|
|
Blade Performance Vs Wood Type and Design |
Post Reply | Page <1 234 |
Author | ||
AgentHEX
Gold Member Joined: 12/14/2004 Location: Yo Mama Status: Offline Points: 1641 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Ok, I see what's going on and I'm wrong on that point.
> There is also the issue of your gloat post that followed your careful explanation but was removed by the moderators. You mean this "removed" post?: http://mytabletennis.net/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=60725&PID=845339&title=blade-performance-vs-wood-type-and-design#845339 > Both can be true if you use the right equation in the right circumstance. No, a given object has an inherent vibrational frequency, even using your own solution type. So which side is this frequency/"speed" for in an asymmetrical blade? > Many people tried to explain this to you on the One of a Kind Forum as well, but to no avail. You have me confused with someone else, so please argue whatever this point is with them and not me. > Uh oh, it looks like the rebound speed of the ball vball’ approaches infinitiy when the blade speed approaches infinity! Yes, that's why we're using a ratio for speed. The COR ratio also happens to be the correct one for measuring blade "speed" since it cannot excel the limit without violating physics. Honestly I expected better from someone who can at least look up the equation above. For example, it was explained why a sim should be considered instead of just static calcs (to establish a correct timeline which is easy to forget when using time-invariant equations). Or what the shape (ie. order) of an equation means, which is a pretty fundamental consideration whenever math is put to science. None of this is remotely difficult to grasp for the technically adept. Edited by AgentHEX - 01/01/2015 at 9:56pm |
||
Sponsored Links | ||
AgentHEX
Gold Member Joined: 12/14/2004 Location: Yo Mama Status: Offline Points: 1641 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The original comment was that they stop when it sounds right. The point is going much further than the basic well defined vibrational tendencies of the instrument is just going to sound wrong. Technically all sound is a composition of pure sine waves, which is why a freq-codec + speaker can reproduce all sounds within reason. |
||
JRSDallas
Silver Member Joined: 09/03/2005 Location: USA Status: Offline Points: 585 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Edited by JRSDallas - 01/01/2015 at 10:34pm |
||
Galaxy T1 89 gm
FH: HRT Huaruite Wujilong 2 - Dragon 2 II, Max, Black Donic Acuda S2, Max, Red |
||
Baal
Forum Moderator Joined: 01/21/2010 Location: unknown Status: Offline Points: 14336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I still have no idea what you are talking about. Oh well. In any case, with table tennis blades, they are mass produced in a factory and if you are lucky, you get a really good one. |
||
AgentHEX
Gold Member Joined: 12/14/2004 Location: Yo Mama Status: Offline Points: 1641 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I see my misconception about your equation, and I edited the post like an hour ago.
> (OK tell us all exactly what is an object's "inherent" vibrational frequency? I know what it is but it has nothing to do with this topic. There's one freq per your own formula and many possible speeds depending on place of impact. This is quite relevant to the topic of whether freq is representative of speed: this is clearly a way it's not. > Please accept my apologies, I had you confused with someone that also goes by the name AgentHEX on the One of a Kind Forum. Can you point to where this happens?: "Still your language shows that you still confuse frequency and blade stiffness as being explicitly linked to blade speed or ball impact COR when in fact the linkage one of reducing energy losses which effects COR due to transfer of impact energy to vibration modes of the blade" I thought I was quite explicit about energy loss above. > So please explain how does moving a blade faster and faster violate physics? A ball which rebounds faster than it impacts the blade violates physics. Look, if you just said that the inertia's for the component slices of beam stiffness and not blade as a whole this would've been a lot easier. The way the integral's calculated for this specifically is not obvious from looking at the result (nor is it mentioned in your prior post). You should be able to see how someone isn't aware of this detail would think the way inertial is being used is wrong. It's plainly obvious the points of contention here are largely conceptual so it's unclear how greater technical detail of, say, how to make freq calc slightly better helps in any case. How exactly does actually taking the enormous amount of time to create a sim advance the point about timelines? Also, if you're familiar with academia this sort of contentious disagreement shouldn't even be unusual. The only difference is I personally didn't care to be passive aggressive about it. |
||
AgentHEX
Gold Member Joined: 12/14/2004 Location: Yo Mama Status: Offline Points: 1641 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The main point is that if you sand/plane to the point where it's already the right speed/freq/thickness/etc, going past it isn't going to help. For the instrument makers, they're mostly slowly going to the right point, which is a lot more subtle in their case since it's along one dimension. |
||
arg0
Platinum Member Joined: 07/22/2009 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 2023 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I noticed the images on the first page have disappeared due to licencing of the hosting service.
