|
Post by virtuoso on Sept 11, 2013 16:56:33 GMT -5
I believe Kelvin M is currently struggling with the concept of degrees of freedom.
He is stating at the Jeffy Golf Forum that 3D systems that use 6 degrees of freedom in their measurements do not have nearly enough degrees of freedom, and are thus inadequate and oversimplified.
If you have all 3 axes for translation and all 3 axes for rotation covered.......I can't think of what else is left.
My feeling is that he'll figure that out soon, and that comment will vanish shortly thereafter. I'd make it vanish if I were him.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on Sept 11, 2013 21:22:48 GMT -5
I too am surprised by KM's attitude. He even produced a video stating that certain "biomechanists" believe that there is only translational motions and no rotary motions. I would be surprised if golf biomechanists, who do research on the golf swing, are not capable of translating/interpreting translational motions in different planes, or across planes, into an interpretative model that is rotary/circular in perspective.
I also distinguish between a pure rotation and an intrepretative perception of rotation. For example, I have repeatedly stated that the pelvis cannot really rotate because there is no single/fixed axis of rotation and that it can only change its position in 3-D space. I therefore think that when we refer to the "pelvis rotating" in our discussions that we are operating in the realm of an interpretative perception, but that interpretative perception is very useful/practical and it can be easily understood.
Jeff.
|
|