I'm not sure that Mr. K ever said that CF had anything to do with "throw-out" did he? The way throw-out was demonstrated to me was that once the clubshaft passes vertical to the ground it falls lengthening the Primary Lever Assembly (left arm and club).

I think people think that throw out is OUT TO THE PLANE LINE . . . but that ain't how it was demonstrated to me.

I think there is a alot of misunderstanding in this thread.

Mike O is mediating debates . . . . what the hell is going on? I'm headin' for the bomb shelter . . . see y'all after the nuclear winter.

Kfc
 

Isn't the Colonel being sued for unhealthy food- I rest my case Mr. Bucket- back to your sofa!!

Golf Sceptic- I actually thought the whole thread was you stating your case- but yes- please clearly state your case.

Thanks,
Mike O.- "Mediator"

What this is saying is that the right shoulder is turning an axis to spin a flywheel - the right shoulder going downplane to make the secondary lever assembly stay onplane via the effect of centrifugal reaction so that it stays at 90 degrees to the turning axis hence it stays onplane. This is what causes the throw out action and whilst pp3 aims to a point to control the clubhead as the release motions whirl it out via the passive straightening of the right arm in conjunction with its trigger delay against the checkrein of the left arm and the delivery line. The structure of the left flying wedge keeps the first imperative of a flat left wrist per law of the flail 2-K whilst all this happens.

This is paragraph is especially skillful to avoid the debate. If centrifugal force or reaction is fictious or not - that will be (or should be) the dictionary definition... which takes nothing away from the effect or correctness of the wording.

Providing this happens



It proves the concept...

Cause And Effect
 

Right you are, golf_sceptic!

Indeed...

Centrifugal force -- induced by rotation -- IS the throw-out effect.

Per Homer Kelley:

"Centrifugal Force: The effort of the Swinging Clubhead to pull the Primary Lever Assembly (Left Arm and Club) into a straight line."

Thanks yoda. To understand that definition I'd like to pick up on something you said about the stone on the string which I think will probably be best answered by thinkingplus.

Thinkingplus, what yoda says makes sense in a rotating frame of reference. How many of the TGM concepts should be viewed in a non-inertial frame. I think for example of the hinging concepts. Clearly (I hope) any discussion of forces relating to hinging concepts is taking place in a non-inertial frame. What about the concepts of lag and accumulators in respect of a swinger (pardon any mangling of the terminology)? Is that all in a non-inertial frame as well?

Mike, for me, the answer to this question from thinkingplus would put the TGM concepts into an entirely different light so I'll delay putting my proposition pending a response from her. Her response may also lead to a highly technical discussion within a discussion, so hold tight if it gets nerdy.

Mathew, thanks for raising this again. The issue I'm addressing isn't whether centrifugal force is real or ficticious, or how to produce or utilize it in the swing (which your post does really well), but rather that the physics changes depending on the frame of reference, and what yoda and I wrote about whether the centrigual force acts on the stone or the boy are not contradictory at all, but rather merely reflect different frames of reference. This issue may also be the reason why neither of us understood the other earlier on.

Now that's funny!!!!

Time
 

Golf Skeptic- at the risk of feeling like I'm wasting my time- and since Bucket O' Bucket has called me a mediator:crybaby: - I'll jump in and participate by having you read the following excerpt that I found on the internet. It would help me if you could read this and tell me if you agree with it or have issues with it. Because since I understand what they are saying in the article I'll know more about your perspective if I understand if you are in agreement with the article or how you might differ with their article.

