namj
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by namj on May 8, 2011 0:36:01 GMT -5
Except when we swing a golf club its not attached to a belt on a pulley. How does that have anything to do with a golf swing?? It does if you believe it does.
|
|
namj
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by namj on May 8, 2011 0:37:36 GMT -5
Also those were gears on a bike. I mean sprockets I think?
|
|
|
Post by natep on May 8, 2011 0:37:49 GMT -5
I'd be willing to bet that the "endless belt effect" is yet another example of pure junk science misapplied in TGM.
How can that possibly relate to the golf swing? Because the hands pass around an imaginary pulley at impact???
|
|
namj
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by namj on May 8, 2011 0:39:50 GMT -5
I'd be willing to bet that the "endless belt effect" is yet another example of pure junk science misapplied in TGM. probably a good bet.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on May 8, 2011 0:42:51 GMT -5
The red object is attached to the pulley at a "free" hinge joint and it only releases when it travels around a circular path. The "tighter" the radius of the path, the faster the speed of CF-release - for a given "fixed" speed of the endless belt. The same principle applies to a golf swing. Here is an endless belt system imposed on Jamie Sadlowski's swing. Note that his club starts to CF-release between points 2 and 3 - as his hands turn around the bend, and start to move targetwards. His hand arc path can be classified as a "tight curve" hand arc path (equivalent to a small end pulley that has a smaller radius). Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by gmbtempe on May 8, 2011 0:48:26 GMT -5
I'd be willing to bet that the "endless belt effect" is yet another example of pure junk science misapplied in TGM. How can that possibly relate to the golf swing? Because the hands pass around an imaginary pulley at impact??? I just go back to seeing guys with snap releases and how effortless it seems the generate a lot of power. The concept makes sense to me when I apply it to other forms of rotational mechanisms.
|
|
|
Post by natep on May 8, 2011 0:50:57 GMT -5
Jeff,
Thats pretty creative, but I'm not so sure that could hold up to any serious scrutiny. I'd love to see what someone qualified has to say about this and how it applies to golf.
I'm still looking for the info about the Pingman acceleration profiles. When I find it I'll post the link.
|
|
namj
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by namj on May 8, 2011 0:54:29 GMT -5
I'd be willing to bet that the "endless belt effect" is yet another example of pure junk science misapplied in TGM. How can that possibly relate to the golf swing? Because the hands pass around an imaginary pulley at impact??? I just go back to seeing guys with snap releases and how effortless it seems the generate a lot of power. The concept makes sense to me when I apply it to other forms of rotational mechanisms. Using that concept how would you get a random release?
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on May 8, 2011 0:55:03 GMT -5
Natep,
You wrote-: "Also, I read somewhere that the Pingman machine indeed has to slow down to release the club, and that this deceleration has to be calibrated depending on the club that is being swung. I'll try and find a link."
It is true that they have to change the acceleration/deceleration profiles of the Pingman's central arm for different clubs - but that is because they cannot change the shape of the circular arc of the central arm. It has a "fixed" circular shape.
Because a driver has a longer clubhead arc, they have to use a different acceleration/deceleration profile to ensure that the clubface becomes square by impact (that the clubhead catches up to the peripheral hinge joint that is situated at the end of the central arm). By contrast, a golfer has the ability to change the shape of his hand arc path - using the aiming point concept. One aims one hands further behind the ball to create a "tighter end pulley curve" when hitting a driver - because a driver requires more CF-releasing force to ensure a square clubface by impact.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by natep on May 8, 2011 0:55:31 GMT -5
So does the endless belt mean that the shorter your arms, the smaller the pulley, and therefore the faster you can swing the club?
If that;s the implication, then I have serious doubts.
In fact I'm pretty sure that the opposite is true.
|
|
namj
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by namj on May 8, 2011 0:57:58 GMT -5
Natep, You wrote-: "Also, I read somewhere that the Pingman machine indeed has to slow down to release the club, and that this deceleration has to be calibrated depending on the club that is being swung. I'll try and find a link." It is true that they have to change the acceleration/deceleration profiles of the Pingman's central arm for different clubs - but that is because they cannot change the shape of the circular arc of the central arm. It has a "fixed" circular shape. Because a driver has a longer clubhead arc, they have to use a different acceleration/deceleration profile to ensure that the clubface becomes square by impact (that the clubhead catches up to the peripheral hinge joint that is situated at the end of the central arm). By contrast, a golfer has the ability to change the shape of his hand arc path - using the aiming point concept. One aims one hands further behind the ball to create a "tighter end pulley curve" when hitting a driver - because a driver requires more CF-releasing force to ensure a square clubface by impact. Jeff. What do people with slow swing speeds do to make the release happen at the right time using this concept.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on May 8, 2011 1:04:07 GMT -5
Greg, This post relates to your comment about a snap (late) release. Jamie Sadlowski has a random release because his end pulley is situated near P6. Golfers who have a late release have to have their end pulley situated much closer to impact, and they have to have a smaller end pulley with a much tighter radius to generate enough CF-releasing power to successfully complete the release by impact (eg. Sergio Garcia's swing). This diagram shows a late release - note that the end pulley is situated well beyond P6 and the size of the end pulley (radius of the hand arc path) must be much smaller to generate enough CF-releasing power. Jeff.
|
|
namj
Junior Member
Posts: 88
|
Post by namj on May 8, 2011 1:10:35 GMT -5
? Greg didn't ask that I did.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on May 8, 2011 1:16:39 GMT -5
Natep,
You asked-: "So does the endless belt mean that the shorter your arms, the smaller the pulley, and therefore the faster you can swing the club?"
I think that you are misunderstanding the endless belt end pulley concept. The size of the end pulley has nothing to do with the length of the arms. Arm length affects hand speed for a given "fixed" speed of release of PA#4. In the endless belt model, the speed of CF-release depends on the radius of the end pulley - for any given "fixed" hand speed. A golfer who releases PA#4 with a particular amount of swing power rotational force will have greater hand speed if the left arm is longer. The shape of his hand arc path must then be modulated to ensure that the CF-releasing force is appropriate to his hand arc speed - if he wants to square the clubface by impact. Jamie Sadlowski obviously generates a very fast hand speed and he cannot have a small end pulley situated well beyond P6, because he would not be able to produce enough CF-releasing force to complete the release of PA#2 and square the clubface by impact.
Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by imperfectgolfer on May 8, 2011 1:21:25 GMT -5
namj,
I answered your question about a random release when I answered Greg's question about a late/snap release.
Golfers who have a slower hand speed must change their shape of their hand arc path to accommodate their individual hand speed. It is obviously more complicated because different clubs require different amounts of CF-releasing power for a given "fixed" degree of slow hand speed.
Jeff.
|
|