I was reading Dave Barry today,
http://www.miamiherald.com/2007/02/1...ear-clubs.html
, where he talks about
an explosive golf club that could propel a ball up to 500 yards:

"The Ballistic Driver is a ''swing-less'' golf club. You grip it as
usual, and you position the head of the club next to the golf ball. But
instead of swinging the club, you press an ''Activator Button'' on the
grip; this detonates a small explosive charge inside the club head,
which causes a metal plate to shoot out the side of the club a distance
of 1.5 inches at a speed of 200 miles per hour. The plate hits the golf
ball, which then, according to the brochure, goes ''250 yards, every
time . . . down the middle, exactly where you aimed it, drive after drive."

He goes on to say, "''it could theoretically propel the ball 500
yards.'' This means that a pathetic schlump like me could propel the
ball farther than Tiger Woods Inc. hits it on those rare occasions when
he is not filming American Express commercials.

And who knows what lies down the road? I mean, if we can make a club
that can hit the ball 500 yards, why not 1,000? Why not 1,500? Why not a
mile?"

And I wondered, why not a mile? A lot would depend on what kind of
propulsion you used, but I'm guessing the muzzle velocity would be
supersonic.

Thanks,
Rich

On 1/16/2012 11:55 AM, Rich Grise wrote:
I was reading Dave Barry today,
http://www.miamiherald.com/2007/02/1...ear-clubs.html
, where he talks about
an explosive golf club that could propel a ball up to 500 yards:

"The Ballistic Driver is a ''swing-less'' golf club. You grip it as
usual, and you position the head of the club next to the golf ball. But
instead of swinging the club, you press an ''Activator Button'' on the
grip; this detonates a small explosive charge inside the club head,
which causes a metal plate to shoot out the side of the club a distance
of 1.5 inches at a speed of 200 miles per hour. The plate hits the golf
ball, which then, according to the brochure, goes ''250 yards, every
time . . . down the middle, exactly where you aimed it, drive after drive."

He goes on to say, "''it could theoretically propel the ball 500
yards.'' This means that a pathetic schlump like me could propel the
ball farther than Tiger Woods Inc. hits it on those rare occasions when
he is not filming American Express commercials.

And who knows what lies down the road? I mean, if we can make a club
that can hit the ball 500 yards, why not 1,000? Why not 1,500? Why not a
mile?"

And I wondered, why not a mile? A lot would depend on what kind of
propulsion you used, but I'm guessing the muzzle velocity would be
supersonic.

I think you'd have to define what it still means for it to be a "golf
ball" after it stops. It seems pretty obvious that if you shot it
through the air at the same trajectory as a typical driver - typically 8
to 11 degrees of loft - at a sufficiently high velocity, the thing would
ignite. That ball would be unplayable as a golf ball for a subsequent
"stroke." And of course, it's probably theoretically possible that it
not only would ignite, but burn up completely. A meteorite the size of
a golf ball entering the atmosphere is going to burn up completely.

Rich Grise wrote in
:

[...]
And I wondered, why not a mile? A lot would depend on what kind of
propulsion you used, but I'm guessing the muzzle velocity would be
supersonic.

Neglecting all aerodynamic effects, I calculate that the minimum initial velocity would need to be
approximately 580 feet per second.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 20:46:00 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Rich Grise wrote in
:

[...]
And I wondered, why not a mile? A lot would depend on what kind of
propulsion you used, but I'm guessing the muzzle velocity would be
supersonic.

Neglecting all aerodynamic effects, I calculate that the minimum initial velocity would need to be
approximately 580 feet per second.\

Ok. But remember that you can't ignore the aerodynamic effects with a
golf ball. I'm sure you're aware of this, but some folks may not
realize that those little dimples have quite a large (positive)
effect.

--
Ed Huntress

On Jan 16, 2:55*pm, Rich Grise wrote:


And I wondered, why not a mile? A lot would depend on what kind of
propulsion you used, but I'm guessing the muzzle velocity would be
supersonic.

Thanks,
Rich

I am not convinced that you could propel a golf ball a mile. A golf
ball is round , which is not very good at going long distances. In
addition a golf ball is not very dense.

Dan

On 1/16/2012 2:45 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:39:01 -0800 (PST), toolbreaker
wrote:

On Jan 16, 1:01 pm, wrote:
On Jan 16, 2:55 pm, Rich wrote:

And I wondered, why not a mile? A lot would depend on what kind of
propulsion you used, but I'm guessing the muzzle velocity would be
supersonic.

Thanks,
Rich

I am not convinced that you could propel a golf ball a mile. A golf
ball is round , which is not very good at going long distances. In
addition a golf ball is not very dense.

Dan

I ran a 3 dof ballistics program in matlab. Assuming a coef of drag
of .55 ( found on the internet) rammiping up to 1 at mach 1 the ball
traves 400 meters if I launch it at Mach 1 (330 m/sec) and 40 deg

Unless you're shooting it out of a gun, or otherwise applying a
progressive force to a full hemisphere of it, I think that the first
question is how much energy you can store in that never-very-hard mass
when you whack it with a flat object, and how much it can release on
the rebound. That may not be so easy to figure.

