Do big people have a natural distance advantage?

[dtuba]

Well, let's see what I got: Height? (5'7" on a good day)Nope. Weight? (NOYFB) Too much. Flexibility? Not really. Coordination? Hah, forget it. Strength? Mayyybe.

Any way you slice it, I'm f***ed.

 

[ColonelDracula]

Well, let's see what I got: Height? (5'7" on a good day)Nope. Weight? (NOYFB) Too much. Flexibility? Not really. Coordination? Hah, forget it. Strength? Mayyybe.

Any way you slice it, I'm f***ed.

Strength, coordination, and flexibility can be vastly improved. It's true.

And Paul McBeth's 5'8" 150lbs?

 

[garublador]

In that sense, an arm is not like a trebuchet, because the garvitational acceleration of the weight on the trebuchet is constant, and the rate at which an object falls is not dependent on its size or weight. The only reason the amount of weight matters on a trebuchet counterweight because it must have enough momentum counter the weight of the object to be launched, and it is a heavy object.

Physics sense tingling....

I think you have the right idea with that explanation, but the wording isn't correct. The rate at which the counterweight falls is dependent on the weight of the counterweight because there is an opposing force (the object being launched). Because the acceleration due to gravity is the same on both sides, more mass on the counterweight will give you more force and more force will give you more acceleration. In other words, you have to look at the difference in forces between the two sides (force = mass * acceleration due to gravity * length of lever) of the fulcrum to get the overall force acting on the system and then use that force and the mass of the counterweight to calculate the rate of acceleration.

So the rate at which the counterweight falls depends on the weights of the objects, the acceleration due to gravity and the moments (distance from each weight to the fulcrum). It doesn't just depend on the acceleration due to gravity.

The point that acceleration is constant given the two weights is a good one because we can vary acceleration using our muscles, but I'm not sure it helps in this instance because a constant acceleration isn't one of the reasons that device works. It would work better if you could increase acceleration after activating the device.

So if you could set up a trebuchet on some sort of rocking platform that would allow you to increase acceleration using some added centripetal acceleration you could get more out of a trebuchet. Of course if you don't get the timing of the rocking platform correct you have the opportunity to make the device work worse rather than better.

 

[dtuba]

Strength, coordination, and flexibility can be vastly improved. It's true.

Thanks Colonel. Am working on flexibility. Have been clumsy and un-coodinated my whole life so I'm not sure if this can be changed. Oh well. I have fun, gol dangit!

 

[Rol6566]

Physics sense tingling....

I think you have the right idea with that explanation, but the wording isn't correct. The rate at which the counterweight falls is dependent on the weight of the counterweight because there is an opposing force (the object being launched). Because the acceleration due to gravity is the same on both sides, more mass on the counterweight will give you more force and more force will give you more acceleration. In other words, you have to look at the difference in forces between the two sides (force = mass * acceleration due to gravity * length of lever) of the fulcrum to get the overall force acting on the system and then use that force and the mass of the counterweight to calculate the rate of acceleration.

So the rate at which the counterweight falls depends on the weights of the objects, the acceleration due to gravity and the moments (distance from each weight to the fulcrum). It doesn't just depend on the acceleration due to gravity.

The point that acceleration is constant given the two weights is a good one because we can vary acceleration using our muscles, but I'm not sure it helps in this instance because a constant acceleration isn't one of the reasons that device works. It would work better if you could increase acceleration after activating the device.

So if you could set up a trebuchet on some sort of rocking platform that would allow you to increase acceleration using some added centripetal acceleration you could get more out of a trebuchet. Of course if you don't get the timing of the rocking platform correct you have the opportunity to make the device work worse rather than better.

This has to be the smartest thing ever posted on a Disc Golf site :thmbup:

 

[jenb]

more mass on the counterweight will give you more force and more force will give you more acceleration. In other words, you have to look at the difference in forces between the two sides (force = mass * acceleration due to gravity * length of lever) of the fulcrum to get the overall force acting on the system and then use that force and the mass of the counterweight to calculate the rate of acceleration.

So the rate at which the counterweight falls depends on the weights of the objects, the acceleration due to gravity and the moments (distance from each weight to the fulcrum). It doesn't just depend on the acceleration due to gravity.

Understood. The point that I thinki needs to be emphasized is that increasing the length of the lever has far more effect on the force than increasing the weight. And as someone has already pointed out, the weight of discs is so insignificant compared to the average adult, that increasing the weight of the adult would not make much difference, even if the throwing person were like a trebuchet. In fact, the increase in the weight of the person is likely to increase the weight of the person's hand, forearm, etc. proportionally, which is actually resisting the throwing effort, so there is no reason to think that weight increase will yield a benefit, and may result in a slower throw. But thinking about the trebuchet is helpful in understanding that the leverage provided by throwing arm length is especially significant as a factor.

You get bonus points for saying "centripetal acceleration" instead of "centrifugal force." Tha'ts a pet peeve of all of us physics degreed peeps.

 

[garublador]

Understood. The point that I thinki needs to be emphasized is that increasing the length of the lever has far more effect on the force than increasing the weight.

