PDA

View Full Version : Cue Ball Speed

Bassn7
01-07-2008, 04:03 PM
Dr. Dave and I have been discussing cue ball speed on the break. The hand and cue move at about 15 mph. But the cue ball travels faster than that. Why? I believe because the tip compresses and "shoots" the ball out from the cue at a greater speed than the cue stick. Or the cue ball moves equal to the cue speed. Comments.

dr_dave
01-07-2008, 04:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bassn7:</font><hr> Dr. Dave and I have been discussing cue ball speed on the break. The hand and cue move at about 15 mph. But the cue ball travels faster than that. Why? I believe because the tip compresses and "shoots" the ball out from the cue at a greater speed than the cue stick. Or the cue ball moves equal to the cue speed. Comments. <hr /></blockquote>Physics shows, based on typical cue and ball weights, and assuming a perfect tip, the cue ball would move 50% faster than the cue for a center-ball hit (see Equation 8 in TP A.30 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/technical_proofs/new/TP_A-30.pdf)). I real tip will generate a little less ball speed than this.

If you want to see what happens to the tip, with an off-center hit, see HSV A.76a (http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVA-76a.htm). HSV A.56 (http://billiards.colostate.edu/high_speed_videos/new/HSVA-56.htm) shows a center-ball hit.

Maybe others here can provide more insight and info.

Regards,
Dave

Alfie
01-07-2008, 05:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bassn7:</font><hr> The hand and cue move at about 15 mph. But the cue ball travels faster than that. <hr /></blockquote>Conservation of momentum. Stick is about 3 times heavier than cue ball (cue ball doesn't 'feel' players arm or hand). Some energy lost in sound, vibration, mooshy tip. Ball moves out at about 4/3 stick speed.

mikepage
01-07-2008, 06:52 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bassn7:</font><hr> Dr. Dave and I have been discussing cue ball speed on the break. The hand and cue move at about 15 mph. But the cue ball travels faster than that. Why? I believe because the tip compresses and "shoots" the ball out from the cue at a greater speed than the cue stick.[...] <hr /></blockquote>

Stage 1: (before contact)
stick moving 16 mph
ball still

Stage 2: (tip is being compressed)
stick slowing to 12 mph
ball speeding up to 12 mph

Now do a freeze-frame right here. At the instant the tip is fully compressed, the stick and ball are both going the same speed, 12 mph. From here, the compressed tip is going to propel the ball away, as you say. But there really isn't "extra" energy in the tip to make it go faster. Instead the extra speed comes from the fact the ball is being propelled from an already forward-moving stick. (I'm pretty sure I could throw a 100 mph fastball if I could throw it from the hood of a 60 mph car ;-).)

Stage 3: (tip is being decompressed)
stick slowing to 8 mph
ball speeding up to 24 mph

At least this is the way it works for a totally elastic collision. In the real world, as others have pointed out, there's some energy left in the stick and the air and the ball.

Ralph_Kramden
01-08-2008, 05:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mikepage:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bassn7:</font><hr> Dr. Dave and I have been discussing cue ball speed on the break. The hand and cue move at about 15 mph. But the cue ball travels faster than that. Why? I believe because the tip compresses and "shoots" the ball out from the cue at a greater speed than the cue stick.[...] <hr /></blockquote>

Stage 1: (before contact)
stick moving 16 mph
ball still

Stage 2: (tip is being compressed)
stick slowing to 12 mph
ball speeding up to 12 mph

Now do a freeze-frame right here. At the instant the tip is fully compressed, the stick and ball are both going the same speed, 12 mph. From here, the compressed tip is going to propel the ball away, as you say. But there really isn't "extra" energy in the tip to make it go faster. Instead the extra speed comes from the fact the ball is being propelled from an already forward-moving stick. (I'm pretty sure I could throw a 100 mph fastball if I could throw it from the hood of a 60 mph car ;-).)

Stage 3: (tip is being decompressed)
stick slowing to 8 mph
ball speeding up to 24 mph

At least this is the way it works for a totally elastic collision. In the real world, as others have pointed out, there's some energy left in the stick and the air and the ball. <hr /></blockquote>

The same thing 'reversed' happens when you see a slow motion video of a golf ball when hit with a club. The ball compresses and takes flight at a much greater speed than the clubhead is traveling.

This compressed reaction would be less with a cuetip because of the size and elasticity of the leather. It would be interesting to see what the difference between a hard and soft tip would be at the moment of impact.

Artemus
01-08-2008, 08:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Bassn7:</font><hr> The hand and cue move at about 15 mph. <hr /></blockquote>

First off, would the hand move at the same speed as the tip of the cue and what device is available to accurately measure cue tip speed?

Ralph Kramden brought up golf ball speed and these websites explain how they measure clubhead speed vs. ball speed. Do the same formulas apply?

Bambu
01-11-2008, 02:45 PM
Awesome. I really liked the question, and your answer. Wouldnt you think a hard tip would somehow make a difference vs say, a soft one though? I really dont know, I'm just asking here.

