or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Physics
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Physics - Page 2

post #19 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

Here's the thing

m*(v1-v2) = m*a*(t1-t2)

So you get Change in velocity = Acceleration * change in time, basic definition of velocity and acceleration. 
So while you want to include acceleration, your basically already did because velocity accounts for it. The thing your doing is transforming velocity into acceleration by its basic definition. So acceleration doesn't add anything to the situation. The reason is your adding in time, so it all equals out. The math there proves it, your saying.

m*deltaV = m*a*deltaT

So there EQUAL. Meaning acceleration can't add anything more to the system because its equal to the other side. You can't just throw acceleration in. Because there is no other term there. There equal.

Yes, and I was agreeing with you.
post #20 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Lee View Post

Newton, a great physicist, said three things regarding all motion...

One - A body at rest stays at rest and a body in motion stays in motion,
with uniform velocity, unless acted upon by an outside force.

Two - The acceleration of a body is directly proportional to the force applied
to it and inversely proportional to its mass.  This just means more force yields
greater acceleration and vice versa.

Three - If a force is applied to a body, the body simultaneously exerts a force
of equal magnitude and in opposite direction to that which applied the force. 

Swing speed and momentum, believe it or not, have nothing to do with how far the ball will go.
What makes the ball accelerate off the tee is force applied to the club. 
Greater force means greater acceleration.

Suppose one man hits the ball twice as fast as another, yet both with
equal force; both balls will travel the same distance, all other things being equal
(all other things are not equal if there is variation in the direction the force is applied
to the ball).

This seems to indicate that shortening the back swing and applying more force to the club
shortly after the downswing begins, makes it easier to hit the ball in the right direction.
But I wonder, is it uniform force (uniform acceleration) that one seeks or is it
a gradual increase in force (acceleration of acceleration)?

In any event, I think it's very clear de-accelerating in the downswing results in pitiful shots.

I think in this case kinetic energy transfer is key rather than just momentum transfer.
post #21 of 43

Well, the locomotive and sports car comparison is retarded - now that I think about it.

Hey, we all make mistakes.

post #22 of 43

In any event, is there anything science can say to improve ones game that is simple to understand?

 

For example, what results in more consistent shots?  Science is broad in subject matter, it should have something to say about this.

post #23 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post


I think in this case kinetic energy transfer is key rather than just momentum transfer.

 

Nope,

 

Kinetic energy is work done when an object is in motion

Potential energy is work done by gravity due to an object being above a certain height

 

So if you look at the golf ball, you can say, on the tee it has zero potential energy, and zero kenetic energy. The ball gains kinetic energy as soon as its put into motion.

 

So a simplistic way to look at a golf ball flight would be, not including thing like wind resistance, spin rate, and other things.

 

From tee to apex of the shot (max height), the kinetic energy will equal the potential energy gained from going to tee height to lets say tour average of 90 feet in the air. Its a bit more complex, but that is how something like kinetic energy and potential energy work. They are used more in work done. So you can go, the total force on the object over the distance traveled equals the total energy expenditure of the object.

 

When it comes to a collision, you just need a few things: Mass, Velocity, and COR

post #24 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Lee View Post

In any event, is there anything science can say to improve ones game that is simple to understand?

 

For example, what results in more consistent shots?  Science is broad in subject matter, it should have something to say about this.

 

Sure, since we want max velocity, and that does not mean accelerating through impact. We want an acceleration equal to zero, which would be max velocity. So we can take a person, lets say there driver, and say. Ok, you have the ball back to far, your hitting down on the ball, so your hitting the ball while accelerating, not maxing out on velocity. Move the ball up forward, get them to swing slightly upward. You are then at max speed or just slightly after, improving your overall distance consistency.

 

So science can be used like that, as a way to say, "Hey were lacking in this area, now how can we change this"

post #25 of 43

Science must be universal, it applies to everybody.

I become so frustrated with monthly swing theories,

printed in magazines, that never work.

 

Suppose we want to write something about how to fix slicing,

then, for all true slicers, it should apply to all of them and remedy

all of them.

