Year end musings

[Kevin Shields]

Originally Posted by rcw

"The Bible first was taken as is, then various interpretations/schisms, and subsequently science came along and clearly said no."

Just when and how exactly has science proven the bible wrong?

I assume we wont be seeing mandrin in church on Christmas

[niblick1]

Originally Posted by rcw

"The Bible first was taken as is, then various interpretations/schisms, and subsequently science came along and clearly said no."

Just when and how exactly has science proven the bible wrong?

There are thousands of "bibles" aren't there, with the Yellow Book being just one of them (then there's the Little Red Book, supply side economics theory, the King James Bible, the Koran, etc)?

[niblick1]

Ok, Mandrin (or "Mr. Orange", as some seem determined to call you), I've followed the gist of your comments for the past two years and understand the myth of the heavy hit. But I've generally avoided trying to dredge up my one physics class, which was now almost three decades ago, but today you've engaged my brain on this one. Almost 3 hours of (futile?) thinking, which for me is a lot.

I've basically tried to answer your question keeping in mind a few basic principles (like Conservation of Momentum) and constructed about a dozen thought experiments and then applied my intuition (which is much better in areas other than physics).

Intuitively approaching this issue I thought "negligible to small" effect with respect to mass, and the more I've thought about this, I think that the comparative mass of the two objects matters. The bigger that one mass is comparatively the less it is slowed down and the more the other object is sped up. There are properties of the two objects, lets call it bounce or stickiness (COR?), that effect the interaction of the hit, and the slowest the tiny object can leave is at the speed of the really big object ("glued to the face" or "superball") and the fastest it can leave, with perfect bounce is 2x (1x and 2x would only exist as theoretical limits?) and if two objects of same mass moving the same speed hit each other, it would be like the not-quite-perpetual motion machine of the 6 steel ball gadget you used to see on people's desk 20 years ago.

So the mass and velocity of the really big object with a bounce/COR of something like a PING G10, transfers momentum to the really small object (and loses a really tiny amount of momentum) and the speed of the small object is faster the larger the the big object is. So then the velocity of the small object (which was not moving to start, which is important, I think because momentum has to be translated into two post-impact velocity numbers and the mass and velocity of each objects matters) is equal to something like the bounce (1.01 to 1.99?) times the mass and velocity of the first big object divided by the mass of the two combined objects and the really big object is just ever-so-slightly slowed.

So, I then did the back-of-the-envelope calculations to get comparative velocity numbers and got numbers that suggested at a PING G10 like bounce numbers, that the difference behind the 100,000 pound driver and a 160 pound driver might produce something like a 30-35% velocity difference, which is much more than I would have guessed (at something like 5-20% intuitively).

Now feel free to mock the futility of studying literature and political philosophy as an undergraduate.

I do want an explanation and answer!

[jmessner]

These are the simple equations I used. I think jake2 is using something very similar. I assumed the coefficient of restitution between ball and "clubhead" is not dependent on mass so is the same in both examples. With that assumption, the CoR cancels out and doesn't affect the percentage increase. Still, this just seems like a first step on the journey mandrin has planned...

[mandrin]

Originally Posted by niblick1

Ok, Mandrin (or "Mr. Orange", as some seem determined to call you), I've followed the gist of your comments for the past two years and understand the myth of the heavy hit. But I've generally avoided trying to dredge up my one physics class, which was now almost three decades ago, but today you've engaged my brain on this one. Almost 3 hours of (futile?) thinking, which for me is a lot.

I've basically tried to answer your question keeping in mind a few basic principles (like Conservation of Momentum) and constructed about a dozen thought experiments and then applied my intuition (which is much better in areas other than physics).

Intuitively approaching this issue I thought "negligible to small" effect with respect to mass, and the more I've thought about this, I think that the comparative mass of the two objects matters. The bigger that one mass is comparatively the less it is slowed down and the more the other object is sped up. There are properties of the two objects, lets call it bounce or stickiness (COR?), that effect the interaction of the hit, and the slowest the tiny object can leave is at the speed of the really big object ("glued to the face" or "superball") and the fastest it can leave, with perfect bounce is 2x (1x and 2x would only exist as theoretical limits?) and if two objects of same mass moving the same speed hit each other, it would be like the not-quite-perpetual motion machine of the 6 steel ball gadget you used to see on people's desk 20 years ago.

So the mass and velocity of the really big object with a bounce/COR of something like a PING G10, transfers momentum to the really small object (and loses a really tiny amount of momentum) and the speed of the small object is faster the larger the the big object is. So then the velocity of the small object (which was not moving to start, which is important, I think because momentum has to be translated into two post-impact velocity numbers and the mass and velocity of each objects matters) is equal to something like the bounce (1.01 to 1.99?) times the mass and velocity of the first big object divided by the mass of the two combined objects and the really big object is just ever-so-slightly slowed.

So, I then did the back-of-the-envelope calculations to get comparative velocity numbers and got numbers that suggested at a PING G10 like bounce numbers, that the difference behind the 100,000 pound driver and a 160 pound driver might produce something like a 30-35% velocity difference, which is much more than I would have guessed (at something like 5-20% intuitively).

Now feel free to mock the futility of studying literature and political philosophy as an undergraduate.

I do want an explanation and answer!

niblick1,

I am impressed by your courageous efforts to unravel it. These are indeed really serious efforts and I feel a bit guilty if this has somehow refrained you form playing some golf or hitting balls on the range.

I can see one advantage however; once all the facts and figures will be put on the table you will never forget about it all and you will be able to recite the whole thing by heart to your children and grand children whenever necessary.

I will update the bar chart with your opinion.

[mandrin]

Originally Posted by jmessner

These are the simple equations I used. I think jake2 is using something very similar. I assumed the coefficient of restitution between ball and "clubhead" is not dependent on mass so is the same in both examples. With that assumption, the CoR cancels out and doesn't affect the percentage increase. Still, this just seems like a first step on the journey mandrin has planned...

jmessner,

I start to wonder if you think of me as a magician discussing golf in an Alice in Wonderland type setting.

[jmessner]

Originally Posted by mandrin

jmessner,

I start to wonder if you think of me as a magician discussing golf in an Alice in Wonderland type setting.

Heck, I don't have that much imagination. Just think there's a punch line that might be unexpected by some.

Jay

[Brian Manzella]

Oh Mandrin, Oh Mandrin,

Please solve the problem.

It's my birthday.

[Jon Hardesty]

Happy Birthday Brian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mandrin]

Originally Posted by Brian Manzella

Oh Mandrin, Oh Mandrin,

Please solve the problem.

It's my birthday.

Brian,

First of all happy birthday and wishing that the very spicy italian mix of golf/science/technology might flourish before long and become the standard for all to follow.

I have to take care of some business but will try to get your birth day present all wrapped up later today and get it delivered by priority mail diligently on this forum.