Rhythm - I think that your questions are partly meaningless, and I don't know what's your real agenda.
When you ask "how do I come to my conclusions" it is like asking a person how he thinks with respect to "cause-and-effect" relationships. I have a certain way of personally solving the issue of "cause-and-effect" relationships by using a multiplicity of scientific principles eg. Humean logic relating to contiguous events in the absence of confounding variables, Popperian experimental testing procedures that rigorously test a theory for its falsifiability quotient, Haackian criteria relating to concordance between different theories in a particular field of science (web of belief ideology).
COAM only applies to systems that are subject to a "CENTRAL" force. A central force is one which is directed through the axis of rotation. In the youtube Jeff attached, the spinning device is compressed and stretched by force with is acting THROUGH the axis of rotation. That is a central force.
Its would be impossible to argue that the forces generated by a golfer's muscles during the golf swing gestalt act in a direction which is through the "instantanous" center or axis of rotation. Therefore usage of the term COAM when discussing golf is wrong. COAM does not apply to the golfswing contrary to what some authors and their experts would have us believe.
no_mind
Originally Posted by Mike O
Quote By Jeff "However, I cannot understand how COAM can be involved in a system that is actively producing more energy. The concept of COAM only applies to a system where the amount of energy inputted into the system is fixed and the entire system either slows down or speeds up dependent on the distance of the mass of the revolving object from its central axis."
Just a clarification- For anyone studying movement and getting the wrong impression of the above quote.
1) When you consider the concept of Conservation of Angular Momentum as the total angular momentum always staying the same in a closed system and therefore, if you move mass further from the center of rotation then there is a slowing of the rotational speed- then you might agree with Jeff's quote and say " That doesn't exist in a system where you ARE adding energy.
2) When you consider the aspect of Conservation of Angular Momentum - that in ANY rotating system - when you move mass further from the center of rotation- that has a slowing effect on the rotational speed- you'll see that the principle stands true whether you are in a closed system or system where you are adding energy. The only issue is - how much mass has moved, how much slowing is that creating and when, where and how is the added energy affecting the overall result. When you keep that perspective in mind - then Jeff's quote can be very mis-leading, confusing, etc.
In summary, your thoughts on this thread Jeff are definitely worthwhile areas to explore - I just thought I would attempt to clarify this one area that stood out for me. The principle of conservation of angular momentum exists in every rotating system.
This is a worthwhile discussion, but it is not housed appropriately in the forum TGM Advanced. Please hasten all posts and participants to an identically-titled forum in The Lab.
Rythm,
Jeff has no qualifications, he claims himself to be interpreter, he pulls stuff off the net and adds his twist, the reason he doesn't understand what chris does is he hasn't no understand or education in biomechanics.
Now Every one I left T.P.I cause their data was wrong and I destroyed golf swings in the process, there data doesn't measure up to be right.
the human body doesn't function the way they are claiming.
They can't measure hitting and swinging, the kinematic graph doesn't replicate what a student is truly doing in their swing,, not at all no comparision.
SO I LEFT , THEY ARE THE WORST BIOMECHANICS RESEARCHERS GOING.
There K-vest is a joke the data is so far out it's beyond a joke.
when you have students over the top the vest is lighting up green
you can't measure the so called T.P.I kinematic sequence.
all you can measure is hips and shoulders.
I have first on experience and worked for K-vest T.P.I ,
I have full understanding inside out of the technology used and was highly trained.
From a hands on experience and screening students the results told the story,
the metrics were terrible. I had to change my metrics on my vest to the original metrics K-vest first use, it was that bad.
T.P.I can't comment on what we do they have not the technology to measure be able to compare.
And this is why jeff can't understand how we do it.
And we aren't going to put it out for the public either, so people can steal the technology
MikeO is right you can measure coam if you have the technology to do so.
T.P.I can't cause they have not the technology, they have a cheap 6 dof system which can't measure antomical time (in space) they are surmating their metrics , guessing another words. using maths
They also measure from vertical position, not as a player stands in golf swing position, this leads to data being further out.
Our difference is we can measure anatomical time we don't use sumating
T.P.I can't measure anatomical time (in space) and they do sumating. (guessing)
of coarse you will get different out comes they are guessing we aren't.
If you ever want to get further from the truth in how a swing works in biomechanics follow T.P.I
COAM only applies to systems that are subject to a "CENTRAL" force. A central force is one which is directed through the axis of rotation. In the youtube Jeff attached, the spinning device is compressed and stretched by force with is acting THROUGH the axis of rotation. That is a central force.