Artemus
01-11-2008, 03:08 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mikepage:</font><hr> (I'm pretty sure I could throw a 100 mph fastball if I could throw it from the hood of a 60 mph car ;-).)
<hr /></blockquote>

I don't think you could. I think you'd get blown a\$\$ over tea kettle as well as the roof and trunk of the car from the onrushing wind. Even if you could tether yourself down, make a windup and a throw, the ball would almost hit a brick wall.

But just to test whether you're right or I'm right, drive down the road tomorrow at 60 mph. Stick your head out the window and draw up a big green hocker from the depths of your sinus cavity and try spitting it to the very front of your left headlight. ROTFLMFAO

(Sorry for the "pool room amongst the guys" graphic illustration version, Fran and Carol. Here's the watered down version just for you)

Have someone drive down the highway tomorrow at 60 mph while driving a car with an open sun roof. Stand up on the seat with a large, very large, Dairy Queen chocolate milkshake. Now throw the cup loaded with milkshake as hard as you can to see if it can outrace the front bumper.
Btw, KEEP STANDING in order to see the result! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Jal
01-11-2008, 05:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ralph_Kramden:</font><hr>...The ball compresses and takes flight at a much greater speed than the clubhead is traveling.<hr /></blockquote>Ralph, yes, but just to add a factoid. The upper limit for the ball speed is twice the clubhead speed. If the club weighed as much as a freight train and you still managed to get it up to some usable velocity, the ball would only acquire about double that speed.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ralph_Kramden:</font><hr>This compressed reaction would be less with a cuetip because of the size and elasticity of the leather. It would be interesting to see what the difference between a hard and soft tip would be at the moment of impact. <hr /></blockquote>If a soft tip didn't "consume" any more energy than a hard tip, the results would be the same except for a longer contact time. I suppose that, in general, soft tips are not as efficient, energy-wise. But I think that's what you're saying.

Jim

Artemus
01-11-2008, 06:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> Ralph, yes, but just to add a factoid. The upper limit for the ball speed is twice the clubhead speed.
Jim <hr /></blockquote>

Jal, Jal, Jal. Here you go again. Is this based on some formula that you conjured up or accurate information?

Do you have any clue whatsoever what the top measured clubhead speed is and what the top measured ball speed is in actual controlled testing? Let me give you a hint, twice the speed isn't even close. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? Please post the factoid link corroborating your statement.

Btw Jal, you can go on The Golf Channel right now, 7:00 PM until about 10:30 EST and the PGA tour event is being broadcast from Hawaii. On a number of holes they have the most up to date technologically advanced computer ball &amp; flight analyzer being used on the pros. A couple of them are the longest hitters on the PGA tour, Bubba Watson and JD Holmes. The clubhead speed and ball speed information is given each time they use the device. Tune in and learn something. You ain't even close, dude.

Jal
01-11-2008, 08:05 PM
<hr /></blockquote>http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall2002.web.dir/josh_fritts/swing.html

Jim

Artemus
01-12-2008, 06:34 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> <hr /></blockquote>http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall2002.web.dir/josh_fritts/swing.html

Jim <hr /></blockquote>

This was copy and pasted from the link that you posted above. 125 mph clubhead speed/180 mph ball speed, not quite 1 1/2 times, and certainly not double. The fastest clubhead speed has been measured at a little over 160 mph and the fastest ball speed is around 220. It seems that the faster you go in clubhead speed, the ratio to ball speed DECREASES. It must have to do with the coefficient of restitution of the clubhead or rebound qualities of the golf ball or both.

Quote Jal article:
Professional golfers can generally achieve a club head speed of 100 M.P.H. at the bottom of their swing. Tiger Woods, however, can reach up to 125 M.P.H. Within 2 feet off the tee the ball is traveling at around 180 miles per hour - 20 mph faster than the average tour pro.

mikepage
01-12-2008, 07:14 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> Ralph, yes, but just to add a factoid. The upper limit for the ball speed is twice the clubhead speed.
Jim <hr /></blockquote>

Jal, Jal, Jal. Here you go again. Is this based on some formula that you conjured up or accurate information?

Do you have any clue whatsoever what the top measured clubhead speed is and what the top measured ball speed is in actual controlled testing? Let me give you a hint, twice the speed isn't even close. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? Please post the factoid link corroborating your statement. [...] Tune in and learn something. You ain't even close, dude. <hr /></blockquote>

Wow. Why the antagonism? Jim is right. He is replying to Ralph who replied to my post that said,

[ QUOTE ]
At least this is the way it works for a totally elastic collision. In the real world, as others have pointed out, there's some energy left in the stick and the air and the ball. <hr /></blockquote>

So he's talking about elastic collisions. In that case the high-mass-clubhead limit for the ball speed is twice the clubhead speed. Again, actual collisions will see less than this because of collisional inelasticity.

Artemus
01-12-2008, 07:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mikepage:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> Ralph, yes, but just to add a factoid. The upper limit for the ball speed is twice the clubhead speed.
Jim <hr /></blockquote>

Jal, Jal, Jal. Here you go again. Is this based on some formula that you conjured up or accurate information?

