Back to PuttingZone
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Main  

Acceleration / Velocity Pattern in Putting Stroke

April 21 2008 at 6:07 PM
Anonymous  (no login)
from IP address 92.13.145.185

Goeff,

In your gravity based stroke do you believe that the club in the downswing should reduce in its rate of acceleration down into impact where it will have zero acceleration and constant velocity through impact, as it would if it reflected a pendulum swing?

If this is correct, is something that you belief you are able to achieve yourself?

Thanks


    
This message has been edited by aceputt from IP address 24.28.252.135 on Apr 22, 2008 7:59 AM


 
    
AuthorReply

(Premier Login aceputt)
Forum Owner
24.28.252.135

Pendular Acceleration

April 22 2008, 7:56 AM 

Dear Anonymous,

In a pendular motion, the RATE of acceleration declines to zero at the bottom of the swing and then transitions into negative acceleration in a symmetrical fashion. This Pendulum Java Applet shows the rate of acceleration oscillating between the same maximum and minimum, crossing and recrossing the "zero" rate with each swing. The point of zero acceleration is also the point of maximum velocity.

The accuracy and consistency of the putting stroke depends upon repeating the same pattern -- that is, the bottom of the stroke arc is always the same rate of acceleration, although different size strokes result in different peak velocities. Wherever in the stroke the down-and-thru rate of acceleration reaches zero, OR when the putter face impacts the ball, needs to be the same from stroke to stroke. The simplest pattern is for the rate of acceleration to reach zero right at the bottom of the stroke, with ball position consistently the same distance ahead of this point.

The putter head will not really have "constant velocity" thru impact, as the putter head will be "decelerating" past the peak velocity. Hence, if the ball is played significantly ahead of the bottom of the stroke, the putter head velocity at and thru impact will be less than the peak velocity. This doesn't really matter so long as the ball position is consistently the same distance ahead of the bottom, and moreover, the decline in putter head velocity over realistic ranges for ball position is not very significant.

Can I achieve this zero acceleration myself? Yes, fairly consistently. And others have been known to do so as well. SAM PuttLab data shows a graph of velocity in the stroke like an inverted bowl, the velocity of the putter head increasing to the bottom of the stroke and then flattening right at the bottom of the stroke at its peak and then declining thereafter. This is not unusual for a good stroke.



Detail: top = velocity, bottom = acceleration.




See also the forward swing "motion dynamics" on page 5 of this PDF, showing that the peak velocity coincides with the point of zero acceleration in the seamless transition from positive acceleration declining steadily to negative acceleration ("deceleration") after the peak velocity is reached.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist

Geoff Mangum's
PuttingZone
PuttingZone Clinics
Flatstick Forum
PuttingZone Channel on YouTube
PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery

Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not.

Over 2 million visits -- 100,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong.


    
This message has been edited by aceputt from IP address 24.28.252.135 on Apr 22, 2008 8:00 AM


 
    
sammy
(no login)
65.95.178.252

Re: Pendular Acceleration

April 22 2008, 3:13 PM 

Geoff .. You state:

"Can I achieve this zero acceleration myself? Yes, fairly consistently. And others have been known to do so as well. SAM PuttLab data shows a graph of velocity in the stroke like an inverted bowl, the velocity of the putter head increasing to the bottom of the stroke and then flattening right at the bottom of the stroke at its peak and then declining thereafter. This is not unusual for a good stroke."
.............................

As you know I advocate a controlled torque putting stroke and ignoring the insignificant force of gravity in a pendulum-like stroke that may be no more than say 12 inches/~12 degrees of displacement. The effects of gravity are too small to bother with, except for the sagittal plane lie angle constant torque due to gravity, and the static weight of the putter at stroke reversal. I do recall you conceding that your recommended putting stroke is 'gravity-assisted' with some added torque at the bottom of the stroke to push it through the ball. (I may stand to be corrected.)

Looking at the a-v curves on page 5 of the Sam_Report_Tour_Pro.pdf, for forward stroke, it looks like classical pendulum physics!!!

The question(s) I have of you is do these curves include the effect of any added body/hand torques, and if so then the curves are a composite of gravity plus torque/force?? Have the SAM people tried to split these curves to show the contribution of each torque/force making up that total curve?

Other questions are: Do you consider the stroke shown with a +/- 6 degree opening and closing rotation, and top view putter paths to be adequate to be called a 'straight back and through' putting stroke?

(Am I the only one who examines and studies your reference sources and tries to hold you accountable for your statements?)

 
    

(Premier Login aceputt)
Forum Owner
24.28.252.135

SAM and Gravity

April 23 2008, 12:19 PM 

Dear sammy,

Responding seriatim:

The question(s) I have of you is do these curves include the effect of any added body/hand torques, and if so then the curves are a composite of gravity plus torque/force?? Have the SAM people tried to split these curves to show the contribution of each torque/force making up that total curve?

Probably, and no.

Other questions are: Do you consider the stroke shown with a +/- 6 degree opening and closing rotation, and top view putter paths to be adequate to be called a 'straight back and through' putting stroke?

No.

(Am I the only one who examines and studies your reference sources and tries to hold you accountable for your statements?)

No.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist

Geoff Mangum's
PuttingZone
PuttingZone Clinics
Flatstick Forum
PuttingZone Channel on YouTube
PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery

Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not.

Over 2 million visits -- 100,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong.