I don't have the math and engineering skill to do it, but it can be
done. Engineers have been doing it for some time in determining the bat
performance factor (BFP) for metal bats. It probably has been done for
a long time, but it took on more urgency once it was determined that
players were increasing the "trampoline effect" by "rolling" their bats.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:33:28 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 1/16/2012 2:45 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:39:01 -0800 (PST), toolbreaker
wrote:

On Jan 16, 1:01 pm, wrote:
On Jan 16, 2:55 pm, Rich wrote:

And I wondered, why not a mile? A lot would depend on what kind of
propulsion you used, but I'm guessing the muzzle velocity would be
supersonic.

Thanks,
Rich

I am not convinced that you could propel a golf ball a mile. A golf
ball is round , which is not very good at going long distances. In
addition a golf ball is not very dense.

Dan

I ran a 3 dof ballistics program in matlab. Assuming a coef of drag
of .55 ( found on the internet) rammiping up to 1 at mach 1 the ball
traves 400 meters if I launch it at Mach 1 (330 m/sec) and 40 deg

Unless you're shooting it out of a gun, or otherwise applying a
progressive force to a full hemisphere of it, I think that the first
question is how much energy you can store in that never-very-hard mass
when you whack it with a flat object, and how much it can release on
the rebound. That may not be so easy to figure.

I don't have the math and engineering skill to do it, but it can be
done. Engineers have been doing it for some time in determining the bat
performance factor (BFP) for metal bats. It probably has been done for
a long time, but it took on more urgency once it was determined that
players were increasing the "trampoline effect" by "rolling" their bats.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure it can be done. It's not a trivial thing to
evaluate and it doubtless requires some experimental testing.

I wonder if the golf ball manufacturers have determined the limits, or
if they just limit their testing to the values they know can be
achieved by a real golfer swinging a real club.

In any case, there is a practical limit to how much energy can be
stored in one of those balls by whacking it with a club, and a lesser
(and probably diminishing as the input force increases) limit to how
much it can return by rebounding. And those limits likely are not very
much greater than the limits designed into the ball for real-world,
practical club-whacking. It seems likely that they're optimized for
that.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:33:28 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 1/16/2012 2:45 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:39:01 -0800 (PST), toolbreaker
wrote:

On Jan 16, 1:01 pm, wrote:
On Jan 16, 2:55 pm, Rich wrote:

And I wondered, why not a mile? A lot would depend on what kind of
propulsion you used, but I'm guessing the muzzle velocity would be
supersonic.

Thanks,
Rich

I am not convinced that you could propel a golf ball a mile. A golf
ball is round , which is not very good at going long distances. In
addition a golf ball is not very dense.

Dan

I ran a 3 dof ballistics program in matlab. Assuming a coef of drag
of .55 ( found on the internet) rammiping up to 1 at mach 1 the ball
traves 400 meters if I launch it at Mach 1 (330 m/sec) and 40 deg

Unless you're shooting it out of a gun, or otherwise applying a
progressive force to a full hemisphere of it, I think that the first
question is how much energy you can store in that never-very-hard mass
when you whack it with a flat object, and how much it can release on
the rebound. That may not be so easy to figure.

I don't have the math and engineering skill to do it, but it can be
done. Engineers have been doing it for some time in determining the bat
performance factor (BFP) for metal bats. It probably has been done for
a long time, but it took on more urgency once it was determined that
players were increasing the "trampoline effect" by "rolling" their bats.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure it can be done. It's not a trivial thing to
evaluate and it doubtless requires some experimental testing.

I wonder if the golf ball manufacturers have determined the limits, or
if they just limit their testing to the values they know can be
achieved by a real golfer swinging a real club.

In any case, there is a practical limit to how much energy can be
stored in one of those balls by whacking it with a club, and a lesser
(and probably diminishing as the input force increases) limit to how
much it can return by rebounding. And those limits likely are not very
much greater than the limits designed into the ball for real-world,
practical club-whacking. It seems likely that they're optimized for
that.



Actually shouldnt be that difficult....

A good starting point = drop one straight downward into a vertical canyon,
just a rough guess but thinking you'll probably find that the terminal
velocity is ~350 mph.

John B. fired this volley in
:

that specifies how far they may fly
when hit with some sort of standard blow

USGA tests and certifies balls using a mechanized "whacker" fondly called
by the techs, "Iron Mike". It's a fairly crude metal simulacrum of a
golfer with a driver in hand.

Why? I have no idea, except that's the way they've always done it. There
are probably more accurate ways of doing it instead of all that clanking,
loosely articulated "robot golfer" crap.

LLoyd

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message

Actually shouldnt be that difficult....

A good starting point = drop one straight downward into a vertical canyon,
just a rough guess but thinking you'll probably find that the terminal
velocity is ~350 mph.

This site says 72MPH.
http://www.golf-simulators.com/physics.htm

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:00:56 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:16:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:33:28 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 1/16/2012 2:45 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:39:01 -0800 (PST), toolbreaker
wrote:

On Jan 16, 1:01 pm, wrote:
On Jan 16, 2:55 pm, Rich wrote:

And I wondered, why not a mile? A lot would depend on what kind of
propulsion you used, but I'm guessing the muzzle velocity would be
supersonic.