But I had saved them, so here they are again: BTW, is JRSDallas still around? |
||
zeio
Premier Member Joined: 03/25/2010 Status: Offline Points: 10833 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Last Visit: 01/12/2016 at 5:44am
I actually have a question or two for him. |
||
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare) + Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃) = 184.8g |
||
Baal
Forum Moderator Joined: 01/21/2010 Location: unknown Status: Offline Points: 14336 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The guy knows his stuff!
|
||
wanhao
Super Member Joined: 07/14/2014 Location: south east asia Status: Offline Points: 122 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
So with all this MIT STANDARD thesis..how can we improve our skills ?
|
||
zeio
Premier Member Joined: 03/25/2010 Status: Offline Points: 10833 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
So that EJs alike would understand when their skills are the problems, no equipment could ever remedy that.
|
||
Viscaria FL - 91g
+ Neo H3 2.15 Blk - 44.5g(55.3g uncut bare) + Hexer HD 2.1 Red - 49.3g(68.5g 〃 〃) = 184.8g |
||
adyy
Member Joined: 11/21/2018 Location: in the Lab Status: Offline Points: 25 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
@ JRSDallas - I tried to replicate your XLS table from this picture with formulas embedded
for the column Moment of Area Ik if I try to calculate it via this formula: Now the moment of inertia I for a beam with rectangular cross section of width b and height h, is given by I = b h3/12. When this cross section is not at the center of the beam (such as will be the case with all but the center ply in our laminate table tennis blade), the Parallel Axis Theorem lets us calculate the moment of Inertia of each ply. Thus the moment of inertia I k for the kth ply is then: I k = b h3/12 + bh d 2 where d is the distance from the midplane to the center of the kth ply. the only way I can match your values from Layer Dist dk and Tickness hk column is using 254 for b. Can you share your XLS? Or was this the formula you used?
|
||
24prozent
Beginner Joined: 02/15/2008 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 11 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Hi JRSDallas!
I enjoyed your deep treatment of the physics of the blade, and I also want to thank HEX for his contributions; even though the discussion between the two had taken on at some instances a highly competitive and confrontational nature. I have a somewhat naive question and a comment. Can you make it plausible to me why the blade has a very noticable impact on the playing properties, given that it is covered by a rather thick rubber? Seeing the very different rebound velocities of a ball from just wood and from rubber coated wood, I would expect that the rubber has a much bigger impact than the blade itself. And my "prejudice-soaked intuition" would conclude the same, i.e. that the blade properties are "buried" under the rubber properties. And yet I do know from own experience how a blade changes the playing properties. Can you enlighten this a bit? You had posted an excerpt from an article that concluded that the racquet/ball contact time would be 4-5 milliseconds, while in your argument with HEX, he claimed that the interaction time is rather 1ms. Before I had read your discussion I had studied this paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305080758_Non_Linearity_of_the_BallRubber_Impact_in_Table_Tennis_Experiments_and_Modeling and from analyzing the stroboscope pictures I came to the conclusion that the contact time is indeed just about 1 ms. How certain are you about the result in the paper that you cited? Would you mind looking at the stroboscope images and giving your feedback on this with respect to ball interaction duration? Ah, and one more thought/question: In an article by Daniel A. Russell on vibro-acustical properties of a table tennis racquet ( https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02640414.2018.1462578 ), or his video ( "Acoustics of Ping-Pong" - Dr. Daniel Russell, Penn State University - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekalYkdrwI8 ) I think the conclusion in a passing comment was that the ball playing (or rebounce) properties did not depend notably whether or not the ball was bouncing off of locations on the blade that were vibrational nodes. I would conclude, that vibration cannot really be the determinator of the rebounce. What -if anything- is wrong about the notion? Ha! And here is one more question: My reading about balsa properties, and the fact that it is used e.g. by TSP (now Victas) in a "cross cut" configuration, where the grain direction is perpendicular to the plane of the verneer, gave me the impression that there might be a compression/vibration/elasticity component of the blade that comes into play. Somewhere else it was described as a spring force by the compression of the blade material, which was mentioned to be particularly effective/elastic in balsa in the direction of the grain/fibres, ...and hence the "cross cut" / "endgrain" configuration. Do you have any thoughts on that? Sorry, as I am writing, more topics come into my head: What are your thoughts about the blade impacting the spin-generation potential of a racquet? The company Re-Impact ( www.re-impact.de ), whose racquets I really like, makes such claims. I have always discarded them as marketing hokus-pokus; but the deeper I dig into the physics of the ball/blade interaction the more I realize how little I understand. Any thoughts on this? |
||
Post Reply | Page <1 234 |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Forum Home | Go to the Forums | Forum Help | Disclaimer
MyTableTennis.NET is the trading name of Alex Table Tennis Ltd. |