 
    
Phil
(no login)
92.8.61.9

Re: SAM and Gravity

April 26 2008, 3:44 PM 

Goeff,

I have a SAM system and have viewed data from many players of all standards, includes many of the worlds leading players that im fortunate to come into contact with. I have also been privaledged to have seen your data and indeed your accleration and velocity profiles. Maybe you could post your profiles to demonstrate what you achieve??

The profiles you show however are pretty much not what you see on many of the great putters out there. I often create such profiles by swinging a club freely infront of the unit to show students how a pendulum would move under gravity alone.

To try and achieve a decreasing rate of acceleration is something that is pretty difficult to do whilst maintaining consistency and good values in the other measured parameters. Constant acceleration is something however that is more common and also fundamentally easier to achieve.

This phenomenom is also apparant elsewhere in other tasks. The violin i believe is a very hard instrument to learn to play because of the need for constant velocity.

Also the very fact that most putters at an elite level achieve constant acceleation, and not the rates you believe should be achieved, shows how the golfer has evolved, and reveals aswell why they have evolved i that way. Constant acceleartion it is argued is better.

If you are using muscluar force to swing the club back how do you propose that a golfer does not allow any muscular force in bringing the club back down, how do you switch on and off and allow gravity to take over.

Also Geoff why dont the top golfers in the world display the profiles you suggest?

Thanks for your response

 
    
Phil
(no login)
92.8.61.9

Re: SAM and Gravity

April 26 2008, 3:54 PM 

just to expand on 'The profiles you show...'

this refers to the ones you show above within this post...not your very own SAM data.

 
    

(Premier Login aceputt)
Forum Owner
24.28.252.135

Assumptions Are Devilish When You Don't Know What They Are

April 26 2008, 7:32 PM 

Dear Phil,

Assumptions are devilish creatures, but only when you don't know what they are.

Here are a few assumptions imbedded in your above post:

1. You have viewed the profiles of top putters in golf.

2. The profiles that you have viewed exemplify optimal patterns.

3. Gravity downstroke is unusual and difficult to perform.

4. What small data sample of my strokes from years ago you have seen exemplify what I do today or teach.

I question each of these assumptions, but apparently you aren't aware that your position depends upon each of the above propositions being true. I don't think that today's "top golfers" or "top players" or "top pros" are putting nearly as well as they could with better technique. The difference between the backstroke and the downstroke is the difference between activation and inhibition, and nearly all human conduct / behavior is inhibition, and it's not hard at all to "not use" muscles. Apparently, it's hard for golf teachers to understand the concept.

You can believe what you want about today's golfers, but I would suggest you examine the implicit assumptions that govern the logic and soundness of your view.

The SAM system, by the way, does not record anything about how the acceleration pattern corresponds with some other parameter. That is all pure guesswork. Obviously, you do not have a sample of any sort about the kind of stroke I am describing, so making judgments about it in absolute or relative / comparative terms seems odd to me.

Over the course of twenty years of personal experimentation of 2-5 hours daily on the green trying out various techniques and ideas, I have accumulated something more than 14,000 hours of first-hand experience. That is a lot of "data" if you pay attention. In this experience, I have certainly putted with the sort of "usual" acceleration pattern you describe, and with others as well that you apparently haven't seen. The one I describe has slowly and consistently emerged as vastly superior to the others. I have frequently questioned this and attempted to "revert" to the old hit stroke, but it never works out. The effort becomes two or three times more complicated and mental, whereas a natural and instinctive stroke simplifies putting to a ridiculous minimalism that is positively frightening.

I believe that there are a small handful of "top golfers" in every decade who have achieved this level of skill in the instinctive, minimalist way that I describe.

At a deeper level, I could not care less what most "top golfers" do in their putting unless I can learn something better than what they are doing, and I also really don't think I would change my opinion if none of today's pros ever putted the way I describe.

I do care, however, whether you personally have ever really tried to putt the way I teach. If not, then perhaps you should not criticize something you haven't personally experienced. When you write, for example:

"To try and achieve a decreasing rate of acceleration is something that is pretty difficult to do whilst maintaining consistency and good values in the other measured parameters. "

I understand that you haven't tried what I teach. "Achieving" a decreasing rate of acceleration is about the simplest thing anyone can do -- just hold your arm out from your side and then relax and let it drop. There's nothing at all difficult about it, and dressing the issue up in scientific lingo doesn't make it so. So it is doubtful that you have ever had any experience with whether this sort of stroke works well with "other measured parameters" (I hope you mean square, online, solid impact, as there really isn't much else).

There are only two things to get right, after reading and aiming: line and distance / pace. I suggest you watch Sandy Lyle lag putt sometime. He makes today's pros look ignorant. So does Scott Simpson. Both of these guys lag 50+ footers from different locations around the green a lot closer than Stuart Appleby lags the same 30-footer over and over from the same spot.

When distance is removed completely from the equation, the golfer suddenly has twice or more mental capacity to focus on read, aim, line, and "other measured parameters". Today's "top golfers" have never tasted this sort of freedom and the consistency that comes with it.

These golfers are NOT consistent with their putting at a level they should be able to attain:

Phil Mickelson
Tiger Woods
Jim Furyk
Henrik Stenson
Sergio Garcia
Vijay Singh
Adam Scott
Darren Clarke
Lee Westwood

I guess it depends upon what you accept as "good". Most people seem to worship at the alter of the PGA Tour as if the players today are as good as it gets. Frankly, they are about 80-85% as good as they should be.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist

Geoff Mangum's
PuttingZone
PuttingZone Clinics
Flatstick Forum
PuttingZone Channel on YouTube
PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery

Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not.

