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.
Pistol, I'm not sure I understand the question. Let me say this:
At every point in the golf swing the equations of motion apply ( F=ma and M = I alpha) These are of course three dimensional. Im mass in the parts of the system gets redistributed then that changes the moment of interia (I) in the second equation.
F (force) comes from gravity (small contribution minor really) and muscle contraction. When those force act on levers they cause Moments (M) which create rotation.
Muscles and gravity do not create central forces so as it is strictly defined in all physics/mechanics texts, COAM does not apply to the golf swing.
Originally Posted by pistol
nmgolfer what about using certain forces to shift the center of mass forward to create an "instantaneous" axis of rotation for the pelvic region?
Pistol, I'm not sure I understand the question. Let me say this:
At every point in the golf swing the equations of motion apply ( F=ma and M = I alpha) These are of course three dimensional. Im mass in the parts of the system gets redistributed then that changes the moment of interia (I) in the second equation.
F (force) comes from gravity (small contribution minor really) and muscle contraction. When those force act on levers they cause Moments (M) which create rotation.
Muscles and gravity do not create central forces so as it is strictly defined in all physics/mechanics texts, COAM does not apply to the golf swing.
What about shear forces through the feet and ground Nmgolfer?
Nmgolfer whats your opinion of TPI kinmematic Sequence and K-Vest?
are you jeff's twin brother, the way you write and express yourself is very similar characteristics as Jeff's and to come forward like you did back Jeff on your very first post seems very odd to me.
who are you and what is your back ground, I'm interested
No relation. Perhaps that it seems to you we "write and express" ourselves in a similar manner is because we are both men of science albeit different fields of expertise. Academia has a way of homogenizing or standardizing if you will the mores and protocol for engaging in technical discussions.
It would be meaningless for me to tell you my background because background (resume) is not proof of a claim. Besides it really does not matter where or how one comes by their knowledge, only that it be factual. Although I am not an autodidactic (with respect to this subject), I hold nothing against those who are.
If I were to claim my statements are true on the basis of my background it would be an example of: ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM or the "Appeals to authority" logical fallacy.
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise can get it wrong. The testimony of any authority is no guarantee that anything is true.
What about shear forces through the feet and ground Nmgolfer?
Well there are definitely shear force going on there but they arise as a reaction. Other forces (from muscles) need be reacted to the ground by way of normal and shear forces lest we land on our butt.
Still don't get where your're going with this. A diagram might help.
Originally Posted by pistol
Nmgolfer whats your opinion of TPI kinmematic Sequence and K-Vest?
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"?
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
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..
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.
Linear Mode