Thanks,
Rich

I am not convinced that you could propel a golf ball a mile. A golf
ball is round , which is not very good at going long distances. In
addition a golf ball is not very dense.

Dan

I ran a 3 dof ballistics program in matlab. Assuming a coef of drag
of .55 ( found on the internet) rammiping up to 1 at mach 1 the ball
traves 400 meters if I launch it at Mach 1 (330 m/sec) and 40 deg

Unless you're shooting it out of a gun, or otherwise applying a
progressive force to a full hemisphere of it, I think that the first
question is how much energy you can store in that never-very-hard mass
when you whack it with a flat object, and how much it can release on
the rebound. That may not be so easy to figure.

I don't have the math and engineering skill to do it, but it can be
done. Engineers have been doing it for some time in determining the bat
performance factor (BFP) for metal bats. It probably has been done for
a long time, but it took on more urgency once it was determined that
players were increasing the "trampoline effect" by "rolling" their bats.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure it can be done. It's not a trivial thing to
evaluate and it doubtless requires some experimental testing.

I wonder if the golf ball manufacturers have determined the limits, or
if they just limit their testing to the values they know can be
achieved by a real golfer swinging a real club.

In any case, there is a practical limit to how much energy can be
stored in one of those balls by whacking it with a club, and a lesser
(and probably diminishing as the input force increases) limit to how
much it can return by rebounding. And those limits likely are not very
much greater than the limits designed into the ball for real-world,
practical club-whacking. It seems likely that they're optimized for
that.

I believe that there is some sort of specification for golf balls, at
least those used in competition, that specifies how far they may fly
when hit with some sort of standard blow.

Aha! So they've probably done a lot of testing.

When I played golf, roughly 50 years ago, there were steel-centered
balls (cheap), which had a ball bearing in the center, and
liquid-center balls, which had a little hollow rubber sphere in the
center, about the size of a marble shooter, with a viscous liquid
inside. The centers were wrapped with a thin rubber-band material,
tight, all the way to the cover. When you cut them through with a
hacksaw the rubber bands released with a lot of force. They were
really wrapped.

Rubber can store an amazing amount of energy but it has an
extension/compression limit that's pretty sharply defined. My guess is
that the limit of rebound is somewhere around that limit.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:00:56 +0700, John B.
wrote:


On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:16:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:33:28 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:


On 1/16/2012 2:45 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:39:01 -0800 (PST), toolbreaker
wrote:


On Jan 16, 1:01 pm, wrote:

On Jan 16, 2:55 pm, Rich wrote:


And I wondered, why not a mile? A lot would depend on what kind of
propulsion you used, but I'm guessing the muzzle velocity would be
supersonic.

Thanks,
Rich

I am not convinced that you could propel a golf ball a mile. A golf
ball is round , which is not very good at going long distances. In
addition a golf ball is not very dense.

Dan

I ran a 3 dof ballistics program in matlab. Assuming a coef of drag
of .55 ( found on the internet) rammiping up to 1 at mach 1 the ball
traves 400 meters if I launch it at Mach 1 (330 m/sec) and 40 deg

Unless you're shooting it out of a gun, or otherwise applying a
progressive force to a full hemisphere of it, I think that the first
question is how much energy you can store in that never-very-hard mass
when you whack it with a flat object, and how much it can release on
the rebound. That may not be so easy to figure.

I don't have the math and engineering skill to do it, but it can be
done. Engineers have been doing it for some time in determining the bat
performance factor (BFP) for metal bats. It probably has been done for
a long time, but it took on more urgency once it was determined that
players were increasing the "trampoline effect" by "rolling" their bats.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure it can be done. It's not a trivial thing to
evaluate and it doubtless requires some experimental testing.

I wonder if the golf ball manufacturers have determined the limits, or
if they just limit their testing to the values they know can be
achieved by a real golfer swinging a real club.

In any case, there is a practical limit to how much energy can be
stored in one of those balls by whacking it with a club, and a lesser
(and probably diminishing as the input force increases) limit to how
much it can return by rebounding. And those limits likely are not very
much greater than the limits designed into the ball for real-world,
practical club-whacking. It seems likely that they're optimized for
that.

I believe that there is some sort of specification for golf balls, at
least those used in competition, that specifies how far they may fly
when hit with some sort of standard blow.


Aha! So they've probably done a lot of testing.

When I played golf, roughly 50 years ago, there were steel-centered
balls (cheap), which had a ball bearing in the center, and
liquid-center balls, which had a little hollow rubber sphere in the
center, about the size of a marble shooter, with a viscous liquid
inside. The centers were wrapped with a thin rubber-band material,
tight, all the way to the cover. When you cut them through with a
hacksaw the rubber bands released with a lot of force. They were
really wrapped.

Rubber can store an amazing amount of energy but it has an
extension/compression limit that's pretty sharply defined. My guess is
that the limit of rebound is somewhere around that limit.