Over 2 million visits -- 100,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong.


    
This message has been edited by aceputt from IP address 24.28.252.135 on Apr 26, 2008 8:27 PM
This message has been edited by aceputt from IP address 24.28.252.135 on Apr 26, 2008 7:36 PM


 
    
sammy
(no login)
65.95.169.65

Torqued putting stroke

April 26 2008, 10:30 PM 

Phil ... you have raised several important points. Please expand on your thoughts, namely:

1. " I often create such profiles by swinging a club freely in front of the (SAM)unit to show students how a pendulum would move under gravity alone."

What kind of "displacement" or angular movement did you use? Please remember that a putting backstroke of greater than 12 inches(30cm) is rare .. and the hand movement to achieve such a backstroke is about half that distance. Most putts don't require more than 5 inches(12cm) of hand movement in the backstroke. The putter head hardly rises off the ground either so that a pure pendulum motion around a fixed axis is also doubtful in a regular putting stroke.

Have you ever tracked a wrists-only putting stroke on the SAM unit, the kind of putting stroke used by pros pre-1970s? What does it show?

2. "The violin i believe is a very hard instrument to learn to play because of the need for constant velocity."

Nope ... the difficulty with the violin is coordinating the disparate movements of the left fingering hand and arm, and the right bowing arm and wrist action. Bowing velocity is really not that difficult, except for very slow (lento) bowing for soft music, somewhat like in putting .. go figure. Violinists have a great advantage with the putting stroke because they have not only exquisite control of the arms, their fully trained wrists permit them to use wrist-only putting with great variation.

I only decelerate in the final aspect of the backstroke and then accelerate the forward stroke with applied positive torque, either at the wrists or the body if I so choose. I feel the pressures in my hands, but its the wrist joints, arms or body torquing that causes that feeling. Yes, I can choose any of the three putting mechanics with ease and effectiveness.

3. "If you are using muscluar force to swing the club back how do you propose that a golfer does not allow any muscular force in bringing the club back down, how do you switch on and off and allow gravity to take over."

I recall asking Geoff this very same question, but I can't recall the response. I ignore any effects of gravity in the movement part of the putting stroke. The only significant effect of gravity is on the torque created on the hands by the lie angle of the putter in the sagittal plane, which is rather constant during the stroke because it's the cantilevered weight of the putter subject to gravity.

I advocate a torqued putting stroke, and ignoring any slight pendular gravitational effect, other than the dead weight of the putter. In this way you have constant control of the putting stroke, and you need not bother with switching between muscular force and gravity in the stroking phase of the putt.

Forget the influence of gravity in making a pendular-like putting stroke, and you need not maintain a 'dead hands' grip on the putter ... you are in full control, provided you know how to maintain control. Gravity is not a major force to move the putter in the forward stroke and should be ignored for simplicity.

 
    
Anonymous
(no login)
69.250.187.225

Re: Torqued putting stroke

April 26 2008, 11:49 PM 

Sammy,

For me, putting is very much like pushing my son on a swing set. I push him away, much like I use muscular force in my side/back to initiate the backstroke. Then I watch the smile broaden on his face as he coasts to the top and swings from whatever height through to the finish. Then I push him again.

The putting stroke feels very simple now that I trust my aiming proceedure, basic movements that I ask of myself in the backstroke, and gravity!

Damon

 
    

(Premier Login aceputt)
Forum Owner
24.28.252.135

Mass, Weight, Gravity, Moment of Inertia of Physical Pendulum, Stroke Timing, and Distance

April 28 2008, 10:16 AM 

Dear sammy,

Your position always harks back to the same point: "I ignore any effects of gravity in the movement part of the putting stroke. The only significant effect of gravity is on the torque created on the hands by the lie angle of the putter in the sagittal plane, which is rather constant during the stroke because it's the cantilevered weight of the putter subject to gravity. ... I advocate a torqued putting stroke, and ignoring any slight pendular gravitational effect, other than the dead weight of the putter. In this way you have constant control of the putting stroke, and you need not bother with switching between muscular force and gravity in the stroking phase of the putt.... Forget the influence of gravity in making a pendular-like putting stroke, and you need not maintain a 'dead hands' grip on the putter ... you are in full control, provided you know how to maintain control. Gravity is not a major force to move the putter in the forward stroke and should be ignored for simplicity."

Apparently, you have some notion about the magnitude of "gravitational effects" in a pendular stroke, that these effects are very minor for typical sizes of putting strokes, and that therefore these effects are insufficient to power the stroke. Let me take a stab at clearing up the confusion between us on this underlying basis for your position.

The "force" that gravity exerts upon an object is called its "weight". The formula from Newton is F = ma, of Force equals Mass time Acceleration, and "a" in the case of gravity is called "g", 9.8 m/sec^2. When the mass is kg, g is m/sec^2, then F is in units of Newtons. But when the mass is in the English system it is "slugs", g is in feet/sec^2, and weight or force is in "pounds". The slug is an English unit of mass. It is a mass that accelerates by 1 ft/s2 when a force of one pound-force (lbf) is exerted on it. Therefore a slug has a mass of about 32.17405 pound-mass or 14.5939 kg. A putter head "weighing" 375 grams has a mass of 375 grams, which is equivalent to 13.2 ounces or 0.83 pounds.

