Similar to TBS but less power?

I locked this thread temporarily to let the mods review it and take appropriate action.

The terminology used above is hardly rigorous and if anything the entire conversation is quite casual. Whatever poor experiences someone might've had in the past does not excuse them from at least trying to understand their displeasure before leveling criticism.

What you're referring to is the total kinetic energy of the shot incl rotational in addition to translational. The former is often left out for sake of simplicity, such as in zeio's linked study. In TT practice, one is traded off for the other for obvious topspin reasons, and the "kick" of a loop off the table is just the transfer of one to the other. This is fundamental to any treatment of motion/energy, hardly some "ivory tower jibber jabber", and nobody I've seen has ever used "power" outside this vernacular context in the entire thread.

Baal wrote: I have completely lost the thread of what AgentHEX is trying to say about TBS blades other than the not so subtle implication that he knows more than every single person on this forum on every subject imaginable.  I gave up when he decided to start explaining sensory systems to me.  Let's just say I have some background in that area, if nothing else.  The last guy like this was the poster Pnachtway who turned every thread into a flame war about the physics of ping pong, espcially this particular subject of the significance of blade weight.  AgentHEX and Pnachtway would disagree violently on this, and it would be like watching Godzilla vs. Mothra.  This is the first time I have ever wished that Pnachtway would make a return.  Just for this.  We could set up a thread to occupy them for awhile and check in on occasion.

Substance is what matters in technical discussions and the complete lack of it in the people drama quoted example is rather the issue. If you're having trouble following what's going on, the best course of action is to ask for clarification instead of this petulant behavior.

An issue with these seemingly impossible discussions is that the word power in fysics has a different - defined - meaning as the notice it has in general daily life or as used in tabletennis language.
Some who studied fysics and also happen to play tabletennis could be confused by this.

For tabletennis common language word "power" refers to energy / stroke not energy/second as in fysics or track racing.

Classic fysics term for this would be  "work" : W. W=P*T .

 T for work between player and bat is much longer then as between bat and ball for more or less the same work.
For fysics P between bat and ball is much higher then as between player and bat due to the short contact between bat and ball P for that is much higher.
The resemblance between the two different connotations (it also has a resemblance) is that a stroke also has time included. In fysics terms W can increase just as well from longer dwelltime as from higher powerimpact. They are both in the produkt for W = PT. Ten percent longer dwell with same P would mean ten percent higher W.
In tabletennis terms power increases then. Because - in fysics terms - work is what is meant with power this is not a real problem. 








Edited by mercuur - 08/11/2013 at 2:45pm

I have completely lost the thread of what AgentHEX is trying to say about TBS blades other than the not so subtle implication that he knows more than every single person on this forum on every subject imaginable.  I gave up when he decided to start explaining sensory systems to me.  Let's just say I have some background in that area, if nothing else.  The last guy like this was the poster Pnachtway who turned every thread into a flame war about the physics of ping pong, espcially this particular subject of the significance of blade weight.  AgentHEX and Pnachtway would disagree violently on this, and it would be like watching Godzilla vs. Mothra.  This is the first time I have ever wished that Pnachtway would make a return.  Just for this.  We could set up a thread to occupy them for awhile and check in on occasion. 

AgentHEX, in your shoes, I would be careful using the world "explanation"... you just might want to consider that there are people in the forum who have high science and technology credentials (I believe there are) and do not need amateurish analyses. 

AgentHEX wrote: That's pretty enlightening self-introspection. Worthy of partial credit if that's already given for participation.