Do you have any clue whatsoever what the top measured clubhead speed is and what the top measured ball speed is in actual controlled testing? Let me give you a hint, twice the speed isn't even close. Do you just make this stuff up as you go along? Please post the factoid link corroborating your statement. [...] Tune in and learn something. You ain't even close, dude. <hr /></blockquote>

Wow. Why the antagonism? Jim is right. He is replying to Ralph who replied to my post that said,

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
At least this is the way it works for a totally elastic collision. In the real world, as others have pointed out, there's some energy left in the stick and the air and the ball. <hr /></blockquote>

So he's talking about elastic collisions. In that case the high-mass-clubhead limit for the ball speed is twice the clubhead speed. Again, actual collisions will see less than this because of collisional inelasticity.
<hr /></blockquote>

Wow. Why the constant bipartisanship? What may be right in one of your physics formulas doesn't work out in real life with the collision of a golf club head and a golf ball. What's RIGHT is what occurs in the real world, not on the blackboard. Let me give you a little insight as to what would happen if it actually reached double in real life, the face of the club would implode or crack. It happens somewhat frequently at 1 1/2 times ball speed vs. clubhead speed.

But I'm sure what happens in the sanctity of your little classroom everyday is perfect and correct.

I can't wait for you to do the "spit out the window" and "milkshake throw" test. LMAO

mikepage
01-12-2008, 07:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> [...]If a soft tip didn't "consume" any more energy than a hard tip, the results would be the same except for a longer contact time. I suppose that, in general, soft tips are not as efficient, energy-wise. But I think that's what you're saying.

Jim <hr /></blockquote>

I think that's what he's wondering. I'm not convinced that soft tips are generally less efficient, though that seems to be a widespread assumption. I've dropped shafts vertically on a hard surface to see how high they bounce with different tips on them. I've not seen a clear correlation between tip hardness and the height of the bounce.

If I have to speculate (I don't but I'll pretend somebody is forcing me to ;-)), I'll guess that soft and hard tips are similarly elastic for soft and medium shots but that at high shot speeds soft tips begin to get more inelastic.

I imagine a soft tip will mushroom during compression on a very hard shot, and I suspect it's a little harder for this kind of compression energy to be returned in a few tenths of a millisecond --but again I really don't know.

Jal
01-12-2008, 12:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr>...What may be right in one of your physics formulas doesn't work out in real life with the collision of a golf club head and a golf ball. What's RIGHT is what occurs in the real world, not on the blackboard.... <hr /></blockquote>Artemus, again you're arguing against something I never said. From reading your other posts, my impression is that you're smart and know what you're talking about, as well as what the other posters are saying. So I'm beginning to think that maybe you have some sort of episodic dyslexia which is triggered whenever you see the word "Laj" (which you probably read as "Jal"). /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

At any rate, you've got me re-reading my posts, wondering if I'm actually writing what I think I'm writing - which, true enough, sometimes isn't the case. After doing this five or six times, I'm convinced that I said the "upper limit" for the ball speed is twice that of the clubhead. I said this to point out that the ball doesn't take off at, say, five or ten times the clubhead speed, which might have been suggested by Ralph's statement:

"The ball compresses and takes flight at a much greater speed than the clubhead is traveling."

though clearly Ralph did not put any number on it and was probably thinking 1.5, or something like that.

The fact that it's not even 2, as Dr. Page points out, is due to the inelasticity of the collision and mostly the fact that the mass of the club is only about three times the mass of the ball, as with pool balls and cues. But that wasn't my point...at least I don't think it was, but I can't be sure anymore. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Jim

Artemus
01-12-2008, 01:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> Artemus, again you're arguing against something I never said. From reading your other posts, my impression is that you're smart and know what you're talking about, as well as what the other posters are saying. So I'm beginning to think that maybe you have some sort of episodic dyslexia which is triggered whenever you see the word "Laj" (which you probably read as "Jal"). /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> Laj, you're starting to make me think that you have early onset Alzheimer's or selective amnesia. I know what you said and I'll lay it out very slowly at the end.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr>
At any rate, you've got me re-reading my posts, wondering if I'm actually writing what I think I'm writing - which, true enough, sometimes isn't the case. After doing this five or six times, I'm convinced that I said the "upper limit" for the ball speed is twice that of the clubhead. I said this to point out that the ball doesn't take off at, say, five or ten times the clubhead speed, which might have been suggested by Ralph's statement:

"The ball compresses and takes flight at a much greater speed than the clubhead is traveling."

though clearly Ralph did not put any number on it and was probably thinking 1.5, or something like that.

The fact that it's not even 2, as Dr. Page points out, is due to the inelasticity of the collision and mostly the fact that the mass of the club is only about three times the mass of the ball, as with pool balls and cues. But that wasn't my point...at least I don't think it was, but I can't be sure anymore. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Jim <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr>
OK Laj, here's what you said/I said:

<font color="red"> YOU made this statement: </font color>
Ralph, yes, but just to add a factoid. The upper limit for the ball speed is twice the clubhead speed.
Jim

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr>
<font color="blue"> I then made this request knowing full well what you stated about the upper limit of twice the speed. And asked you to CORROBORATE IT. </font color>

<font color="red"> YOU THEN POSTED THIS LINK: </font color>
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall2002.web.dir/josh_fritts/swing.html

<font color="red"> This was stated in the link. Unless I missed it, and I humbly apologize if did, NOWHERE did it CORROBORATE the upper limit of the golf ball speed was TWICE the clubhead speed. It gave an example of Tiger Woods hitting a ball speed 1 1/2 times faster than the clubhead speed. </font color>
Quote Jal article:
Professional golfers can generally achieve a club head speed of 100 M.P.H. at the bottom of their swing. Tiger Woods, however, can reach up to 125 M.P.H. Within 2 feet off the tee the ball is traveling at around 180 miles per hour - 20 mph faster than the average tour pro.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> So where did twice the upper limit of ball speed come from in regards to the clubhead speed? WHERE IS THE LINK? IT DIDN'T APPEAR IN THE LINK YOU PROVIDED.
Now I don't even know what you're talking about regarding Dr. Dave and his calculations. Where is that? You're right, not only do YOU not know what you're reading or writing, I'm having a hard time following it also. But I'm pretty sure I have it correct in THIS POST as far as the "YOU SAID/I SAID" and it's chronology.

What I was also trying to point out is, I don't care what the formula says the upper limit might be regarding twice the club head speed. It might work out on paper in a formula. But NO MEASUREMENT that has ever been done on clubhead speed vs ball speed has EVER SHOWN IT TO BE ANYWHERE CLOSE TO APPROACHING THE "DOUBLE" LIMIT. IT'S ALSO A MOOT POINT! IT'S PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE A CLUB HEAD ISN'T DESIGNED OR STRONG ENOUGH TO EVER REACH A FULL DOUBLE THE CLUB HEAD SPEED IN BALL SPEED, ESPECIALLY IF IT REACHES A CERTAIN LEVEL IN MPH.

Isn't THIS the way it happened or not?? If not, tell me where it's off. JAL only reply.

mikepage
01-12-2008, 02:40 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> [...]
Isn't THIS the way it happened or not?? If not, tell me where it's off.

<hr /></blockquote>

Without looking at all the details, I don't think there's a disagreement.

Twice the clubhead speed is the fastest ball speed you can get with an elastic collision, and you only get this in the limit of of high clubhead mass. This is a FACT, a simple deduction from the laws of physics; it's not some esoteric textbook academic model. It's just the way the world is. There's no need cite anybody other than Isaac Newton to say this.

The example(s) in the cited website are consistent with this. The ball speeds are less than twice the clubspeed. So it seems to me there's no disagreement and no controversy.

If you claimed someone got ball speeds in excess of twice the clubhead speed, then either someone's lying, someone made a bad measurement or the equipment is illegal.

Artemus
01-12-2008, 02:44 PM
Lotta good this did in my post: "JAL only reply."

The DETAILS are where the disagreement lies and now Sir Isaac Newton is being brought in.

Let me say it again, JAL ONLY REPLY.

wolfdancer
01-12-2008, 03:06 PM
Opera singer/Poet hits longest drive ever...1974, with a persimmon head driver, at age 64 ********
Not sure his clubhead speed, but the 160mph is about right for the long guns, and there may have been other factors...downwind, slope, etc
web page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Austin)

Jal
01-12-2008, 04:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mikepage:</font><hr> ...I'm not convinced that soft tips are generally less efficient, though that seems to be a widespread assumption. I've dropped shafts vertically on a hard surface to see how high they bounce with different tips on them. I've not seen a clear correlation between tip hardness and the height of the bounce.<hr /></blockquote>That's news to me. Thanks.

Jim

dr_dave
01-12-2008, 05:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mikepage:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> [...]If a soft tip didn't "consume" any more energy than a hard tip, the results would be the same except for a longer contact time. I suppose that, in general, soft tips are not as efficient, energy-wise. But I think that's what you're saying.

Jim <hr /></blockquote>

I think that's what he's wondering. I'm not convinced that soft tips are generally less efficient, though that seems to be a widespread assumption. I've dropped shafts vertically on a hard surface to see how high they bounce with different tips on them. I've not seen a clear correlation between tip hardness and the height of the bounce.

If I have to speculate (I don't but I'll pretend somebody is forcing me to ;-)), I'll guess that soft and hard tips are similarly elastic for soft and medium shots but that at high shot speeds soft tips begin to get more inelastic.

I imagine a soft tip will mushroom during compression on a very hard shot, and I suspect it's a little harder for this kind of compression energy to be returned in a few tenths of a millisecond --but again I really don't know. <hr /></blockquote>How about phenolic tips? Do your "hard tip" conclusions and hypotheses apply to them also?