So, as you say, the "force" that gravity exerts by virtue of the putter head is slight or minor, but your point is not relevant to the timing. The timing of the swinging velocity of the putter head at impact is what determines the "force" or "momentum" of impact between putter head and ball, not the force of gravity acting on the putter head.

A ball bearing with a mass of 1 gram swings at the end of a 35-inch string exactly the same (same acceleration rate, same velocity, same total time from top to bottom or from top to top) as does a 1 kg bowling ball, wind resistance effects aside. The masses cancel out in the motion of freely falling bodies in gravity. This is basic Gallilean physics from the Leaning Tower of Pisa in the 16th century. The basic reason is because gravity's force (of attraction between two masses, e.g., one being the "big ball" earth) is less for a light mass and greater for a heavy mass, so that the force of gravity in the free fall of all objects of all different masses on earth is always scaled to result in just the same falling motion (i.e., all masses accelerate smoothly at the exact same rate). Here's a good, simple discussion of the physics. Mass and weight of objects and the "force of gravity" on an object are irrelevant to the timing pattern of free-fall in gravity.

The above is true with respect to a "simple" or "ideal" pendulum -- masses are irrelevant, and only length matters to the timing and motion pattern. Gravity's "force" is from Newton's Law: Force (F) = Mass (m) times Acceleration [of Gravity] (g), generally F=ma and gravitationally F=mg. Since masses are irrelevant, that means that the "force of gravity" is also irrelevant when comparing small swings and big swings, small masses and large masses. Your statement that the force of gravity is so small etc. is not relevant to an understanding of what happens in a simple pendulum.

Granted, a "simple" or "ideal" pendulum is not the same as a "real" or "physical" pendulum such as the arms, hands, and putter swinging beneath a pivot in the neck. In that case, the masses matter because the system of the "triangle" has a center of mass and a moment of inertia a certain distance out along the length, and this matters in the equations. But looking at exactly how it matters for a typical adult male human body shows again that your position is incorrect.

Whereas for a simple pendulum, the timing of the swing is from the formula:

T = 2*pi*SQR[L/g], with T being the time from top to top and back again to starting top and L is the total length from pivot to bob,

in the case of a physical or real pendulum, the formula includes a "mass" term:

T = 2*pi*SQR[I/MgD], where I is the moment of inertia of the system, M is the total mass of the system, g is the acceleration of gravity, and D is the distance out from the pivot to the center of mass of the system. I = T^2MgD/4*pi^2.

What does this mean for a 35-inch putter swinging from the pivot at the top of its handle?

The simple T would be:

T = 2*pi*SQR[L/g]
T = 2*pi*SQR[(35 in * 2.54cm/in / 100cm/m) / 9.8 m/sec^2]
T = 2*3.14* SQR[0.889m / 9.8 m/sec^2]
T = 6.28 * SQR{0.0907 sec^2}
T = 6.28 * 0.301 sec
T = 1.89 SEC Top to Top to Top
T = 0.946 sec Top to Top (946 ms)
T = 0.473 sec Top to Impact (473 ms)

How fast is the putter head moving at its peak speed at the bottom of the arc? Assuming the angle of the backstroke was 20 degrees, this is 20/360 = 1/18th of the circumference of the circle with radius of 35 inches. Circumference = 2*pi*R, so C = 6.28 * 35 in = 220 inches. 1/18th of this distance is 12.2 inches, so the putter head in this stroke covers 12.2 inches from top to impact in 0.473 sec, so that is an "average velocity" of 25.8 in/sec (12.2 / 0.473). Since the starting velocity at the Top is zero and the rate of acceleration is steady and smooth, the peak velocity that corresponds to this average velocity must be twice as fast as the average, so the peak velocity at impact = 51.6 in/sec.

What does that velocity do to a ball with that putter head? The "momentum" is mass times velocity, so here: 0.375 kg times 51.6 inches/sec. (converted to m/sec = 1.31 m/s), or 0.375 kg * 1.31 m/s = 0.49125 kg*m/s. The Law of the Conservation of Linear Momentum means simply that no energy gets lost and all is evenly accounted for between Time 1 and Time 2. Mathematically, this means that the total momentum of putter head and ball before collision is the same as the total afterwards: mv1(putter) + mv1(ball) = mv2(putter) + mv2(ball). The momentum of the ball before collision is zero, so mv1(putter) [before collision] = mv2(putter) + mv2(ball) [after collision].

To determine the velocity after collision of the putter head and ball, the putter head velocity after collision is the velocity before collision multiplied by the multiplier ratio: (putter head mass - ball mass) / (putter head mass + ball mass). The mass of a golf ball is 45 grams, so the multiplier is (375 g - 45 g) / (375 g + 45 g) = 330/420 = 78%. So the putter head velocity after collision is 1.029 m/s. The velocity of the ball off the putter face is then the velocity of the putter head before collision time the multiplier ratio: 2 * putter head mass / (putter head mass + ball mass), 2 * 375 g / (375 g + 45 g), or 750 g / 420 g, so the multiplier is 1.785 (178.5%). The ball velocity off the face is then 1.31 m/s * 1.785 = 2.34 m/s (equivalent to 92.1 inches/sec or 7.675 ft/s). [As a check, from the law of conservation of linear momentum: mv1 = mv1' + mv2', 0.375 kg * 1.31 m/s = 0.375 kg * 1.029 m/s + 0.45 g * 2.34 m/s, 0.4913 = 0.386 + 0.1053, 0.4913 = 0.4913.] There are 5.28 inches per one roll of the ball, so this is 17.4 revolutions/sec. That's about a 10-foot putt on a fast green.