AgentHEX wrote: mercuur wrote: AgentHEX wrote: It seems the general strategy is if people keep throwing random sports analogies at a wall, one has to stick sooner or latter given infinite time and analogies. Yes, it's possible that added weight might disadvantage weaker players as mentioned before, but a 5-10g diff is pretty smaller in greater scheme of blade+rubbers+hand+arm It,s not small because you  don,t want to use youre arm weight for hitting the ball too much. The arm and hand move much less fast as the bat where and when it contacts the ball. Same as with a whip ; the tip moves much faster then the further part. Throwing a stone just the same ; Only the tip of the finger that has the last contact with the stone moves at the same speed as the stone. You realize that 10g is part of the ~200g bat + >200g hand at the very least, right? If your muscles can't fully account for 10g in the hand, you should reconsider playing sports. Also, the same physics lesson for angular momentum cannot exclude the part about different distances from center. I mean, this isn't some sophisticated formulation but rather literally required to pass Physics 100. Srsly, why continue throwing out more random analogies when prior ones keep failing? What's the end game here?

Experience is about weight (or maybe g-force) not just mass.
Weight is not just felt for lifting but also from accelleration and decelleration. The forward stroke but also backward and mostly in the quick change between backward and forward. There the decelleration /accelleration turn gives maybe the largest felt weight. Accelleration and mass are equivalant for relativity but also for experience. Heavy bats are particularly less quick for this type of turn in direktion (also down and up for looping for instance).

To explain ; two stones of (A) 100 gr and (B) 110 gr on a weighing scale in an elevator.
The elevator accellerates with an additional 1 G upward.
The weight for both stones doubles from this and also the weight difference doubles to a more respectable twenty gramm.

We are posting at speed of light here it seems .
To the last comment about handweight as part of the weight to consider I also have to disagree  (which is not something I aim at). 
For more powerfull strokes in particular a bat moves relative to the hand (even tough it,s not linear but angular).




Edited by mercuur - 08/11/2013 at 6:58am

mercuur wrote: Timing and fluency of technicque has to bring energy to the bat from all different muscles. When that doesn,t succeed as well because the timing or fluency is worse, the energy has to be delivered more from other muscles. That means the total of "muscle"  involved in strokes can be higher with even a less muscular build. The experienced weight of a bat (how heavy it feels) relates to the total of muscle involved ( and thus tehnical skill) more then to the build because of this reason. So a less strong person with better skill can have no problem with a heavier bat while a stronger person with not so good skill and timing would feel the same weight as heavy. Offcourse the less skilled player can work on his skill and make his bat (feel) lighter.

That's quite an extraordinary claim to make for a maybe 10g weight diff.

If it helps, diety-man JRS also agrees that speeds is consequence of stiffness, of which weight is only a nominal side-effect.

Timing and fluency of technicque has to bring energy to the bat from all different muscles. When that doesn,t succeed as well because the timing or fluency is worse, the energy has to be delivered more from other muscles.
That means the total of "muscle"  involved in strokes can be higher with even a less muscular build.
The experienced weight of a bat (how heavy it feels) relates to the total of muscle involved ( and thus tehnical skill) more then to the build because of this reason.
So a less strong person with better skill can have no problem with a heavier bat while a stronger person with not so good skill and timing would feel the same weight as heavy.
Offcourse the less skilled player can work on his skill and make his bat (feel) lighter.


Edited by mercuur - 08/11/2013 at 6:31am

zeio wrote: AgentHEX wrote: zeio wrote: Rather, there appears to be a link between blade weight and skill level. Que? I guess I can take that as a denial of the inevitable.

No, you can take as a request to clarify wtf you're talking about.

AgentHEX wrote: mercuur wrote: The crucial difference is made by the different abillity to load energy in the blade from muscles with different locations.  Compare for instance between throwing a stone of three gramm or twenty gramm. Most adults can load the twenty gr stone with far more energy because they can use their larger and stronger muscles more effectively for throwing and also throwing these two stones will use and allow different technicque. An interesting approach is also to consider the blade as a part of the arm. This means the weight of the blade will shift the balance for the arm (with it,s own weight) further away from the shoulder. That,s the weight shift that works for the larger muscles from shoulder down to the feet and  allows to use more energy from these muscles, body rotation aso.  So it allows to use stronger muscles (and good technicque) more effectively for spin and speed. I can guarantee that you can swing your arm much faster with nothing in it than a cement block. When a rock is thrown, all that matters is velocity when it leaves your hand. The reason why a 20g rock likely travels further than 3g in air is: 1. It's insignificant difference compared to your arm/hand. 2. Lighter objects all things equal have worse aerodynamics. Feature vs. rock is classic example, but for "equal" case, the mass of an object generally varies by cube (x^3) of lineal size, whereas aero generally effects by frontal area or square (x^2). So worse aero doesn't rise in proportion to mass. On related note to "muscles", this is similar principle to why "larger" animals are slower/weaker relative to their mass, because connective tissue also vary by only x^2 of limb linear cross size. Ie 20g/3g rock should travel ~same in vacuum.

