Similar to TBS but less power?

zeio wrote: Uh...conservation laws hold only when there are no external forces acting on the system.  The mere fact that you have to hold and swing a paddle through a ball means there is work done resulting from the applied force(s).

The moment of collision is tiny, which means window for external influence is basically zero. If anything, adding the arm to the collision would only increase already high mass ratios, which already makes no diff at 100:1.

If you want to model an external force, be my guest, but note that the addition only increases that massive bat/ball disparity. It would help though to have a decent showing in 100 level classes:

Work is what causes a change in momentum and momentum is defined as mass in motion.  Thus, moving a heavier mass has nothing to do with the conservation law(s).

LOL, dropping random truisms might be confusing to n00bs but it's not doing physics. A 3gram ball is not moving the bat with arm attached at all. Maybe you can provide a simple example to demonstrate your case.

ejmaster wrote: After all the AgentHex speech in his posts the result is always wtf is this. Equipment does not matter. Equipment review is not worth. Blade weight also does not matter. So... What is this?. It seems the scientist big stone trolling. Have to look at the conclusion about the exposition. If there is little sense about the result something is not going well. Have to improve.

Science has been demonstrating the non-obvious/intuitive for a while. For example, the same force controlling falling apples as the planets was very controversial at the time.

zeio wrote: And many members here will remember we have had our moments of "applying the wrong assumptions" on this very forum.  Your passage about COR qualifies as one of them.

Instead of just mouthing off, please feel free to reply to either davidz's comment there or my own. Again, a simple counterexample would suffice. Surely it would be trivial.

BTW, that study you posted yourself pretty much seals the deal.

I think I've given zeio sufficient opportunity to explain what was going in his own link, and thus far he's declined, so: the study shows fairly simple assumptions/model is correct enough as to make no difference to the relevant question here. I can't see what pnachtwey posted, but easy to imagine he just overpressed his technical case.

In sum, the difference between blades of similar design (and really, they're all pretty similar) but varied weight should be quite minute. It may possibly be A-B distinguishable, but well overshadowed by pretty much anything significant. IOW, likely high placebo effect.  I also posit that what difference weight can make is a reduction can increase speed on some strokes, which results in faster shot, but again this is minor but at least possibly significant.

OTOH, material construction of the blade itself is much more likely to be a factor, but this only has some correlation to weight, esp in multi-ply product. The concentration on this factor is akin to the drunk looking for keys under the lamppost because that's the only place he has illumination.

Sometimes people conflate and confuse different factors. On different blades heavier often implies thicker or rigid layers. Of course these block better for reasons already mentioned. Maybe away from the table they conflate more speed/spin ratio (ie drive v loop) for "power", again perhaps attributable to more flexible/dwell blade. But the basic physics is reasonably clear.

Rigidity (inferring less plasticity) is correlated to wood weight but it's incidental to the specific question of whether more weight equates to more "power". Ie, adding tape weight can be very different to blade weight from harder wood.

My apologies for the long wait.  Was caught up by other things in the middle of writing this up.  Add to that the time to prepare the subtantiation necessary to make my case.

The bone of contention comes before the collision.  How the paddle has gained that momentum does not depend on the conservation of that momentum during a collision.  The crux of most counterarguments assumes that one can only swing a heavier paddle slower.  But is that how it really happens under real-world situations?

JTTA has done a study on the effect of paddle mass on the forehand drive stroke of eight male collegiate players.  Three Schlager Carbons with Sriver in max on the forehand and a rubber of different sizes and thickness on the backhand were used for the experiment, each weighing 157.5g, 171.5g and 185g, respectively.  The results show that upon impact the tip of the three paddles each clocks in at 20.5±1.5m/s, 20.1±1.1m/s, 20.1±1.6m/s.  So what next?

Few times the player use his full arm strength. Because the ball will go out from the table by far.
So given the same speed (i think zeio data shows this in a given weight range) more mass gives more power.
Then AgentHex you are wrong.
But in anycase there is something called 'feeling' to know it.

ejmaster wrote: So given the same speed (i think zeio data shows this in a given weight range) more mass gives more power.

Yes, if you'd be satisfied with a pitifully tiny novelty bat within maybe order of magnitude of 3grams.

bluebucket wrote: Using a SC for that test proves the guys doing the rest know nothing about table tennis. Weight doesn't effect stiff blades. They will be fast no matter the weight

How stiff a blade is has nothing to do how fast it swings.

The issue presented early on is that there's a physical limit to how fast a relatively light ball can leave a collision with a much heavier object (ie bat) of fixed speed. This is something taught in Physics 100. Feel free to play with an online calculator of this: http://mysite.verizon.net/res148h4j/javascript/script_collision1d.html

Trying to invent new physics is unlikely to work here.

Just to be clear, the current status of the debate there is whether it's close enough to zero that it can't possibly be discerned, not if the diff can possibly be significant.

Same (again 'same'. Eg 2 stiga all) blade type, more weight = more power.
The feeling.
No one is saying more weight in different blades = more speed.
I said in my post above 'given the same blade'.
Got it?

In TT, balance is more important than weight as far as speed and power are concerned. So if you want a less powerful TBS, just pick one that is less head heavy.

Imago wrote: In TT, balance is more important than weight as far as speed and power are concerned. So if you want a less powerful TBS, just pick one that is less head heavy.

How so? The head has to be traveling faster for it to matter, and a heavier head is generally always harder to accelerate.

To demonstrate this for angular momentum (ie "balance"), imagine a see-saw with equal weights at equal distance. Now move one of the weights inward ("lighter" balance on that side), and you'll find it's much easier for the heavy side to move the light side quickly than vice versa.

More mass will produce more power, so the answer is less head heavy. And this is what the OP wants - less power.

AgentHex i do not think the dealer is going to pay attention to you but asking about the weight when ordering a blade.
The same i told you to not use shoes with curved sole to walk because the earth you know is round believe me, ask for a more weight blade if wanting a more powerful sample.
Do not go with theories. Maybe he is going to tell you gtf another place. We do not want this happens.
Btwy. I hope imago you understand AgentHex post reply. Read carefully imago.