the COAM myth

Re: the COAM myth

Postby Range Rat » Mon Jan 25, 2010 3:11 pm

Mandrin: Gosh, I hate writing. I should have said I'm looking for a formula that probably exists just that I haven't been able to find it. There that sounds better :)
You're ahead of where you were, and behind where you're going.
User avatar
Range Rat
 
Posts: 2354
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 8:30 am

Re: the COAM myth

Postby lagpressure » Wed Jan 27, 2010 3:08 am

Nice post Mandrin...
User avatar
lagpressure
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8164
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:50 pm

Re: the COAM myth

Postby mandrin » Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:27 pm

Range Rat wrote:Mandrin: Are you still out there somewhere? If you are, I have a math/golf question for you regarding parabolas. Don't know if that's your cup of tea but it will center on ball heights in flight at given distances. I'm looking for a formula that may not exist. We may have to do this on another area of ABS, but I thought this COAM area would be a good place to start.


Range Rat,

Some light bedside reading on the subject of ball flight....enjoy.

Golf ball flight articles : 1, 2, 3, 4.
User avatar
mandrin
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:21 pm

Re: the COAM myth

Postby Range Rat » Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:15 am

Mandrin: Nice to hear from you....if you please can you find your way over to the Golf Course Architecture Forum as my questions may be best heard there. Thank you....RR :)

P.S. That light bedtime reading is way beyond my math abilities :lol: Hope you can help directly or lead me to a site that can.
You're ahead of where you were, and behind where you're going.
User avatar
Range Rat
 
Posts: 2354
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 8:30 am

Re: the COAM myth

Postby Frozen Divots » Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:15 pm

Leave it to me to respond to a thread that is 8 years old...But this exemplifies wrong terminology or correct terminology used in the wrong place. Either way it is butchered and this is why people are confused.

We are transferring angular momentum, so that throws this whole thread in the garbage. But we don't use COAM the way people think. We transfer torques and everything that goes with them.

We aren't a spinning planet...we are transferring and applying cancelling torques, if we didn't, the odds of us hitting the ball but be low and a great score would be 500. Cancelling of torques is what torque correction is. People call it 'great hand/eye coordination'. This is what my Torque Error picture is about in the other thread. Precisely that.

The mistake everyone makes is looking at the lead arm/club angle and what that means. You're not holding any angle (you CAN but shouldn't). What LOOKS like a 'hold' should be a transfer of torque, working the hands as the angular momentum against the club head. Then it gets transferred. Now the hands are the hub and clubhead is the angular momentum. Babe Ruth 101.

In other words, you have two 'systems' going on, arms and club-wise, leaving the body out of it.

Here is where people get screwed up. They think- COAM as in conserving, like conserving energy. Conserving energy doesn't mean 'use none', it means use less and use more efficiently. So people see the club head 'held', etc think 'Yep, it's being conserved until later when it really speeds up'.

Nope, slower torque and lower angular everything handed off and amplified.
This fools nearly everyone and people chase the fool's gold. It's not a 'hold, hold, hold, release!' You can do that, but it's less efficient and requires higher maintenance.

There are torque transfers going on from feet to clubhead. This is why we want less torque error...and each little world of torque has it's own COAM, none of which properly identified earlier in this thread.

In reality it is at first undergoing a totally different torque, that has less angular anything going on in the clubhead, as little as possible. Then there is a transfer. This transfer is what makes the club head gain and become too hot to handle.

The best way I can put it is the hands/clubhead have a reversal of poles.

Again, the hands and clubhead have a reversal of poles. The torque 'flips' like the Earth will someday. Bottom and top becomes top and bottom.

The final bottom is the clubhead...if done correctly.
Frozen Divots
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:49 pm

Re: the COAM myth

Postby LesMurray » Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:28 pm

Frozen Divots wrote:The best way I can put it is the hands/clubhead have a reversal of poles.

Again, the hands and clubhead have a reversal of poles. The torque 'flips' like the Earth will someday. Bottom and top becomes top and bottom.

The final bottom is the clubhead...if done correctly.


Sounds like a trebuchet.
User avatar
LesMurray
 
Posts: 1309
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:32 pm
Location: Burbank, CA

Re: the COAM myth

Postby Frozen Divots » Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:43 pm

Similar, except obviously the Trebuchet is more simple. But its a good comparison!

People think of the golf swing as 'One Thing' when it isn't. They measure things as one and apply 'laws' to the overall motion and miss the rest.

And you cannot fix what you don't measure.
Frozen Divots
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 5:49 pm

Previous

Return to Top Threads (2000 Club)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests