The only way to know whats happening is by solving the equations of motion at each instant in time.
No mind golfer my appologies to you,
your very knowlegeable and I hope you except my apology,
And what if you can measure motion at instant in time.
this can be done you can measure each segment speeding up and decelerating.
if your only applying coam from the spine to the hands then can coam be applied?
Let me elaborate... at any given instance Gravity is actin on the mass of the golfer and some combination of the golfers muscles are contracting. If we were to take a snapshot in time and add up all of those forces vectorially it would have a manitude and direction. That force must be reacted or our body will accelerate (move) and its reacted by shear and normal forces at our feet. The shear and normal forces at our feet are "equal" but "opposite" (direction) to our muscle forces and gravity. That direction is not directed (necesarily) through the axis or center of rotation so its not a "central" force.
At issue is verbage. Conservation by definition implies: "limited supply" . When are muscles and gravity are applying forces which create momments we are increaing (or decrease) alpha or angular acceleration and conservation does not apply. Only if those forces are directed through the axis of rotation and therefore cannot create a torque are they central forces. I'm saying COAM does not apply. I'm not saying as mass gets redistributed the system won't speed up or slow down... The only way to know whats happening is by solving the equations of motion at each instant in time.
In post#22 of this thread I got the impression that you disagreed with my initial post. After reading this post- it appears that we are on the same thought process. It appears to me that your 1st paragraph here is similar to what I said in item #1 of my post and your second paragraph is similar to what I said in item #2 of my post.
In summary, of course strictly speaking conservation of angular momentum does not exist in the golf swing as it is not a closed system and we are adding energy to it. However, that doesn't mean that changes in distribution of mass doesn't affect the rotational speed as described in the conservation of angular momentum formula.
__________________
Life Goal- Developing a new theory of movement based on Brain Science
Interests - Dabbling with insanity
Hobbies- Creating Quality
In post#22 of this thread I got the impression that you disagreed with my initial post. After reading this post- it appears that we are on the same thought process. It appears to me that your 1st paragraph here is similar to what I said in item #1 of my post and your second paragraph is similar to what I said in item #2 of my post.
In summary, of course strictly speaking conservation of angular momentum does not exist in the golf swing as it is not a closed system and we are adding energy to it. However, that doesn't mean that changes in distribution of mass doesn't affect the rotational speed as described in the conservation of angular momentum formula.
Thanks Mike O for the clarity . Im no scientist but i believe this is important part of the deal
COAM only applies to systems that are subject to a "CENTRAL" force. A central force is one which is directed through the axis of rotation. In the youtube Jeff attached, the spinning device is compressed and stretched by force with is acting THROUGH the axis of rotation. That is a central force.
Its would be impossible to argue that the forces generated by a golfer's muscles during the golf swing gestalt act in a direction which is through the "instantanous" center or axis of rotation. Therefore usage of the term COAM when discussing golf is wrong. COAM does not apply to the golfswing contrary to what some authors and their experts would have us believe.
no_mind
Let me make sure I understand you - you're saying that any distribution of mass away from the center in a golf swing - no matter how much even theoretically- has no effect on the rotational speed of that movement.
Better yet- let's use a non-golf example and you can explain what you mean: If you are pushing someone on a merry go round- are saying that it wouldn't matter how close there were to the center- it would take the same amount of force to move them the same RPM's? That wouldn't be the case- so maybe in that example you would still consider the force - "instantanous center of axis of rotation".
Or let's use an ice skater- the ice skater uses muscles to extend the arms out - and there is a slowing of the rotational speed. So it's not that muscles are involved that ceases COAM.
Help me see your point.
__________________
Life Goal- Developing a new theory of movement based on Brain Science
Interests - Dabbling with insanity
Hobbies- Creating Quality
Jeff,
are you for real , you are quoting brian kings words on the kinetic link , not what zenolink describe the kinetic link as, are you serious who are you trying to kid.
This Brian descriptions not the researchers and founders of zenolink.
You pick a quote off someone's web page trying to sell lessons thats not research surfs up good to see your surfing at your age, on your net surfing sorry.
You quote the same graphs on every website all over the world.
The link on comparisions is off tpi's websites of coarse it will be one sided they are trying to sell k-vests .
What research is this who can you provide this as evidence or research, this is pulling peoples opinions off the net , not actual research.
The final graph you present did you see the golf swing , do you ever bother to think this person could have also had an over the top swing as well.
Did you ever to bother to think the graphs T.P.I present are swinging over the top, does greg rose even know what over the top swing is ?
he is a chiropractor.
the last graph you present is ball velocity not on the biomechanics of the swing they are measuring ball velocity, once again did you see these people swings were they also over the top swings.
There is a difference between net surfing and research Jeff, how about doing real research before you start presenting to the world who is right and wrong in biomechanics.
I can't laughing stop this is a joke what are you trying to prove.
Is T.P.I paying you?
Last edited by biomechanic : 10-27-2008 at 01:11 PM.
surfs up good to see your surfing at your age, on your net surfing sorry. 
this is a joke what are you trying to prove.
Hybrid Mode