I seem to recall seeing information about this some decades ago and the
name of the testing machine was Iron Byron, see
http://www.leaderboard.com/GLOSSARY_IRONBYRON

I'm surprised there isn't a wiki article for it.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:47:35 +0000, David Billington
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:00:56 +0700, John B.
wrote:


On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:16:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 18:33:28 -0800, George Plimpton
wrote:


On 1/16/2012 2:45 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:39:01 -0800 (PST), toolbreaker
wrote:


On Jan 16, 1:01 pm, wrote:

On Jan 16, 2:55 pm, Rich wrote:


And I wondered, why not a mile? A lot would depend on what kind of
propulsion you used, but I'm guessing the muzzle velocity would be
supersonic.

Thanks,
Rich

I am not convinced that you could propel a golf ball a mile. A golf
ball is round , which is not very good at going long distances. In
addition a golf ball is not very dense.

Dan

I ran a 3 dof ballistics program in matlab. Assuming a coef of drag
of .55 ( found on the internet) rammiping up to 1 at mach 1 the ball
traves 400 meters if I launch it at Mach 1 (330 m/sec) and 40 deg

Unless you're shooting it out of a gun, or otherwise applying a
progressive force to a full hemisphere of it, I think that the first
question is how much energy you can store in that never-very-hard mass
when you whack it with a flat object, and how much it can release on
the rebound. That may not be so easy to figure.

I don't have the math and engineering skill to do it, but it can be
done. Engineers have been doing it for some time in determining the bat
performance factor (BFP) for metal bats. It probably has been done for
a long time, but it took on more urgency once it was determined that
players were increasing the "trampoline effect" by "rolling" their bats.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure it can be done. It's not a trivial thing to
evaluate and it doubtless requires some experimental testing.

I wonder if the golf ball manufacturers have determined the limits, or
if they just limit their testing to the values they know can be
achieved by a real golfer swinging a real club.

In any case, there is a practical limit to how much energy can be
stored in one of those balls by whacking it with a club, and a lesser
(and probably diminishing as the input force increases) limit to how
much it can return by rebounding. And those limits likely are not very
much greater than the limits designed into the ball for real-world,
practical club-whacking. It seems likely that they're optimized for
that.

I believe that there is some sort of specification for golf balls, at
least those used in competition, that specifies how far they may fly
when hit with some sort of standard blow.


Aha! So they've probably done a lot of testing.

When I played golf, roughly 50 years ago, there were steel-centered
balls (cheap), which had a ball bearing in the center, and
liquid-center balls, which had a little hollow rubber sphere in the
center, about the size of a marble shooter, with a viscous liquid
inside. The centers were wrapped with a thin rubber-band material,
tight, all the way to the cover. When you cut them through with a
hacksaw the rubber bands released with a lot of force. They were
really wrapped.

Rubber can store an amazing amount of energy but it has an
extension/compression limit that's pretty sharply defined. My guess is
that the limit of rebound is somewhere around that limit.


I seem to recall seeing information about this some decades ago and the
name of the testing machine was Iron Byron, see
http://www.leaderboard.com/GLOSSARY_IRONBYRON

I'm surprised there isn't a wiki article for it.

Oh, Byron is very cool. I'll bet then that USGA has answers to the
questions raised in this thread.

--
Ed Huntress

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message

Actually shouldnt be that difficult....

A good starting point = drop one straight downward into a vertical
canyon, just a rough guess but thinking you'll probably find that the
terminal velocity is ~350 mph.

This site says 72MPH.
http://www.golf-simulators.com/physics.htm


Missed by a mile.

--Remember the farther you can whack it at one go the farther off
the mark it'll land unless your accuracy is dead on. There's a point of
diminishing returns in that calculation. OTOH if you just want range we use
golfballs for ammo in our cannons in Northern California, bwahaha...

--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : Steel, Stainless, Titanium:
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : Guaranteed Uncertified Welding!
www.nmpproducts.com
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---

On Jan 17, 10:58*am, steamer wrote:
* * * * --Remember the farther you can whack it at one go the farther off
the mark it'll land unless your accuracy is dead on. There's a point of
diminishing returns in that calculation. OTOH if you just want range we use
golfballs for ammo in our cannons in Northern California, bwahaha...

--
* * * * "Steamboat Ed" Haas * * * * : *Steel, Stainless, Titanium:
* * * * Hacking the Trailing Edge! *: *Guaranteed Uncertified Welding!
* * * * * * * * * * * * *www.nmpproducts.com
* * * * * * * * * *---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---

I worked over my ballistics simulatiom and fixed some errors. If the
drag coef is around .5 I don't get ranges arounnd 400 meters when
launced at 330 m/sec Mach 1, Terminal velocity is around 30 m/sec

What kind of range are you getting with your cannon?

I am thinking spin and dimples have got to be adding lift

Rich Grise wrote:

I was reading Dave Barry today,
http://www.miamiherald.com/2007/02/1...ear-clubs.html
, where he talks about
an explosive golf club that could propel a ball up to 500 yards:

"The Ballistic Driver is a ''swing-less'' golf club. You grip it as
usual, and you position the head of the club next to the golf ball. But
instead of swinging the club, you press an ''Activator Button'' on the
grip; this detonates a small explosive charge inside the club head,
which causes a metal plate to shoot out the side of the club a distance
of 1.5 inches at a speed of 200 miles per hour. The plate hits the golf
ball, which then, according to the brochure, goes ''250 yards, every
time . . . down the middle, exactly where you aimed it, drive after drive."