Thanks,
Dave

Jal
01-12-2008, 05:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr>
OK Laj, here's what you said/I said:

<font color="red"> YOU made this statement: </font color>
Ralph, yes, but just to add a factoid. The upper limit for the ball speed is twice the clubhead speed.
Jim

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr>
<font color="blue"> I then made this request knowing full well what you stated about the upper limit of twice the speed. And asked you to CORROBORATE IT. </font color>

<font color="red"> YOU THEN POSTED THIS LINK: </font color>
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall2002.web.dir/josh_fritts/swing.html

<font color="red"> This was stated in the link. Unless I missed it, and I humbly apologize if did, NOWHERE did it CORROBORATE the upper limit of the golf ball speed was TWICE the clubhead speed.</font color><hr /></blockquote>You're right, it didn't corroborate that. At the time, I was thinking of what got all of this started: Ralph's "much greater" phrase. So I thought that you had seen measurements where the ball took off at more than twice clubhead speed. I went to the website you suggested, but since I'm on dialup, didn't really look for the live video. Instead, I googled for other sites that might provide confirmation, not of that upper limit per se, but that the ball travels less than twice clubhead speed.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> So where did twice the upper limit of ball speed come from in regards to the clubhead speed? WHERE IS THE LINK? IT DIDN'T APPEAR IN THE LINK YOU PROVIDED.
Now I don't even know what you're talking about regarding Dr. Dave and his calculations. Where is that? You're right, not only do YOU not know what you're reading or writing, I'm having a hard time following it also. But I'm pretty sure I have it correct in THIS POST as far as the "YOU SAID/I SAID" and it's chronology.<hr /></blockquote>No, it's that I didn't know what you were thinking, and made an assumption. Given the context, it appeared to me that you were challenging that upper limit, ie, that it might be 3X, 4X, 5X,...100X, etc. If you're now saying that in reality, it's 1.5 or thereabouts, I can guarantee you that a ball/club combination could be designed that would be considerably closer to 2, whether it's legal or not. (I don't golf and don't know what restrictions are placed on equipment. It was a general statement of physics, not what the game's rules might allow or what is most efficient at generating ball speed.)

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr>What I was also trying to point out is, I don't care what the formula says the upper limit might be regarding twice the club head speed. It might work out on paper in a formula. But NO MEASUREMENT that has ever been done on clubhead speed vs ball speed has EVER SHOWN IT TO BE ANYWHERE CLOSE TO APPROACHING THE "DOUBLE" LIMIT. IT'S ALSO A MOOT POINT! IT'S PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE A CLUB HEAD ISN'T DESIGNED OR STRONG ENOUGH TO EVER REACH A FULL DOUBLE THE CLUB HEAD SPEED IN BALL SPEED, ESPECIALLY IF IT REACHES A CERTAIN LEVEL IN MPH.<hr /></blockquote>Nowhere did I say anything about actual ball speeds. But that's enough about "who said what, who meant what, and when they said it". If you wish to continue, have at it, but on your own.

Jim

Jal
01-12-2008, 05:59 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr>
OK Laj, here's what you said/I said:

<font color="red"> YOU made this statement: </font color>
Ralph, yes, but just to add a factoid. The upper limit for the ball speed is twice the clubhead speed.
Jim

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr>
<font color="blue"> I then made this request knowing full well what you stated about the upper limit of twice the speed. And asked you to CORROBORATE IT. </font color>

<font color="red"> YOU THEN POSTED THIS LINK: </font color>
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/211_fall2002.web.dir/josh_fritts/swing.html

<font color="red"> This was stated in the link. Unless I missed it, and I humbly apologize if did, NOWHERE did it CORROBORATE the upper limit of the golf ball speed was TWICE the clubhead speed.</font color><hr /></blockquote>You're right, it didn't corroborate that. At the time, I was thinking of what got all of this started: Ralph's "much greater" phrase. So I thought that you had seen measurements where the ball took off at more than twice clubhead speed. I went to the website you suggested, but since I'm on dialup, didn't really look for the live video. Instead, I googled for other sites that might provide confirmation, not of that upper limit per se, but that the ball travels less than twice clubhead speed.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> So where did twice the upper limit of ball speed come from in regards to the clubhead speed? WHERE IS THE LINK? IT DIDN'T APPEAR IN THE LINK YOU PROVIDED.
Now I don't even know what you're talking about regarding Dr. Dave and his calculations. Where is that? You're right, not only do YOU not know what you're reading or writing, I'm having a hard time following it also. But I'm pretty sure I have it correct in THIS POST as far as the "YOU SAID/I SAID" and it's chronology.<hr /></blockquote>No, it's that I didn't know what you were thinking, and made an assumption. Given the context, it appeared to me that you were challenging that upper limit, ie, that it might be 3X, 4X, 5X,...100X, etc. If you're now saying that in reality, it's 1.5 or thereabouts, I can guarantee you that a ball/club combination could be designed that would be considerably closer to 2, whether it's legal or not. (I don't golf and don't know what restrictions are placed on equipment. It was a general statement of physics, not what the game's rules might allow or what is most efficient at generating ball speed.)

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr>What I was also trying to point out is, I don't care what the formula says the upper limit might be regarding twice the club head speed. It might work out on paper in a formula. But NO MEASUREMENT that has ever been done on clubhead speed vs ball speed has EVER SHOWN IT TO BE ANYWHERE CLOSE TO APPROACHING THE "DOUBLE" LIMIT. IT'S ALSO A MOOT POINT! IT'S PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE A CLUB HEAD ISN'T DESIGNED OR STRONG ENOUGH TO EVER REACH A FULL DOUBLE THE CLUB HEAD SPEED IN BALL SPEED, ESPECIALLY IF IT REACHES A CERTAIN LEVEL IN MPH.<hr /></blockquote>Nowhere did I say anything about actual ball speeds. But that's enough about "who said what, who meant what, and when they said it". If you wish to continue, have at it, but on your own.