Don't they have proportionally the same effect on the force? Doubling either the mass of the counterweight or the length of the lever will double the moment, right? And I'm really asking because most of my physics knowledge is in the electronics, not the dynamic systems. I totally agree that actually using our arms as levers correctly will have a way bigger effect on how far we throw compared to increasing the "mass," which in this case is how "hard" you move the levers. Most people concentrate on the latter and that's how you get "strong arming."

You get bonus points for saying "centripetal acceleration" instead of "centrifugal force." Tha'ts a pet peeve of all of us physics degreed peeps.

I didn't realize I was talking with someone with a physics degree. I'm surprised I was correct.

 

[CwAlbino]

Understood. The point that I thinki needs to be emphasized is that increasing the length of the lever has far more effect on the force than increasing the weight. And as someone has already pointed out, the weight of discs is so insignificant compared to the average adult, that increasing the weight of the adult would not make much difference, even if the throwing person were like a trebuchet. In fact, the increase in the weight of the person is likely to increase the weight of the person's hand, forearm, etc. proportionally, which is actually resisting the throwing effort, so there is no reason to think that weight increase will yield a benefit, and may result in a slower throw. But thinking about the trebuchet is helpful in understanding that the leverage provided by throwing arm length is especially significant as a factor.

You get bonus points for saying "centripetal acceleration" instead of "centrifugal force." Tha'ts a pet peeve of all of us physics degreed peeps.

lol we got that drilled into our heads by our high school physics teacher. Of course being high schoolers we proceeded to say centrifugal whenever humanly possible.

 

[bikinjack]

Physics sense tingling....

I think you have the right idea with that explanation, but the wording isn't correct. The rate at which the counterweight falls is dependent on the weight of the counterweight because there is an opposing force (the object being launched). Because the acceleration due to gravity is the same on both sides, more mass on the counterweight will give you more force and more force will give you more acceleration. In other words, you have to look at the difference in forces between the two sides (force = mass * acceleration due to gravity * length of lever) of the fulcrum to get the overall force acting on the system and then use that force and the mass of the counterweight to calculate the rate of acceleration.

So the rate at which the counterweight falls depends on the weights of the objects, the acceleration due to gravity and the moments (distance from each weight to the fulcrum). It doesn't just depend on the acceleration due to gravity.

The point that acceleration is constant given the two weights is a good one because we can vary acceleration using our muscles, but I'm not sure it helps in this instance because a constant acceleration isn't one of the reasons that device works. It would work better if you could increase acceleration after activating the device.

So if you could set up a trebuchet on some sort of rocking platform that would allow you to increase acceleration using some added centripetal acceleration you could get more out of a trebuchet. Of course if you don't get the timing of the rocking platform correct you have the opportunity to make the device work worse rather than better.

Is this not the definition of torque instead of force? Torque = Force X Displacement. Force = Mass X Acceleration. So Torque = Mass X Acceleration X Displacement.

 

[i_throw_bricks]

Is this not the definition of torque instead of force? Torque = Force X Displacement. Force = Mass X Acceleration. So Torque = Mass X Acceleration X Displacement.

Torque = Force * Arm length (or radius, whichever you choose)
Work = Force * Displacement

And to say Work = mass * acceleration * displacement would be an over-simplification because it does not account for force applied to overcome friction. It is more true to state

Net force = mass * acceleration

but

Work = Applied force * displacement

 

[i_throw_bricks]

Torque = Force * Arm length (or radius, whichever you choose)
Work = Force * Displacement

And to say Work = mass * acceleration * displacement would be an over-simplification because it does not account for force applied to overcome friction. It is more true to state

Net force = mass * acceleration

but

Work = Applied force * acceleration

Actually,

work = applied force in the direction of displacement * displacement

 

[garublador]

Is this not the definition of torque instead of force? Torque = Force X Displacement. Force = Mass X Acceleration. So Torque = Mass X Acceleration X Displacement.

Correct. And torque is a different name for a rotational force.

lol we got that drilled into our heads by our high school physics teacher.

And two, 5 credit physics classes plus a statics and dynamics, cross engineering elective.

 

[sidewinder22]

Interestingly, Steve Brinster just this afternoon said, "He looks like he is built to bomb." Referring to an up and coming local player that is rather tall and lanky.

 

[The dude on the bike]

As long as we are being intellectual jocks here would you say tall people have more speed or more quickness?

 

[AirMcNair]

As long as we are being intellectual jocks here would you say tall people have more speed or more quickness?

Depends on how tall but I would say speed. Quickness to me is lateral movement.

After reading this whole thing I have to say you people are crazy. The first 5 pages were the same thing being said 10 different ways.

All I know is that I am 6'1 180 and can throw 400'+ but I don't most of the time because I rather throw more accurately. 95% of the time I am reaching for a teebird throwing it 360'.

The most important thing (next to putting) in this sport is throwing accurately. Distance is overrated.

 

[ShopTom.com]

My brother is 6" and 100# more than me yet I out drive him every time.

 

[Triflusal]

My brother is 6" and 100# more than me yet I out drive him every time.

well, yeah, if he is 6 inches tall

 

[jtbingster]

well, yeah, if he is 6 inches tall