 

Maybe, there is only one true way to golf or perhaps

some people are naturals and others are not - sad but true.

post #26 of 43
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Lee View Post

Science must be universal, it applies to everybody.

I become so frustrated with monthly swing theories,

printed in magazines, that never work.

 

Suppose we want to write something about how to fix slicing,

then, for all true slicers, it should apply to all of them and remedy

all of them.

 

The clubface is open relative to the path by too large an amount, and in most cases, the path is way too far to the left of the target line.

 

That's easy.

post #27 of 43

I think you're right.  All my divots today were facing left or "over the top."

Thank you kindly!

post #28 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

Nope,

Kinetic energy is work done when an object is in motion
Potential energy is work done by gravity due to an object being above a certain height

So if you look at the golf ball, you can say, on the tee it has zero potential energy, and zero kenetic energy. The ball gains kinetic energy as soon as its put into motion.

So a simplistic way to look at a golf ball flight would be, not including thing like wind resistance, spin rate, and other things.

From tee to apex of the shot (max height), the kinetic energy will equal the potential energy gained from going to tee height to lets say tour average of 90 feet in the air. Its a bit more complex, but that is how something like kinetic energy and potential energy work. They are used more in work done. So you can go, the total force on the object over the distance traveled equals the total energy expenditure of the object.

When it comes to a collision, you just need a few things: Mass, Velocity, and COR

Cor is derived from loss of kinetic energy from the club to the ball to heat and permanent deformation of the ball.

If there is perfect tranfer of kinetic energy, the simple momentum equations would suffice.
post #29 of 43

Oh, wait a minute, I see.

 

The club head traveling with uniform speed shall impart a force on the ball for a brief duration of time,

as given by the equation F t = m v   In other words, the momentum of the club-head, imparts a force

on the ball for a very brief interval of time and this causes the ball to accelerate off the tee even though

the club-head is traveling with uniform speed.

 

Now that I think about it, the time is so brief, the amount of force a club-head imparts on the ball is substantial.

 

Does that sound right?

post #30 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Lee View Post

Oh, wait a minute, I see.

The club head traveling with uniform speed shall impart a force on the ball for a brief duration of time,
as given by the equation F t = m v   In other words, the momentum of the club-head, imparts a force
on the ball for a very brief interval of time and this causes the ball to accelerate off the tee even though
the club-head is traveling with uniform speed.

Now that I think about it, the time is so brief, the amount of force a club-head imparts on the ball is substantial.

Does that sound right?

Erik even mentioned that that time is 400usec. I thought it was interesting.

Someone should do a complete 3D collision model of the golf ball and simulate the ball flight laws.

Wouldn't that be cool?
post #31 of 43

My God, what a bunch of nerds...

 

(And that's coming from an electrical engineer)

post #32 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post

My God, what a bunch of nerds...

(And that's coming from an electrical engineer)

You need to start programming more. a1_smile.gif
post #33 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post


You need to start programming more. a1_smile.gif

 

No need. Not a job requirement...any programming is done for hobbies and/or personal projects.

 

Real programmers cringe when they see my code, but it works every time. a3_biggrin.gif

 

Ok, enough with the z8_offtopic.gif the real answer is E=MC^2.

 

/thread

post #34 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slice of Life View Post

No need. Not a job requirement...any programming is done for hobbies and/or personal projects.

Real programmers cringe when they see my code, but it works every time. a3_biggrin.gif


Ok, enough with the z8_offtopic.gif
 the real answer is E=MC^2.

/thread
If a ball made a complete mass to energy coversion, I would think you made a hole in all. a1_smile.gif
post #35 of 43
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lihu View Post

Someone should do a complete 3D collision model of the golf ball and simulate the ball flight laws.

Wouldn't that be cool?

 

It's already been done. A few times. Ask the Trackman and Flightscope people. :) And some club engineers. And some theoretical type guys.

post #36 of 43
Ah, if I could only afford the $30k+ to buy these products.

Oh well, playing the course more is good enough for me. I'm playing the "ultimate" simulator. a1_smile.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › Physics