Artemus, if want to find some truly erroneous statements of mine, you won't have to go very far. See the thread on object ball curve, for instance. And I'll probably be obliging you in the future. Enjoy.

Jim

mikepage
01-13-2008, 10:20 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> [...]How about phenolic tips? Do your "hard tip" conclusions and hypotheses apply to them also?

Thanks,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

They're more conjectures than conclusions ;-). In my "bounce off a concrete floor" tests, phenolic was similar to the better of the leather tips. And then some other leather tips bounced not as high. I saw no clear correlation with hardness or tip height. It seemed kind of random, an though, perhaps, the nature of the glue surface was involved. Anyway these were not serious experiments. I just did enough to make me sckptical of conventional assumptions.

Artemus
01-13-2008, 10:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> I can guarantee you that a ball/club combination could be designed that would be considerably closer to 2, whether it's legal or not. (I don't golf and don't know what restrictions are placed on equipment. It was a general statement of physics, not what the game's rules might allow or what is most efficient.
Jim <hr /></blockquote>

I have to take exception to your statement above and vehemently disagree one more time on a guarantee that a club could be designed to equal ball speed that is 2X the clubhead speed. I GUARANTEE that it CAN NOT be done! Why?
Because there ARE maximum restrictions on how many feet per second the ball can attain after impact.

There ARE restrictions on the Coefficient of Restitution a club head can have for spring like effect. There ARE restrictions on how long the club can be. There ARE restrictions on the size of the head in cubic centimeters which is set at 460 cc. And there ARE restriction on the maximum limit for MOI.

There are NO LIMITS on the mass or weight of the head and shaft. However, if the mass gets too heavy, there is no man on Earth strong enough to swing a sledge hammer with any degree of speed or velocity. IT CAN'T BE DONE EVEN IF THERE WERE NO RESTRICTIONS ON ANYTHING! And no metal or composite material has ever yet to be invented that could perform without severe damage. It still comes down to the HUMAN FACTOR, NOT THE FORMULA OF Sir Issac Newton, Fermi, Einstein, Abraham Linclon, or Rodney King and having that HUMAN (not robot) perform outdoors and NOT in a vacuum.

This is without a doubt the longest hitting and most successful individual in the world at driving a golf ball long, Jason Zuback. He has been a 5 time World Champion in the sport and consistently possesses the HIGHEST clubhead speeds and ball speeds of anyone that has ever lived.

http://www.golfpodium.com/Jason_Zuback.htm

In order to reach 2X clubhead speed, his ball speed would have to reach 326 mph. How could any club be developed to increase ball speed by 116 mph over and above what he currently registers? CAN NOT BE DONE! I GUARANTEE IT!

Artemus
01-13-2008, 10:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mikepage:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote dr_dave:</font><hr> [...]How about phenolic tips? Do your "hard tip" conclusions and hypotheses apply to them also?

Thanks,
Dave <hr /></blockquote>

They're more conjectures than conclusions ;-). In my "bounce off a concrete floor" tests, phenolic was similar to the better of the leather tips. And then some other leather tips bounced not as high. I saw no clear correlation with hardness or tip height. It seemed kind of random, an though, perhaps, the nature of the glue surface was involved. Anyway these were not serious experiments. I just did enough to make me sckptical of conventional assumptions. <hr /></blockquote>

All I know is that I'm certainly glad <font color="red"> I </font color> didn't do this "tip material bounce test" on the floor. I can't even begin to imagine the chuckling, snickering, chortling, uproarious laughter which would be roaring out from the GOOGAN BIKER BAR.

Man, Jal and Mike Page would be rubbing their hands together and high fiving in glee at the mincemeat I would soon become from their combined efforts of reducing one to moronism! LMFAO /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Jal
01-13-2008, 04:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr> I can guarantee you that a ball/club combination could be designed that would be considerably closer to 2, whether it's legal or not. (I don't golf and don't know what restrictions are placed on equipment. It was a general statement of physics, not what the game's rules might allow or what is most efficient.
Jim <hr /></blockquote>

I have to take exception to your statement above and vehemently disagree one more time on a guarantee that a club could be designed to equal ball speed that is 2X the clubhead speed. I GUARANTEE that it CAN NOT be done! Why?
Because there ARE maximum restrictions on how many feet per second the ball can attain after impact.