He goes on to say, "''it could theoretically propel the ball 500
yards.'' This means that a pathetic schlump like me could propel the
ball farther than Tiger Woods Inc. hits it on those rare occasions when
he is not filming American Express commercials.


I am a little surprised that no one mentioned the other side of the
thing. The "equal and opposite reaction" thing. It's going to drive
the "club " head backwards. Better be really holding on to the damn
thing. Essentially this is a gun at right angle to, and on the end
of, a yard long stick. That's going to be a bitch to control.

Better would be a similar club that you swung, but that fired on
contact.
jk

On 01/17/2012 08:54 PM, jk wrote:

I am a little surprised that no one mentioned the other side of the
thing. The "equal and opposite reaction" thing. It's going to drive
the "club " head backwards. Better be really holding on to the damn
thing. Essentially this is a gun at right angle to, and on the end
of, a yard long stick. That's going to be a bitch to control.

Better would be a similar club that you swung, but that fired on
contact.

The club will come to an instant stop, and hurt your arm.


How about... place the explosive charge on the *back* side of the club
head, so that the head is driven into the ball.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:34:20 -0800, beryl wrote:

On 01/17/2012 08:54 PM, jk wrote:

I am a little surprised that no one mentioned the other side of the
thing. The "equal and opposite reaction" thing. It's going to drive
the "club " head backwards. Better be really holding on to the damn
thing. Essentially this is a gun at right angle to, and on the end
of, a yard long stick. That's going to be a bitch to control.

Better would be a similar club that you swung, but that fired on
contact.

The club will come to an instant stop, and hurt your arm.

Not necessarily. It depends on the weight of the club and its swing
velocity versus the charge impulse and iplate weight. In fact..unless
it was a huge charge and a big assed plate..I doubt it would even stop
the club.



How about... place the explosive charge on the *back* side of the club
head, so that the head is driven into the ball.

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On 01/18/2012 04:35 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:34:20 -0800, wrote:

On 01/17/2012 08:54 PM, jk wrote:

I am a little surprised that no one mentioned the other side of the
thing. The "equal and opposite reaction" thing. It's going to drive
the "club " head backwards. Better be really holding on to the damn
thing. Essentially this is a gun at right angle to, and on the end
of, a yard long stick. That's going to be a bitch to control.

Better would be a similar club that you swung, but that fired on
contact.

The club will come to an instant stop, and hurt your arm.

Not necessarily. It depends on the weight of the club and its swing
velocity versus the charge impulse and iplate weight. In fact..unless
it was a huge charge and a big assed plate..I doubt it would even stop
the club.

You already have the inertia of the ball, and you're adding to that the
recoil from the explosion. Now you have a broken arm.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:32:17 -0800, beryl wrote:

On 01/18/2012 04:35 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:34:20 -0800, wrote:

On 01/17/2012 08:54 PM, jk wrote:

I am a little surprised that no one mentioned the other side of the
thing. The "equal and opposite reaction" thing. It's going to drive
the "club " head backwards. Better be really holding on to the damn
thing. Essentially this is a gun at right angle to, and on the end
of, a yard long stick. That's going to be a bitch to control.

Better would be a similar club that you swung, but that fired on
contact.

The club will come to an instant stop, and hurt your arm.

Not necessarily. It depends on the weight of the club and its swing
velocity versus the charge impulse and iplate weight. In fact..unless
it was a huge charge and a big assed plate..I doubt it would even stop
the club.

You already have the inertia of the ball, and you're adding to that the
recoil from the explosion. Now you have a broken arm.

Ii suggest you do the math a bit better.

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

Gummer:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:32:17 -0800, wrote:
Gummer:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:34:20 -0800, wrote:

The club will come to an instant stop, and hurt your arm.

Not necessarily. It depends on the weight of the club and its swing
velocity versus the charge impulse and iplate weight. In fact..unless
it was a huge charge and a big assed plate..I doubt it would even stop
the club.

You already have the inertia of the ball, and you're adding to that the
recoil from the explosion. Now you have a broken arm.

Ii suggest you do the

Not to mention the smoking crater you left in the grass. How are you
going to replace a divot like that?

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:08:23 -0800, beryl wrote:

Gummer:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 10:32:17 -0800, wrote:
Gummer:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:34:20 -0800, wrote:

The club will come to an instant stop, and hurt your arm.

Not necessarily. It depends on the weight of the club and its swing
velocity versus the charge impulse and iplate weight. In fact..unless
it was a huge charge and a big assed plate..I doubt it would even stop
the club.

You already have the inertia of the ball, and you're adding to that the
recoil from the explosion. Now you have a broken arm.

Ii suggest you do the

Not to mention the smoking crater you left in the grass. How are you
going to replace a divot like that?

Which smoking crater? You really dont know any type of engineering at
all do you?