Try to break a window with the rocks instead of aiming at just distance .
Distance asssumes an ideal trajektory for distance that,s not straight. Ideal trajektory for breaking a window or a flathit is a straight line. The optimal weight for the rock maybe becomes the rock that enables the straightest line then. Too heavy or too light weight will work worse then the optimal weight then. Too light will be affected by lacking energy and too heavy by lacking speed so also lacking energy.

The principle that counts here is kallibre more then (just) power. Or at least the two combined.
When throwing a stone as far as possible the optimal weight is different from person to person.
But to have the highest impact on a shorter distance target also has a different optimal weight then throwing the largest distance for a single person.
The shorter the distance the more neglectable aerodynamics. Luckily a tabletennistable is not as long as a tenniscourt .

The power/callibre relation is also relevant for bow shooting or baitcasting with fishingrods.
A light callibre rod tends to funktion better with a lighter bait then a heavier rod would need for same caster. But also different casters with same rod has different optimal weight for the bait.

When the ball is considered a bait in tabletennis, the weight is equal for all players. But as players vary in many things, the most optimal batweight for power will vary also.
So more heavy blade for someone with less power (this can be from lesser technical skill also) can bring nothing or hardly anything. Then the loss of quickness as a negative can prevail over the gain for that particular person resulting in less speed because speed is not just power.
Therefor, in discussions as these, everyone  is probably right for himself (making them so much fun when everyone disagrees prooving we are all different ).



Edited by mercuur - 08/11/2013 at 6:13am

AgentHEX wrote: zeio wrote: chop4ever wrote: I'm a bit old now, so I'll keep all memorial stuffs but swap to some lighter weapons. You guys keep debating on weights of bat, but I don't see any argument on the way is why the heavier bat is more powerful? And what does make the bat heavier? For example, if I let my bat exposed 3 hours under the afternoon sun, then its weight will drop down 3 grs! And, apparently, If I seal it only one layer of lacquer oil, it will raise up 2grs! There is 5grs diff, but it doesn't have too much typical diff It has been explained so many times already.  Please read up the quoted passage by JRSDallas on exactly why heavier bat is more powerful.  The drop in weight after a sunbath is likely the result of a lower moisture content within the blade.  Even though wood stiffness tends to increase as moisture content decreases, its effect could well be overshadowed by the simultaneous drop in weight.  By the same logic, the stiffness increase by 2 grams of lacquer may get drown out by the frequency reduction from adding 90+ grams of rubbers to the blade, as postulated by JRSDallas. Uh, JRS's first passage is either taken out of context or just wrong. A general claim that heavier is more rigid is completely untrue. Ie not even much faster wood blades are significantly heavier than 85g ALL.

Woohoo!

You're the second person to my knowedge to have the guts to mention the word wrong about JRS's comments.  While you're at it, see if you can find a bone to pick with here.  JRS himself has stated the heavier of the two Amultarts he has is faster and stiffer, which of course is backed up by hard data.  Give it a good pick.  Don't let the man's efforts go to waste.

Imago wrote: Look again at the big tennis. It's a common knowledge there that head-heavy rackets are designed for aggressive play while handle-heavy rackets provide more control. Weight is a secondary factor.

No amount of looking at tennis will change the fact that ball/racket weight ratio is order(s) of magnitude different than table tennis, nor the fact that that angular momentum is far more critical when distance from hand to sweetspot is also order of magnitude larger.