There ARE restrictions on the Coefficient of Restitution a club head can have for spring like effect. There ARE restrictions on how long the club can be. There ARE restrictions on the size of the head in cubic centimeters which is set at 460 cc. And there ARE restriction on the maximum limit for MOI.<hr /></blockquote>And what part of "It was a general statement of physics, not what the game's rules might allow or what is most efficient." wasn't clear to you?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr>There are NO LIMITS on the mass or weight of the head and shaft. However, if the mass gets too heavy, there is no man on Earth strong enough to swing a sledge hammer with any degree of speed or velocity.<hr /></blockquote>Right. As you increase the mass of the club, it becomes harder to put any velocity on it. But...let me repeat that... But, the ball's velocity approaches that 2X limit more closely. The fly in the ointment is that you've reduced the clubhead speed by adding mass. That's why there is an optimal clubhead mass for each particular player, just as with pool cues, though with pool at least, it's not at all critical.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr>IT CAN'T BE DONE EVEN IF THERE WERE NO RESTRICTIONS ON ANYTHING! And no metal or composite material has ever yet to be invented that could perform without severe damage. It still comes down to the HUMAN FACTOR, NOT THE FORMULA OF Sir Issac Newton, Fermi, Einstein, Abraham Linclon, or Rodney King and having that HUMAN (not robot) perform outdoors and NOT in a vacuum.<hr /></blockquote>Huh?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr>This is without a doubt the longest hitting and most successful individual in the world at driving a golf ball long, Jason Zuback. He has been a 5 time World Champion in the sport and consistently possesses the HIGHEST clubhead speeds and ball speeds of anyone that has ever lived.

http://www.golfpodium.com/Jason_Zuback.htm

In order to reach 2X clubhead speed, his ball speed would have to reach 326 mph. How could any club be developed to increase ball speed by 116 mph over and above what he currently registers? CAN NOT BE DONE! I GUARANTEE IT!
<hr /></blockquote>See my (and your) comments about how clubhead speed is affected by mass. Second, nobody said you could actually reach 2X. You can only approach it, getting closer and closer, but never quite there. (Okay, if you continue to apply sufficient force during the collision and the contact time is sufficiently long, then you could.)

Jim

Artemus
01-13-2008, 05:30 PM
I'll tell you what IS CLEAR TO ME and it's this statement that you made.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Jal:</font><hr>
I don't golf
[ QUOTE ]

What I understand is you DON'T golf, you more than likely play very little pool, and you're not even very good at it when you do play. I certainly know you'd NEVER be good at playing for money because it's too easy getting into your head and sharking you. It would be like taking candy from a baby.

It's also clear to me that you're an armchair physicist that plays with theories, formulas, laws of physics, and math and applies it to anything and everything you can find to amuse yourself or be able to debate with others.

If you honestly think double ball speed can APPROACH club head speed with everything you know about the theory of mass and velocity, THE GOLF INDUSTRY NEEDS YOU! Get off your dead know-it-all butt and revolutionize the current state of affairs and MAKE A FORTUNE doing it. Don't sit on a pool forum wasting all of your brain power and talent.
I don't know what you do for work, but the golf industry will pay you double or triple if you can do what you so staunchly believe in. Go after it man, go after it.

Also, try some of these forums out. You'll have a much happier experience and everybody there will love you.

http://www.physicsforums.com/

http://www.ilovephysics.com/forum/

New2Pool
01-13-2008, 05:55 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> Lotta good this did in my post: "JAL only reply."

The DETAILS are where the disagreement lies and now Sir Isaac Newton is being brought in.

Let me say it again, JAL ONLY REPLY.
<hr /></blockquote>

Aren't you a bit of an ass? If you just want JAL to reply send him a personal message and don't subject the rest of us to your obnoxious schtick. I know very little about pool and even less about physics but even I can see that you misrepresent what others say just to pick a fight about a disagreement that does not even exist.

I do have to admit that I rather enjoyed your suggestions about testing the baseball velocity theory though. That refuted an incorrect statement, was put in terms that even I can understand, and clearly made your point.

Artemus
01-13-2008, 06:24 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> Lotta good this did in my post: "JAL only reply."

The DETAILS are where the disagreement lies and now Sir Isaac Newton is being brought in.

Let me say it again, JAL ONLY REPLY.
<hr /></blockquote>

Aren't you a bit of an ass?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> Absolutely! Aren't you for now coming onto this thread and playing superhero?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr>
If you just want JAL to reply send him a personal message and don't subject the rest of us to your obnoxious schtick.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> Jal DID reply. He also had the option ON HIS OWN to send a PM any time he wished. Didn't YOU also have the option of PM'ing me or Jal instead of coming on here grandstanding? Don't YOU also have the option of not reading a particular thread if it isn't beneficial to you or is rubbing you the wrong way?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr>
I know very little about pool and even less about physics but even I can see that you misrepresent what others say just to pick a fight about a disagreement that does not even exist.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> Wrong dude, how can you misrepresent what they say when YOU QUOTE EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID and let them hang themselves with their own words?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr>
I do have to admit that I rather enjoyed your suggestions about testing the baseball velocity theory though. That refuted an incorrect statement, was put in terms that even I can understand, and clearly made your point. <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> Thanks, there might be hope for us yet. Btw, read some of the stuff I discuss regarding pool. It really is good and will help you along the way.

mikepage
01-13-2008, 06:37 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr> [...]
I do have to admit that I rather enjoyed your suggestions about testing the baseball velocity theory though. That refuted an incorrect statement, was put in terms that even I can understand, and clearly made your point. <hr /></blockquote>

As cute as his objections might be, (I personally find his posts just as cute as I found Fast Larry's posts in the old days of RSB), I disagree that he successfully refuted anything.