What does this mean for a real pendulum consisting of a normal adult male and a 35 inch putter swung with a shoulder stroke?

The Moment of Inertia I = T^2MgD/4*pi^2, with M being total mass of two arms and hands and the putter and D being the distance of the effective center of mass of all segments out from the pivot. The typical human adult male arm from shoulder to finger tips has a mass of about 5.7% of body mass in each arm+hand (e.g., 140 pound male has 7.98 pounds in each arm+hand or a total of 15.96 pounds for both arms+hands, 7.3 kg), and a conventional putter has a mass of about 0.490 kg, so the total mass of the system for this male is 7.79 kg. From anthropometric studies done by NASA (Clauser 1969), the typical D distance of the center of mass of the human arm from shoulder to finger tips along the length from shoulder out to end of hand is about 42% of the entire length. If the normal adult male shirt length is 33 inches (shoulder to wrist) and the hand is another 7 inches long, the total from shoulder to finger tip is 40 inches, and D is 42% of this, or 16.8 inches from shoulder to center of mass (roughly 0.425 meter).

upper arm 3.1% mass 17.9% length
forearm 1.8% mass 16.3% length
hand 0.9% mass 13.0% length
arm+hand 5.7% mass 54.2% length

Dempster 1955:
Dempster, W. T. Space requirements of the seated operator. WADC Technical
Report (TR-55-159), Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, 1955.

upper arm MOI 0.29 Nm^2
forearm 0.037-0.082 Nm^2
International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors By Waldemar Karwowski, p 317.

1 Newton = 0.101 971 621 kilogram-force
1 kilogram-force = 9.806 650 028 6 Newton

The usual geometric model for human arms is the form of a cylinder with uniform density and a given radius and length. From this model, with a COM location, the Moment of Inertia can be calculated, and from that, the timing of the swing can be calculated. Using anthropometric data about human segment masses and sizes and proportionality, a reasonable model that approximates the real human can be defined for calculations.

Cylinder Moment of Inertia Calculations.

Physical Pendulum Calculator per Parallel Axis Theorem.

FIRST MODEL OF HUMAN MAKING PUTTING STROKE, AFTER CLAUSER 1969:
MODEL OF ARMS+HANDS+PUTTER USING 6.7 kg FOR ARMS+HANDS + 0.49 kg FOR PUTTER

Cylinder I = 1/4 MR^2 + 1/3 ML^2.

[N.B.: In the above equation for the Moment of Inertia of a solid cylinder, L is the total length of the "object" or "body segments" or body segments plus object, as the case may be, rather than the D distance from pivot to COM. When using a calculation involving D, the figure 0.7 meter has been guesstimated as the approximate location of the center of mass (COM) of the arms+hands+putter of 1.35 meters in total length, which is roughly half way. For only the arms, the COM is about 42% of the way out from the pivot, so incorporating the thin, relatively light mass of the putter into the structure of the arms and hands with the big blob of the putter head out at the end of the stick probably moves the COG out to about 50% of the total length. The FIRST MODEL uses L and D, and the SECOND MODEL uses D.]

Arms+Hands:
1/4 * 6.7 * .04^2 + 1/3 * 6.7 * 1.01^2 = 2.2809 kg*m^2
Putter:
1/4 * 0.490 * 0.005^2 + 1/3 * 0.490 * 0.635^2 = 0.065863 kg*m^2
Arms+Hands+Putter:
(Model= cylinder radius 1 cm 1.35 m length 7.19 kg mass.)
1/4 * 7.19 * .01^2 + 1/3 * 7.19 * 1.35^2 = 4.3681 kg*m^2

Conversions: above Model
inertia moment or mass center (I) = 4.3681 kilogram-meter^2
mass (M) = 7.19 kilogram
acceleration of gravity (g) = 9.8 meter/second^2
distance from moment of inertia to pivot (D) = .7 meter
Solution:
period (T) = 1.86981935697 second
Backstroke T = 0.935 second

SECOND MODEL OF HUMAN MAKING PUTTING STROKE, AFTER DEMPSTER 1955:
MODEL BASED UPON 5.7% BODY MASS FOR ARM+HAND * 2 + 0.49 kg FOR PUTTER

Various adult male body masses all with the same stature and arms+hands length:

140 lbs 5.7% arm+hand mass * 2 + putter
inertia moment or mass center (I) = 5.61918 kilogram-meter^2
mass (M) = 7.49 kilogram
acceleration of gravity (g) = 9.8 meter/second^2
distance from moment of inertia to pivot (D) = .7
Solution:
period (T) = 2.07784608199 second
Backstroke T = 1.038 second

180 lbs 5.7% arm+hand mass * 2 + putter
inertia moment or mass center (I) = 7.3447027 kilogram-meter^2
mass (M) = 9.79 kilogram
acceleration of gravity (g) = 9.8 meter/second^2
distance from moment of inertia to pivot (D) = .7 meter
Solution:
period (T) = 2.07784704558 second
Backstroke T = 1.038 second

200 lbs 5.7% arm+hand mass * 2 + putter
inertia moment or mass center (I) = 8.16995025 kilogram-meter^2
mass (M) = 10.89 kilogram
acceleration of gravity (g) = 9.8 meter/second^2
distance from moment of inertia to pivot (D) = .7 meter
Solution:
period (T) = 2.07784705266 second
Backstroke T = 1.038 second

250 lbs 5.7% arm+hand mass * 2 + putter
inertia moment or mass center (I) = 10.12053525 kilogram-meter^2
mass (M) = 13.49 kilogram
acceleration of gravity (g) = 9.8 meter/second^2
distance from moment of inertia to pivot (D) = .7 meter
Solution:
period (T) = 2.07784705266 second
Backstroke T = 1.038 second

The above two models of the human arms and hands holding a putter in a fixed triangle shape during a shoulder stroke with a pivot-to-sole length of about 1.35 meters (54 inches from top of sternum at address posture to bottom of putter) and a center of mass about 0.7 meters from the pivot agree that the pendular timing of the backstroke is about 1 second and the time from top of backstroke to impact is half that.