INTERNET ARTICLE
A non-inertial frame of reference does not have a constant velocity. It is accelerating. There are several ways to imagine this motion:
· The frame could be traveling in a straight line, but be speeding up or slowing down.
· The frame could be traveling along a curved path at a steady speed.
· The frame could be traveling along a curved path and also speeding up or slowing down.
Such an accelerating frame of reference is called a non-inertial frame because the law of inertia does not hold in it. That is, an object whose position is judged from this frame will seem to spontaneously change its velocity with no apparent non-zero net force acting upon it. This completely violates the law of inertia and Newton's laws of motion, since these laws claim that the only way an object can change its velocity is if an actual non-zero net force is applied to the object. Objects just do not start to move about here and there all on their own.
This is really quite easy to understand. If you are in an automobile when the brakes are abruptly applied, then you will feel pushed toward the front of the car. You may actually have to extend you arms to prevent yourself from going forward toward the dashboard. However, there is really no force pushing you forward. The car, since it is slowing down, is an accelerating, or non-inertial, frame of reference, and the law of inertia no longer holds if we use this non-inertial frame to judge your motion.
If all of this is viewed relative to the ground, it becomes clear that no force is pushing you forward when the brakes are applied. The ground is stationary and, therefore, is an inertial frame. Relative to the ground, when the brakes are applied, you continue with your forward motion, just like you should according to Newton's first law of motion. The situation is this: the car is stopping, you are not; so, you head out toward the dashboard. From your point of view in the car it seems like you have spontaneously been pushed forward. Actually, there is no force acting on you. The imagined force toward the front of the car is a fictitious force.
A similar fictitious force can be noticed by a person in a car when it speeds up. Let us say that you are in a car at a stop light. The car is standing still. The light turns green, and the car accelerates forward. While undergoing this acceleration, the car is a non-inertial frame of reference. If the acceleration is large enough, you will feel yourself "pushed" into the seat. Actually, no force is pushing on you. Again, as viewed from the inertial frame of the ground, you are just maintaining your velocity, as you should according to Newton's first law of motion. You were still when the light was red, and you are attempting to remain still when the light turns green. However, the car started to move when the light turned green. The car actually comes up from behind you, and, using the seat, the car pushes you forward. As the seat comes forward and pushes on you, the back seat cushion compresses a bit. You may interpret this feeling as your body being pushed backward into the seat. Really, you are attempting to maintain your velocity of zero, and the seat is coming up from behind to push on you. There is no backward force. The imagined force is a fictitious force. Fictitious forces arise in non-inertial, or accelerating, frames of reference.
There are several ways to describe a non-inertial frame. Here are a few descriptions:
· A non-inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference with a changing velocity. The velocity of a frame will change if the frame speeds up, or slows down, or travels in a curved path.
· A non-inertial frame of reference is an accelerating frame of reference.
· A non-inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference in which the law of inertia does not hold.
· A non-inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference in which Newton's laws of motion do not hold.
· In a non-inertial frame of reference fictitious forces arise.
What follows here are two demonstrations that show non-inertial frames of reference. The first one is an animation of a non-inertial frame which acts like an elevator. The other shows an animation of a rotating frame of reference. Rotating frames of reference are non-inertial frames since they are following curved paths. Remember that a change in direction, which would occur along a curved path, constitutes a change in velocity, and, therefore, constitutes an acceleration. If the frame accelerates, it is a non-inertial frame.
A non-inertial frame of reference is a coordinate system which is accelerating. That is, its vector velocity is not constant. So, it is either changing its speed by speeding up or slowing down, or it is changing its direction by traveling in a curved path, or it is both changing its speed and changing its direction.
Below is a VRML animation of a non-inertial frame of reference similar to that which would be experienced in an elevator ride. Please see this note if at first the animation does not seem correctly presented or synchronized.

Above, the yellow platform with the x, y, z coordinate axes represents an elevator. During certain portions of its travel an elevator constitutes a non-inertial frame of reference. As it goes up and down it speeds up or slows down over portions of its path. During these periods of changing speed the elevator is accelerating and, therefore, is a non-inertial frame of reference. Over other portions of its path the velocity of the elevator is constant. At these times it represents an inertial frame of reference.
When you watch the above animation, be aware that its motion should be considered in several parts. Those parts are:
1. The elevator is at the bottom and is not moving. Its velocity is constantly zero, and, therefore, its velocity is constant. So, it is an inertial frame of reference. There are no fictitious forces, the law of inertia holds.
2. The elevator begins to move up. It is speeding up, and, therefore, its velocity is changing; it is accelerating. So, it is a non-inertial frame of reference. There are fictitious forces present. One feels pushed into the floor a bit; one feels heavier. However, this is a fake force. Really, a person is just trying to stay at his or her prior velocity, which was zero. The floor is coming up from underneath and pushing on the person. The person feels pushed into the floor.
3. The elevator is done starting to move and is now on its way up, traveling at a constant velocity. Now it is an inertial frame. The extra weight felt during the acceleration is no longer present. The elevator is now an inertial frame with no fictitious forces.
4. The elevator begins to stop. It is slowing down, and, therefore, its velocity is changing; it is again accelerating. So, it is once again a non-inertial frame of reference. Fictitious forces are present. A person feel lighter, as if he or she was being pulled up a bit. Actually, the person is just trying to maintain his or her prior velocity. The person was going up and continues to go up. The floor, however, is stopping and is no longer traveling as fast as the person. So, the person feels lifted off of the floor.
5. The elevator is stopped at the top. This is just like being stopped at the bottom. And it is just like part 3. The velocity is constant, that is, constantly zero. The elevator is an inertial frame now, and there are no fictitious forces.
6. The elevator begins to move down. This is an acceleration, and the elevator is again a non-inertial frame of reference. A fictitious force arises. The person feels lighter, as if pulled up. But he or she is just trying to remain still, and the elevator floor is falling away.
7. The elevator is traveling at a constant velocity on the way down. This is an inertial frame of reference, and everything feels normal. There are not fake forces.
8. The elevator slows down while moving downward. Again, this acceleration creates a non-inertial frame. A person in the elevator would feel heavier, would feel pushed down. Actually, the person is just trying to maintain his or her downward velocity and the slowed down floor is getting in the way.
Such an elevator ride is an excellent example of a frame of reference that changes from an inertial frame of reference to a non-inertial frame of reference as the speed of the velocity changes from a constant value to a changing value respectively.
However, there are other non-inertial frames of reference which are caused by changes in velocity other than changes in speed. Remember that when an object changes direction, it changes its velocity. Since velocity is made up of speed and direction, when the speed changes, the velocity changes. Next we’ll cover an explanation of a non-inertial frame which is due to a change in direction, that is, a rotation. Fictitious forces arise under this condition also.
Near the edge of the disk is an x, y, z coordinate system which is, of course, following a curved path. This coordinate system is moving in circular motion. The speed of the coordinate system is constant; however, it is accelerating. It is accelerating because its velocity is changing. Its velocity is changing because the direction of its movement is changing, and, since velocity is made up of both speed and direction, when the direction changes, the velocity changes. So, this coordinate system is an example of a non-inertial frame of reference. Non-inertial frames are accelerating frames.