Hummm...I wonder where I can find some 32 blanks..or maybe a handful of
38 S&W blanks....

grin...you really are just a hot fart in the wind arntcha?

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

Gummer:

Which smoking crater? You really dont know any type of engineering at
all do you?

The charge belongs on the back of the club head, as I said.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:46:30 -0800, beryl wrote:

Gummer:

Which smoking crater? You really dont know any type of engineering at
all do you?

The charge belongs on the back of the club head, as I said.

On the Back of the club head???

As I stated..you really dont have ANY clue about engineering do
you...pitiful..absolutely ****ing pitiful

Are you even allowed to cross the street by yourself?

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

--Haven't ever measured distance but I know it's a looooong walk to
the targets! :-) In my cannon I use about 50cc of Pyrodex per shot.

--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : Steel, Stainless, Titanium:
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : Guaranteed Uncertified Welding!
www.nmpproducts.com
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---

Gummer:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:46:30 -0800, wrote:
Gummer:

Which smoking crater? You really dont know any type of engineering at
all do you?

The charge belongs on the back of the club head, as I said.

On the Back of the club head???

I have a better solution for you.
The problem is, you can /intend/ your swing to deliver either maximum
power, or best accuracy. But not both. How many times have you wound up,
then clubbed the ground 8" behind the ball with a wild swing? Plenty
embarrassing, yeah. So you make sure to actually hit the ball on your
next attempt, and you're a little timid.
What's needed isn't more power, but a way to accurately apply all of the
power that you're capable of unleashing.

We're going to use an inertial guidance system.
Place the club head right up against the ball, right where you want it
to make contact. Now, push a button, wait for the LED indicator to glow
steady, and your club is initialized. That's it. No explosives, no
drama, just wail on the ball with all you've got and the system commands
the club head to return to *exactly* the position where it was
initialized. Sweet.

On 1/19/2012 2:57 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:46:30 -0800, wrote:

Gummer:

Which smoking crater? You really dont know any type of engineering at
all do you?

The charge belongs on the back of the club head, as I said.

On the Back of the club head???

****wit: from which side of a jet engine does the thrust emanate? The
back side, you colossally ignorant douchebag.

Put the charge on the back of the clubhead, idiot. That will accelerate
the clubhead in the same direction in which you wish to strike the ball.

Better yet, ****wit, stick to jerking off - that's the only game you
know how to play.

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:57:51 -0800, beryl wrote:

Gummer:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:46:30 -0800, wrote:
Gummer:

Which smoking crater? You really dont know any type of engineering at
all do you?

The charge belongs on the back of the club head, as I said.

On the Back of the club head???

I have a better solution for you.
The problem is, you can /intend/ your swing to deliver either maximum
power, or best accuracy. But not both. How many times have you wound up,
then clubbed the ground 8" behind the ball with a wild swing? Plenty
embarrassing, yeah. So you make sure to actually hit the ball on your
next attempt, and you're a little timid.
What's needed isn't more power, but a way to accurately apply all of the
power that you're capable of unleashing.

We're going to use an inertial guidance system.
Place the club head right up against the ball, right where you want it
to make contact. Now, push a button, wait for the LED indicator to glow
steady, and your club is initialized. That's it. No explosives, no
drama, just wail on the ball with all you've got and the system commands
the club head to return to *exactly* the position where it was
initialized. Sweet.

Right. I see you dont have any electronics knowledge either.

What..did you get your degree in Poli Sci?

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:03:06 -0800, Chrissy Degeer
wrote:

On 1/19/2012 2:57 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:46:30 -0800, wrote:

Gummer:

Which smoking crater? You really dont know any type of engineering at
all do you?

The charge belongs on the back of the club head, as I said.

On the Back of the club head???

****wit: from which side of a jet engine does the thrust emanate? The
back side, you colossally ignorant douchebag.

Thrust on a bullet is towards the shooter? Odd that

Put the charge on the back of the clubhead, idiot. That will accelerate
the clubhead in the same direction in which you wish to strike the ball.

Thats one method. A hardly efficient method, but one method.
But putting a small rocket motor on the clubhead..really wont work very
well in this case Im afraid. Shrug.

Better yet, ****wit, stick to jerking off - that's the only game you
know how to play.

So you really dont know an engineering whatsoever do you?

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On 1/19/2012 1:25 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:03:06 -0800, Chrissy Degeer
wrote:

On 1/19/2012 2:57 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:46:30 -0800, wrote:

Gummer:

Which smoking crater? You really dont know any type of engineering at
all do you?

The charge belongs on the back of the club head, as I said.

On the Back of the club head???

****wit: from which side of a jet engine does the thrust emanate? The
back side, you colossally ignorant douchebag.

Thrust on a bullet is towards the shooter? Odd that

The clubhead is what strikes the ball. You're trying to make the
clubhead go faster. Putting the charge on the front of the clubhead
will slow the clubhead down.

You're stubborn in addition to being pig-**** stupid.


Put the charge on the back of the clubhead, idiot. That will accelerate
the clubhead in the same direction in which you wish to strike the ball.