How fast is the putter head moving at its peak speed at the bottom of the arc? Assuming the angle of the backstroke was 20 degrees with the pivot 54 inches from the putter head's sole, this is an arc 18.8 inches long, so the putter head in this stroke covers 18.8 inches from top to impact in 0.5 sec, so that is an "average velocity" of 37.6 in/sec (18.8 / 0.5). Since the starting velocity at the Top is zero, the peak velocity that corresponds to this average velocity must be twice as fast as the average, so peak velocity = 75.2 in/sec.

What does that velocity do to a ball with that putter head? The "momentum" is mass times velocity, so here: putter head mass 0.375 kg times 75.2 inches/sec. (converted to m/sec = 1.91 m/s), or 0.375 kg * 1.91 m/s = 0.71628 kg*m/s. The Law of the Conservation of Linear Momentum essentially says "nothing funny" happens to the total energy of the event between Time1 and Time2 in a collision between two objects. Mathematically, mv1(putter head) + mv1(ball) [before collision] = mv2(putter head) + mv2(ball) [after collision]. Since the ball before collision is not moving, it has zero momentum, and the equation is then mv1(putter head) [before collision] = mv2(putter head) + mv2(ball) [after collision].

To determine the velocity after collision of the putter head and ball, the putter head velocity after collision is the velocity before collision times the multiplier: (putter head mass - ball mass) / (putter head mass + ball mass). The mass of a golf ball is 45 grams, so the multiplier is (375 g - 45 g) / (375 g + 45 g) = 330/420 = 78%. So the putter head velocity after collision is 1.49 m/s (78% of 1.91 m/s).

The velocity of the ball off the putter face after collision is the velocity of the putter head before collision time the multiplier: 2 * putter head mass / (putter head mass + ball mass), 2 * 375 g / (375 g + 45 g), or 750 g / 420 g. So the multiplier is 1.785 or 178.5%. The ball velocity off the face is then 1.91 m/s * 1.785 = 3.41 m/s (equivalent to 134.2 inches/sec or 11.2 ft/s). There are 5.28 inches per one roll of the ball, so this is 25.4 revolutions/sec. That's about an 11-foot putt on a medium speed green.



The velocity of a rolling ball off the bottom of the Stimpmeter is about 76 inches per second or 14.3 revolutions per second or 6.3 feet per second. [N.B.: Weber's calculations for the USGA seem to be mistaken about the height of the release notch, treating it at 36 inches up the ramp and 12.6 inches high when in fact it is 30 inches up the ramp and 10.8 inches high. (See USGA Stimpmeter Instruction Booklet, notch at 30 inches up ramp.) Weber's 95.5 inches per second ball speed off the ramp is too high -- see my Flatstick Forum discussion of this issue.] Based on my putter head mass and stroke, a backstroke that generates a ball speed of 76 inches per second has a putter head speed of 76 / 1.785 = 42.6 inches per second (for a putter head mass of 375 grams). For this to be the peak speed at impact, the downstroke "average" speed of the putter head will be half that or 21.3 inches per second. Since the downstroke is 0.5 seconds or thereabouts, the distance the putter head travels is 21.3 inches/sec * 0.5 sec. = 10.65 inches of stroke arc (see the Circle Calculator for arc). This backstroke has an angle of 11.3 degrees. The backstroke measured linearly along the ground is 10.8 inches.

CONCLUSION

In summary, a gravity-sponsored stroke with no torquing of the putter into impact but allowing the putter and arms and hands to free-fall in a pendular manner in gravity results in a stroke with a backstroke timing of about 1 second, a downstroke-to-impact timing of about 1/2 a second, and a stroke timing from top to top of about 1 second. Modelling the human "triangle" of a normal adult male with a conventional putter using the physics of a real, physical pendulum predicts the same timing. the swinging peak speed of the putter at the bottom of the arc is sufficient with an 11.3 degree backstroke to mimic the "force" of the Stimpmeter, and therefore roll a ball to the same distance that the Stimpmeter measures on that green. Hence, my backstroke of 10.8 inches should match the distance given in terms of the green speed, rolling the ball 10 feet on a Stimp 10 green and 11 feet on a Stimp 11 green.

In trying to understand why you don't seem to "get" the physics here (or agree that this IS the relevant physics), I note your frequent references to the "force of gravity" in the free-body diagram sense of the top of the backstroke. This is irrelevant to the force of the blow of the putter head as it swings freely thru impact. I also suspect you may be using the static torque of the putter and arms at the top of the backstroke as an indicator that this same dynamic "torquing" action is required to generate the stroke force necessary to roll the ball across the green, when in fact these two senses of "torque" are completely different. The putter and arms and hands will swing down and generate plenty of momentum and force to roll the ball across the green, and it's not a matter of the "force" of gravity being small or of the apparent "need" to "torque" the putter down and thru impact in order to generate force: it's a matter of the peak speed of a pendular swinging as determined by the angle or size of the backstroke.