Since it is a non-inertial frame of reference, one should feel a fictitious force if one is in the frame. And one would; it would be especially noticeable if the disk were spinning quickly. One would feel pushed off of the disk. This force is often called the centrifugal force; it is a fictitious force. It really does not exist.
Actually, if you were near the edge of this disk, at any moment your velocity would be tangent to the circle in which you were moving. You would be like the blue dot which you could imagine moving in a circle as in the following diagram.

Now, pretend this spinning is happening with you on a children's merry-go-round; almost everyone has been on one of those. At the moment depicted above, you are the blue dot, and your velocity is tangent to the circle. According to Newton's first law, which is really just a restatement of the law of inertia, you should continue to travel in a straight line tangent to the circle. That is, you would try to maintain your velocity and move along the line tangent to the circle as shown in the next diagram.

However, you will want, we will suppose, to stay on the merry-go-round. To do that you will have to "hang on" by pulling yourself toward the center of the circle. Most likely you will grab on to the bars or posts mounted on the merry-go-round and pull yourself inward like the next diagram shows.

Very most likely, however, you will interpret the pull you provide toward the center as your attempt to fight being pushed away from the center of the circle. This force does not really exist, however. You would not be being pushed away from the center. You are just trying to go in a straight line and must provide a center seeking force to make you go around the turn and stay on the merry-go-round.
This fictitious force away from the center of rotation is called the centrifugal force. The force you apply, pulling yourself back in toward the center and keeping you on the merry-go-round is called the centripetal force.

If one of my students wrote it, I'd say that they demonstrate a pretty good understanding of the ideas, but I'd suggest they tighten up some of the expression.

For example
might become

I could go a bit further in modifying the text, but you get the idea. Basically it is fine, but some of the wording could mislead somebody who does not already understand the subject. I probably would not use the "law of inertia" in my explanation, but would not tell a student to remove it.

My post above was edited by someone other than myself. It completely changed the nuance and meaning.

NO ONE has the moral right to change the meaning of my posts. Because it is your website you have the right to ban me or delete my posts, but once again DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH THAT MISREPRESENT ME.

Now please change the damage you have caused.

My point wasw Sceptic got his head handed to him on a silver planter and he wasn't man enough to admit it.

Now if management doesn't like this then delete my posts.

I think everyone agrees that there is a 'throw-out' action, #2 accumulator. I agree with the Throw-out action because in one of my Previous Lives, I was a Chinese Peasant who spent a lifetime beating Rice out of their Stalks with a flail (the nightmares still haunt me, my boss was sooo demanding). So I know a little about 'throw-out' and it has occurred on one or more occasions when I've held a Golf Club in my uneducated hands.

So? Is this thread about the cause of the 'throw-out'? If I'm hanging on to the club, and my body is rotating and me and the clubhead are being acted on by centrifugal/centripetal forces, then where else is the clubhead going to go?

Also, if we keep Calling it Centrifugal Force, and someday we discover that CF is not real, will we only be able to drive the ball 50 yards? I'm not willing to take that risk. :)