Thats one method. A hardly efficient method,

Much more efficient than your pig-**** stupid, boneheaded idea.


But putting a small rocket motor on the clubhead..really wont work very
well in this case Im afraid.

Better than your pig-**** stupid, boneheaded idea.


Better yet, ****wit, stick to jerking off - that's the only game you
know how to play.

So you really dont know an engineering whatsoever do you?

"know an engineering"? You're illiterate in addition to being pig-****
stupid and stubborn.

On 01/19/2012 01:22 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:57:51 -0800, wrote:

We're going to use an inertial guidance system.
Place the club head right up against the ball, right where you want it
to make contact. Now, push a button, wait for the LED indicator to glow
steady, and your club is initialized. That's it. No explosives, no
drama, just wail on the ball with all you've got and the system commands
the club head to return to *exactly* the position where it was
initialized. Sweet.

Right. I see you dont have any electronics knowledge either.

Then why don't you specify exactly where you see that?
Nothing I described clashes with any electronics. I haven't described
how the club head would be steered, but that's irrelevant at this point.

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:42:14 -0800, Chrissy Degeer
wrote:

On 1/19/2012 1:25 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:03:06 -0800, Chrissy Degeer
wrote:

On 1/19/2012 2:57 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:46:30 -0800, wrote:

Gummer:

Which smoking crater? You really dont know any type of engineering at
all do you?

The charge belongs on the back of the club head, as I said.

On the Back of the club head???

****wit: from which side of a jet engine does the thrust emanate? The
back side, you colossally ignorant douchebag.

Thrust on a bullet is towards the shooter? Odd that

The clubhead is what strikes the ball. You're trying to make the
clubhead go faster. Putting the charge on the front of the clubhead
will slow the clubhead down.

You're stubborn in addition to being pig-**** stupid.


Put the charge on the back of the clubhead, idiot. That will accelerate
the clubhead in the same direction in which you wish to strike the ball.

Thats one method. A hardly efficient method,

Much more efficient than your pig-**** stupid, boneheaded idea.


But putting a small rocket motor on the clubhead..really wont work very
well in this case Im afraid.

Better than your pig-**** stupid, boneheaded idea.


Better yet, ****wit, stick to jerking off - that's the only game you
know how to play.

So you really dont know an engineering whatsoever do you?

"know an engineering"? You're illiterate in addition to being pig-****
stupid and stubborn.
How old are you Chrissy? I'm thinking maybe 14 or 15. Maybe younger
because it seems like you just discovered insult with bad language. Is
10 or 11 more on the mark?
ERS

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:55:06 -0800, Rich Grise wrote:

I was reading Dave Barry today,
http://www.miamiherald.com/2007/02/1...ear-clubs.html
, where he talks about
an explosive golf club that could propel a ball up to 500 yards:

"The Ballistic Driver is a ''swing-less'' golf club. You grip it as
usual, and you position the head of the club next to the golf ball. But
instead of swinging the club, you press an ''Activator Button'' on the
grip; this detonates a small explosive charge inside the club head,
which causes a metal plate to shoot out the side of the club a distance
of 1.5 inches at a speed of 200 miles per hour. The plate hits the golf
ball, which then, according to the brochure, goes ''250 yards, every
time . . . down the middle, exactly where you aimed it, drive after
drive."

He goes on to say, "''it could theoretically propel the ball 500
yards.'' This means that a pathetic schlump like me could propel the
ball farther than Tiger Woods Inc. hits it on those rare occasions when
he is not filming American Express commercials.

And who knows what lies down the road? I mean, if we can make a club
that can hit the ball 500 yards, why not 1,000? Why not 1,500? Why not a
mile?"

And I wondered, why not a mile? A lot would depend on what kind of
propulsion you used, but I'm guessing the muzzle velocity would be
supersonic.


I only skimmed the thread, so I don't know if it's been mentioned yet.

If I'm remembering correctly, when you look at a high-speed video of a
golf ball being hit, the ball deforms considerably. Then it rebounds off
of the club.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa0j44ydQpQ

Less representative of a real driver hit, but food for your thought:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=AkB81u5IM3I

There has to be some elastic limit reached where it either transmutes
itself into Golf Confetti, or it attains the approximate mechanical
compliance of a rock. In either case, the efficiency of the stroke is
going to be lost.

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com

"Chrissy Degeer" wrote in message
...


The clubhead is what strikes the ball. You're trying to make the clubhead go
faster. Putting the charge on the front of the clubhead will slow the clubhead
down.

Think of it like a shotgun. The powder detonation pushes the shot cup
forward and the gun backwards. Better yet, please try firing a shotgun
by detonating a large charge of powder between your shoulder and the
gunstock. This will demonstrate the principle for you.
Art

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:42:14 -0800, Chrissy Degeer
wrote:

On 1/19/2012 1:25 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:03:06 -0800, Chrissy Degeer
wrote:

On 1/19/2012 2:57 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:46:30 -0800, wrote:

Gummer:

Which smoking crater? You really dont know any type of engineering at
all do you?

The charge belongs on the back of the club head, as I said.

On the Back of the club head???