I stand by what I wrote.

New2Pool
01-13-2008, 06:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mikepage:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr> [...]
I do have to admit that I rather enjoyed your suggestions about testing the baseball velocity theory though. That refuted an incorrect statement, was put in terms that even I can understand, and clearly made your point. <hr /></blockquote>

As cute as his objections might be, (I personally find his posts just as cute as I found Fast Larry's posts in the old days of RSB), I disagree that he successfully refuted anything.

I stand by what I wrote. <hr /></blockquote>

OK dang it, now I am going to have to find someone to drive a truck 60MPH while I try to throw a baseball from the back.

Jal
01-13-2008, 07:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr>...I do have to admit that I rather enjoyed your suggestions about testing the baseball velocity theory though. That refuted an incorrect statement, was put in terms that even I can understand, and clearly made your point. <hr /></blockquote>New2Pool, I just wanted to say that Mike's statement is correct, for what it's worth, assuming of course that he can throw a ball at 40+ mph, which is likely true.

(I think Artemus would appreciate me verifying that, as he takes everything I say as gospel.)

Jim

Artemus
01-14-2008, 05:26 AM
Jal, I appreciate the verification not only because I take everything you state as gospel, but also to see you uphold your loyalty to the other members of the GOOGAN BIKERS CLUB. Remember, all for one and one for all. Vroooooom, Vrrrooooooooom, Vrrrooooooooom. (Dontcha just love the sound of those Harley's)

Btw, 40 mph? Are you absolutely certain Mike doesn't throw like a girl and gets less? I know he can throw the BS pretty fast, but a BALL, I don't know about that coming from a physics professor. Also, what's an old broken down 40 mph flame throwing professor going to do if the car is driving straight into a 20-30 mph headwind in addition to the 60mph?

Artemus
01-14-2008, 05:36 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mikepage:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr> [...]
I do have to admit that I rather enjoyed your suggestions about testing the baseball velocity theory though. That refuted an incorrect statement, was put in terms that even I can understand, and clearly made your point. <hr /></blockquote>

As cute as his objections might be, (I personally find his posts just as cute as I found Fast Larry's posts in the old days of RSB), I disagree that he successfully refuted anything.

I stand by what I wrote. <hr /></blockquote>

I stand by what you wrote also, you're absolutely correct as long as the car is speeding along in a vacuum. I guess another way you could do it which would work is to be in a train and throw from one car to the next if the walls were torn out. Better yet, why don't you hitch a ride on the next space shuttle and throw a ball 18,000 mph as it's traveling through the vacuum of space at 17,960 mph?

I'm still waiting for you to do the spit test and milkshake toss test in a 60 mph car. Why don't you give us the results asap to prove your point and really stand by what you wrote?

bsmutz
01-14-2008, 02:04 PM
For the record, I've been pretty much irritated by most everything Artemus has posted since he got here. Guess that makes me a member of the Googan Biker Bar. /ccboard/images/graemlins/crazy.gif What an ass!!!!

Artemus
01-14-2008, 03:26 PM
Sorry you were offended, your highness. Maybe you ought not read any of my posts either. Posts like yours certainly don't make things any better and start their own set of problems. Did you ever think of that?

Deeman3
01-14-2008, 04:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote New2Pool:</font><hr> <hr /></blockquote>

OK dang it, now I am going to have to find someone to drive a truck 60MPH while I try to throw a baseball from the back. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Growing up in Arkansas, we tested this theory quite often with beer bottles and aside from having to lash yourself to the hood, you can throw a bottle out in front of the truck at a pretty good clip. However, if you launch it upward at a great angle, the laws of gravity will soon bring them right back at you.

100 MPH, I'm not sure but hundreds of stop signs and other permanent structures prove the spped at impact was way over 60!

Damn, I love real science. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

bsmutz
01-14-2008, 06:53 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> Sorry you were offended, your highness. Maybe you ought not read any of my posts either. Posts like yours certainly don't make things any better and start their own set of problems. Did you ever think of that? <hr /></blockquote>
I was hoping that you would take the hint from other people that your writing style has a tendency to be offensive but obviously someone with as big an ego as yours isn't going to take kindly to anyone trying to help them be less pompous.

Artemus
01-15-2008, 07:41 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Artemus:</font><hr> Sorry you were offended, your highness. Maybe you ought not read any of my posts either. Posts like yours certainly don't make things any better and start their own set of problems. Did you ever think of that? <hr /></blockquote>
I was hoping that you would take the hint from other people that your writing style has a tendency to be offensive but obviously someone with as big an ego as yours isn't going to take kindly to anyone trying to help them be less pompous. <hr /></blockquote>

You're a real PAL. Thanks loads for the hope, help and concern. I have no idea what I'd do without you leading the way for me to be a successful poster according to your rules and views. Btw, I could NEVER mistake you for a Googan and nobody else would either. Keep up the good work.