Another possible explanation for why you don't seem to agree with the physics here is that a gravity-sponsored backstroke typically has backstroke sizes that are larger than your torquing stroke sizes. Perhaps if you really tried the gravity-sponsored stroke, you would not think the forces are so minor. If you roll a ball 20 feet with your stroke, I roll a ball also twenty feet with my larger, slower stroke, so obviously there is no difference in the energy generated.

Finally, I don't see the detailed explanations that should accompany your use of the terms "torque" and "gravity" force. perhaps you are a bit vague about all this, and if you dug deeper into the precise meaning of these terms, you would not use them in senses that strike me as non-scientific because off the mark in the relevant physics.

If you disagree with the physics outlined in this post, that would be interesting. But if you don't disagree with the physics, then I fail to see the logic of your constantly repeated position.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist

Geoff Mangum's
PuttingZone
PuttingZone Clinics
Flatstick Forum
PuttingZone Channel on YouTube
PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery

Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not.

Over 2 million visits -- 100,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong.

 
    
sammy
(no login)
65.95.128.126

Putting stroke is not pendular

April 29 2008, 12:49 AM 

.. and that is what I shall base my response to your faulty physics. No physicist or engineer would equate the putting stroke to a pendulum and try to only apply free pendulum physics to it. It's a torqued assembly where the applied forces are much more significant than any gravity pendulum action that might be present over ~10 degrees of displacement.

I will endeavor to respond to your posting in more detail later.

 
    

(Premier Login aceputt)
Forum Owner
24.28.253.22

Physicists, Engineers and Their Robot Golfers

April 29 2008, 5:49 AM 

Dear sammy,

I guess you know that the main thrust of my teaching is to lead people AWAY from the sort of "lab" physics and engineering abstractions into the full-blown expression of human movement with the brain and body. The whole problem in sports is an inadequate appreciation for how the human brain responds to the physics of life on earth, whereas the typical approach of the past has been limited to trying to jam the human into a robot suit.

For the sake of argument, here is how far a robot rolls a putt on a medium speed green with a 375-gram putter head at the end of a 54-inch assembly of inert metals (L=1.35 m) using ONLY the pendular physics established by lifting the putter back to an initial angle (@) of 20 degrees off vertical and releasing it:

The velocity of the putter head mass (375 grams) at the bottom of the stroke when it impacts a golf ball of 45 grams mass is from the equation:

V(bottom of stroke) = SQR(2gL [1 - cos@])
V(bottom of stroke) = SQR(2gL [1 - cos20])
V(bottom of stroke) = SQR(2gL [1 - 0.939692620786)
V(bottom of stroke) = SQR(2gL(0.060307379214)
V(bottom of stroke) = 1.263 m/s
V(bottom of stroke) = 49.724 in/s
V(bottom of stroke) = 4.144 ft/s
V(bottom of stroke) = 9.418 rev/s

The resulting ball velocity off the putter face as a consequence of the Law of the Conservation of Linear Momentum is 1.785 times the putter head velocity before impact, which is 1.263 m/s * 1.785 = 2.254 m/s, or 88.758 in/s or 7.397 ft/s or 16.810 rev/s. That ball velocity is greater than the ball velocity off the bottom of a Stimpmeter ramp (about 76 in/s), and so will roll AT LEAST as far as the green "stimps". So on a Stimp-10 green, the robot by virtue of ONLY pendular physics rolls the ball at least 10 feet with a 20-degree backstroke. What physicist would deny this?

A human arm swinging in a pendular fashion beneath the shoulder joint and its fine, super-viscous lubrication in the synovial socket is a pendular assembly in an adult male casually stroking putts by letting the putter swing freely after displacing it back out of vertical. If the putter is 375 grams in the head and the length from socket to putter head is 1.35 m, and the backstroke starts down from a 20-degree displacement, then the physics of the human is exactly the same as the robot just described (especially if the mass properties of the robot are made to match those of the human arms and hands). What physicist would deny this?

Do you deny that if you displace your hand away from your thigh by 20 degrees that the hand does not attain a certain specific velocity by the time it swings back down in a free-fall pendular fashion and impacts your thigh? For an adult human with an arm length from shoulder to fingertips of 1 meter, will not the time to impact from the top of the stroke take about 1/2 a second? (It's easy enough to check.) And at the moment of impact, will not the mass of the hand slap gently against the thigh with a peak velocity of about 1.087 m/s? As it happens, if the hand mass were equated to a putter head mass, this collision with a ball would very closely approximate the speed of a ball off a Stimpmeter (as it would send a ball off at 76.4 in/s). That's an odd little fact: one swing of a 20-degree displaced arm with a typical putter head gives the same ball speed as a Stimpmeter.

Let me invite you to reexamine your language when discussing this issue, as it reveals your strictly-engineering approach. You write: "No physicist or engineer would equate the putting stroke to a pendulum and try to only apply free pendulum physics to it. It's a torqued assembly where the applied forces are much more significant than any gravity pendulum action that might be present over ~10 degrees of displacement." The phrases "the putting stroke" and "It's a torqued assembly" and "the applied forces" all ERASE the human body from the conceptualiztion of what is actually happening. This is typical language for people not carefully watching their thoughts -- an unconscious lapse into the passive voice ("the APPLIED forces") and object-only pronouns ("It's"), when in actuality the human golfer is "applying" the forces (or simply experiencing forces) in some fashion (free-fall pendular fashion or some other fashion) and "It's" is really "the stroke motion of the human golfer". I would ask that you explain to me in anatomical and biomechanical and physiological terms what the devil you mean by the phrase "It's a torqued assembly".