****wit: from which side of a jet engine does the thrust emanate? The
back side, you colossally ignorant douchebag.

Thrust on a bullet is towards the shooter? Odd that

The clubhead is what strikes the ball. You're trying to make the
clubhead go faster. Putting the charge on the front of the clubhead
will slow the clubhead down.

Putting a charge behind an extending plate on the FRONT of the club will
not only add the Swing velocity and momentum, but will also add the
boost from the chemically fired plate. Will the net result be a
reduction of club speed after a certain amount of time? Yes indeed. But
by that time..the ball will be in flight nicely. Inertia is a wonderous
thing as well. Will it reverse the clubs direction? If you put a
whopping charge in the club, yes it could indeed. It could also grenade
the club head if improperly done.

Im putting a "second stage" on the clubhead.

Further more..the ball flexes when impacted by the club. It squishes
into a "pancake" and when it can no longer squish..it expands away from
the club head, traveling even faster than the club. Adding additional
velocity to the club impact zone will make the ball squish faster and
recoil faster away from the club head.

Setting something like a 32ACP blank inside the clubhead, with the
extending plate being at the end of a very short "barrel" with a pin in
the club head body will insure that the blank isnt fired until the ball
being compressed on the striker plate applies enough force to the plate
itself, and swings the barrel backwards into the clubhead with enough
force to detonate the primer, the blank and now launching the plate
forwards..along with the ball thats packed solidly on it.

You're stubborn in addition to being pig-**** stupid.

Im stubborn indeed. As for being pig **** stupid..Ill leave that up to
you.


Put the charge on the back of the clubhead, idiot. That will accelerate
the clubhead in the same direction in which you wish to strike the ball.

Thats one method. A hardly efficient method,

Much more efficient than your pig-**** stupid, boneheaded idea.

Your opinion is noted with amusment.


But putting a small rocket motor on the clubhead..really wont work very
well in this case Im afraid.

Better than your pig-**** stupid, boneheaded idea.

See above.


Better yet, ****wit, stick to jerking off - that's the only game you
know how to play.

So you really dont know an engineering whatsoever do you?

"know an engineering"? You're illiterate in addition to being pig-****
stupid and stubborn.

An(y) engineering. Your hate, bias, bigotry and buffoonery over a missed
letter is quite telling about the sort of varmint you appear to be.

Now was there anything else you wished to look stupid about?

Or should I simply expose your header infor again and let the people see
you are nothing more than the same buffoon who used a host of names to
troll with? You do know that most trolls are mentally ill, right? And
you are NO eception to that rule.

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:22:49 -0800, beryl wrote:

On 01/19/2012 01:22 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:57:51 -0800, wrote:

We're going to use an inertial guidance system.
Place the club head right up against the ball, right where you want it
to make contact. Now, push a button, wait for the LED indicator to glow
steady, and your club is initialized. That's it. No explosives, no
drama, just wail on the ball with all you've got and the system commands
the club head to return to *exactly* the position where it was
initialized. Sweet.

Right. I see you dont have any electronics knowledge either.

Then why don't you specify exactly where you see that?
Nothing I described clashes with any electronics. I haven't described
how the club head would be steered, but that's irrelevant at this point.


Yes...you certainly havent described anything. However you have made
claims that such is possible with todays technology. Which simply means
you dont have any clue about whats possible and whats....fantasy.

Gunner

One could not be a successful Leftwinger without realizing that,
in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers
and mothers of Leftwingers, a goodly number of Leftwingers are
not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid.
Gunner Asch

Gummer:
...
However you have made
claims that such is possible with todays technology. Which simply means
you dont have any clue about whats possible and whats....fantasy.

Then you shouldn't have any trouble specifying which part of "such" is
impossible with today's electronics technology. What are you waiting
for? I asked, you could have done it already.

beryl wrote:

On 01/17/2012 08:54 PM, jk wrote:

I am a little surprised that no one mentioned the other side of the
thing. The "equal and opposite reaction" thing. It's going to drive
the "club " head backwards. Better be really holding on to the damn
thing. Essentially this is a gun at right angle to, and on the end
of, a yard long stick. That's going to be a bitch to control.

Better would be a similar club that you swung, but that fired on
contact.

The club will come to an instant stop, and hurt your arm.

Not so, or not always so, it all depends on the mass of the ball the
mass of the head, and the force delivered by the charge.

As for "hurt your arm" no more so than a club can do already. People
already have crappy follow through a lot of the time. Sure would make
the game more "interesting" with people out on the course adjusting
powder charges, cleaning their clubs of the fouling etc.



How about... place the explosive charge on the *back* side of the club
head, so that the head is driven into the ball.
Just as (un) likely to "hurt" your arm.

jk

On 01/19/2012 08:13 PM, jk wrote:
....
As for "hurt your arm" no more so than a club can do already. People
already have crappy follow through a lot of the time.

I sure did. Always tended to bend my elbows, instead of rotate at the
shoulders. I think a Rolex would have helped.

How about... place the explosive charge on the *back* side of the club
head, so that the head is driven into the ball.
Just as (un) likely to "hurt" your arm.

Combining an explosive charge with inertial guidance would let golfers
concentrate on style.