Its would be impossible to argue that the forces generated by a golfer's muscles during the golf swing gestalt act in a direction which is through the "instantanous" center or axis of rotation. Therefore usage of the term COAM when discussing golf is wrong. COAM does not apply to the golfswing contrary to what some authors and their experts would have us believe.
no_mind
nmgolfer what about using certain forces to shift the center of mass forward to create an "instantaneous" axis of rotation for the pelvic region?
Jeff,
T.P.I are selling K-vests now if they were smart wouldn't they realize you can't put 6 degrees of freedom data into 3 degrees of freedom technology. So their information is not applicable anyway so whats the point.
why do you think they can't apply a hand sensor it's six dof data not three dof to be able to do this?
Also you have to be able to measure in space( anatomical time). T.P.I can't measure in space.
now this is comical , I have to laugh here. So if they ever release the hand sensor for k-vest or arm sensor it will be guessing or summating.
So it's useless to us. We don't want guessing we want accurate data.
Jeff do you know what summating is, I know you never use to use this word until I started talking about it and educating people on what the word means. so I'm interested if you know what it really means or you just picked up this word by scanning my threads in other forums.
We still retain 6 dof application in our screenings for starters , how can you compare a 3 dof system to six dof are you serious.
were are talking about applications for the consumer here, T.P.I use 3dof k-vest, we use 6dof data
you can't compare the two nor will the kinetic chains be the same.
I think it is funny for application use T.P.I are trying to fit 6dof data into
3 dof data , this will happen when monkeys talk and pigs fly.
Makes you question the intelligence of T.P.I.
This can not be done unless you fudge the metrics like they did the first time round.
Last edited by biomechanic : 10-27-2008 at 10:45 AM.
I don't mean to be rude 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
Jeff,
T.P.I are selling K-vests now if they were smart wouldn't they realize you can't put 6 degrees of freedom data into 3 degrees of freedom technology. So they information is not applicable anyway so whats the point.
why do you think they can't apply a hand sensor it's six dof data not three dof to be able to do this?
Also you have to be able to measure in space( anatomical time). T.P.I can't measure in space.
now this is comical , I have to laugh here. So if they ever release the hand sensor for k-vest or arm sensor it will be guessing or summating.
So it's useless to us. We don't want guessing we want accurate data.
Jeff do you know what summating is, I know you never use to use this word until I started talking about it and educating people on what the word means. so I'm interested if you know what it really means or you just picked up this word by scanning my threads in other forums.
We still retain 6 dof application in our screenings for starters , how can you compare a 3 dof system to six dof are you serious.
were are talking about applications for the consumer here, T.P.I use 3dof k-vest, we use 6dof data
you can't compare the two nor will the kinetic chains be the same.
I think it is funny for application use T.P.I are trying to fit 6dof data into
3 dof data , this will happen when monkeys talk and pigs fly.
Makes you question the intelligence of T.P.I.
This can not be done unless you fudge the metrics like they did the first time round.
Well well thats some interesting information to chew on..i guess thats what happens when the propaganda machine wheels are churning out the info with some serious money floating around
COAM only applies to systems that are subject to a "CENTRAL" force. A central force is one which is directed through the axis of rotation. In the youtube Jeff attached, the spinning device is compressed and stretched by force with is acting THROUGH the axis of rotation. That is a central force.
Its would be impossible to argue that the forces generated by a golfer's muscles during the golf swing gestalt act in a direction which is through the "instantanous" center or axis of rotation. Therefore usage of the term COAM when discussing golf is wrong. COAM does not apply to the golfswing contrary to what some authors and their experts would have us believe.
no_mind
Let me make sure I understand you - you're saying that any distribution of mass away from the center in a golf swing - no matter how much even theoretically- has no effect on the rotational speed of that movement.
Better yet- let's use a non-golf example and you can explain what you mean: If you are pushing someone on a merry go round- are saying that it wouldn't matter how close there were to the center- it would take the same amount of force to move them the same RPM's? That wouldn't be the case- so maybe in that example you would still consider the force - "instantanous center of axis of rotation".
Or let's use an ice skater- the ice skater uses muscles to extend the arms out - and there is a slowing of the rotational speed. So it's not that muscles are involved that ceases COAM.
Help me see your point.
__________________
Life Goal- Developing a new theory of movement based on Brain Science
Interests - Dabbling with insanity
Hobbies- Creating Quality
Linear Mode