If I meet you halfway and try to understand what you might mean by the phrase "It's a torqued assembly", I can imagine that you intend to indicate without articulating the fact that the top of the human robot is like the base of an inverted triangle, so that the human robot we are discussing looks like a giant Y when holding a putter and the line of the shoulder frame extends across the top of this Y to make the top an upside-down triangle shape. If we created a metal frame with this outline of a giant Y out of metal bars or rods with a shoulder bar across its top, and drilled a 1-inch wide hole in the center of the shoulder "bar", and then suspended this "assembly" on a lubricated pole with long axis oriented horizontally to the floor, then we would indeed have a "torqued assembly" once one of the two top corners of the upside-down triangle have been "tipped" down (passive voice) to displace the putter shaft 20 degrees back out of vertical and held there (passive voice). In particular, the "shape" of this particular disposition of masses in the assembly bars or rods then has an imbalanced center of gravity out of the initial vertical balance, and this creates a "torque" that depends on the exact masses and their relative geometrical arrangement.

So far so good. What I dispute is that this "torque" in and of itself alters the free-fall timing when the "torqued assembly" is released and allowed to swing. There is NO "applied force" in the downswing by virtue of "releasing" the assembly from its tipped-out-of-balance state. That woulld be "ghostly physics" indeed. Whatever torque there is in this system is there solely by virtue of the "force" of gravity acting on the imbalanced masses of the robotic assembly. This robot has no muscles to make the downstroke, and there is NO "torquing" down with this robot's body. The released assembly simply swings in free-fall. Whatever static torque exists when the triangle corner is dipped or tipped down simply affects the configuration of the "physical" pendulum of this particular body structure by altering the center of mass location in comparison to a more strictly pivot-rod-bob conceptualization of the mass structure. But there is no such thing as "the force of torquing" that CAUSES and therefore TIMES the downswing of this structure upon release other than "the force of gravity" operative in pendular physics.

The standard definition of "torque" refers to a system out of equilibrium (e.g., out of balance in gravity), but "torquing" in the sense of a force operating DURING rotational motion is a force that CHANGES the otherwise neutral motion. "A torque is an influence which tends to change the rotational motion of an object. One way to quantify a torque is Torque = Force applied x lever arm." Hyperphysics, Mechanics: Torque. The key concepts here are "change" and "applied". That is, in the pendular downswing of the robot structure described above, there is no "torque" unless it is in ADDITION TO and CHANGES the free-fall motion that results solely from gravity (to speed up or slow down the rotational motion of the free-fall pendular swing). If you ADD torquing forces in the downstroke to this inert metal structure, you would have to introduce force IN ADDITION to those forces existing at the top of the backstroke (i.e., only gravity). The mere fact of imbalance in gravity may be described as a 'torque" but the static situation at the top of the backstroke is MERELY a "gravity torque" and not an "applied torque" that would change the motion induced solely by gravity, or else all pendulum physics in history would be incorrect physics, and the physics of the pendulum is not incorrect. The physics of a "physical pendulum" takes these static "torques" into account by virtue of identifying the location of the system's moment of inertia and center of mass. But there is no "torquing" force additional to gravity applied in the downstroke of the robot assembly.

Consequently, it appears your error is in thinking of a "gravity torque" as something in addition to gravity that operates during the downswing to change the timing of the swing. A robot has "no sech a critter" in its physics. A human body at the top of the backstroke MAY OR MAY NOT apply an additional torquing force in the downstroke by activation of muscles. Do you by any chance happen to know which muscles would be activated in this case? I do, and I observe and monitor these muscles all the time and have done so for years on end and can honestly report to you (as I have been doing repeatedly) that it is quite possible and indeed preferable NOT to use additional torquing muscle activation in the downstroke. I don't recall you telling me that the human body is NOT capable of this sort of non-torqued motion, and until you do, you will have great difficulty persuading me that your views are sound.

Don't you find it a bit odd that I am arguing for body action that is much closer to a robotic action than you are? Let me suggest that I have a solid grasp on BOTH the physics and the human body in motion biomechanically and physiologically and that you may not really have a good focus on either or at least how the two sciences intersect in this case.

You will hardly convince me in terms of physics alone that a pendular swing is not sufficient force to roll a ball the distances of typical putts -- and will only convince me you do not really know the basic physics that can be pretty evident to anyone whose arms swing when they walk. So for the sake of persuasion, I invite you to entertain the notion for the sake of argument that pendular physics are exactly as I describe and to then turn your attention to the human body and explain to me why you refuse to accept the motions described above and experienced by everyone on a daily basis.

While knowing the physics is certainly required, that's not at all where the project starts and stops -- it's just the beginning of examining the human brain and body in the action on the green.

Later.

Cheers!

Geoff Mangum
Putting Coach and Theorist

Geoff Mangum's
PuttingZone
PuttingZone Clinics
Flatstick Forum
PuttingZone Channel on YouTube
PuttingZone Picasweb Image Gallery

Golf's most advanced and comprehensive putting instruction -- you're either in the PuttingZone, or not.

Over 2 million visits -- 100,000 monthly from 50+ countries -- and growing strong.


 
    
Current Topic - Acceleration / Velocity Pattern in Putting Stroke
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Main  
Back to PuttingZone