OAT Vs. turn over

[dreadlock86]

man, this thread should have ended with garublador's first post

or nbiebel's post

 

[CwAlbino]

God, I hate classical mechanics, so I won't chime in much. I feel like I've seen this several times, that the torque is going around the disc, which is not true. The torque is a vector pointing downward in this case. Unless of course you're treating it as a bivector coming off the exterior product, in which case the clockwise motion is the orientation given along with the orthogonal direction.

Off axil torque if taken literally in this case, which is apparently what is being argued (I don't really know, I skimmed 85% of this thread), just implies as you apply your force to the disc (the one that makes it go spin), you don't keep the disc in a level plane (what ever that angle plane may be is irrelevant).

I think you are just interpreting what Rameka said differently than what he said it. Torque on the disc doesn't have to be circular and on the edge to be clockwise or counter clockwise. It could just be meant to mean direction in his case.

 

[CwAlbino]

man, this thread should have ended with garublador's first post

or nbiebel's post

What, so useful discussion about the flight of discs and how this goes together with physics is a bad thing? Maybe we should make more hole 8 joke threads, or sexiest women threads, or perhaps some politics crap that has nothing to do with disc golf. I have to pick and choose between what I want to post in nowadays because it's just riddled with spam and "use the search feature" bull****. If you don't want to partake in the discussion, then just don't click on the thread.

 

[optidiscic]

What, so useful discussion about the flight of discs and how this goes together with physics is a bad thing? Maybe we should make more hole 8 joke threads, or sexiest women threads, or perhaps some politics crap that has nothing to do with disc golf. I have to pick and choose between what I want to post in nowadays because it's just riddled with spam and "use the search feature" bull****. If you don't want to partake in the discussion, then just don't click on the thread.

Amen
shame on those of us who wanna talk disc golf

 

[MattMan]

I think you are just interpreting what Rameka said differently than what he said it. Torque on the disc doesn't have to be circular and on the edge to be clockwise or counter clockwise. It could just be meant to mean direction in his case.

Could you clarify this statement, because I don't think you said what you meant to say. In the world of mathematics (and subsetly physics), how you say something (wording and order of wording) can be infinitely more important than what was actually said. (That was more geared at the entire thread. So many inconsistencies and in fact, falsities.)

 

[tom8658]

God, I hate classical mechanics, so I won't chime in much. I feel like I've seen this several times, that the torque is going around the disc, which is not true. The torque is a vector pointing downward in this case. Unless of course you're treating it as a bivector coming off the exterior product, in which case the clockwise motion is the orientation given along with the orthogonal direction.

Off axil torque if taken literally in this case, which is apparently what is being argued (I don't really know, I skimmed 85% of this thread), just implies as you apply your force to the disc (the one that makes it go spin), you don't keep the disc in a level plane (what ever that angle plane may be is irrelevant).

It depends on which torque you're talking about. The force applied by the thrower to spin up the disc points down for a rhbh throw, but torque created by the difference between the center of mass and the center of lift is normal to the angular momentum.

If you want to interpret "off axis torque" literally, it just means any torque which is not parallel to the torque applied to create spin. Sometimes you can use this to shape a shot, and sometimes it creates "wobble". I think generally when people talk about OAT, they are actually talking about forces, not torques, but since the r vector is a constant at the moment of release, it's equivalent if not precisely correct.

 

[tom8658]

In the world of mathematics (and subsetly physics), how you say something (wording and order of wording) can be infinitely more important than what was actually said.

Amen.

I've yet to read a satisfactory explanation for what causes the disc to turn (RHBH, flies to the right at high[er] speed). Nor can I offer one myself. The fade of a flying disc seems pretty straight-forward to me.

Turn is the same effect as fade, just in the opposite direction. The pitching moment caused by the difference between the center of mass and the center of lift causes the disc to roll (turn or fade). The only difference is whether the center of lift is ahead of or behind the center of mass, which depends on the forward velocity of the disc.

This paper is very good, and has wind tunnel data -
http://www.discwing.com/research/aerodynamics.html

 

[dreadlock86]

What, so useful discussion about the flight of discs and how this goes together with physics is a bad thing? Maybe we should make more hole 8 joke threads, or sexiest women threads, or perhaps some politics crap that has nothing to do with disc golf. I have to pick and choose between what I want to post in nowadays because it's just riddled with spam and "use the search feature" bull****. If you don't want to partake in the discussion, then just don't click on the thread.

no, no, not a bad thing at all. it's just that physics is not a matter of opinion. the first couple pages were mostly people spewing nonsense about "what OAT is for me".
garu and nbiebel were the first ones to correctly define OAT and describe how it affects the flight of discs and then half a dozen people proceeded to disagree with them.
in the thread's defense, the last couple pages have been much more interesting. but in terms of the OP's question, look no further than the first page for the answer.

i love that people are talking about the physics of a flying disc. technique and form were totally abstract enigmas for me until i understood the flight mechanics. when i got that, everything made sense and i understood why good form is good form and how to more effectively manipulate disc flight.

 

[dreadlock86]

oh, and i guess it was garu's 2nd or 3rd post. just to be thorough.

 

[cfair]

What, so useful discussion about the flight of discs and how this goes together with physics is a bad thing? Maybe we should make more hole 8 joke threads, or sexiest women threads, or perhaps some politics crap that has nothing to do with disc golf. I have to pick and choose between what I want to post in nowadays because it's just riddled with spam and "use the search feature" bull****. If you don't want to partake in the discussion, then just don't click on the thread.

I know I don't post in here but I just wanted to say why. I kind of understand where dreadlock is coming from. DGR is all about this kind of stuff and a lot of what you guys are talking about is better explained and talked about there because of the people involved. Discgolfreview.com

Blake T, Dan Beto, Mark Ellis, I think Garret Guthrie, Fran Delicious, Bradley Walker, and a number of other well ranked pro players post there regularly (regularly for DGR that is). I understand its useful to you guys though. It is useful to know after all, but check their posts out. I think you'll be pleased.

Where do you think garu gets so much of his info? calm down garu, we know your smart.

 

[xJFK]

I know I don't post in here but I just wanted to say why. I kind of understand where dreadlock is coming from. DGR is all about this kind of stuff and a lot of what you guys are talking about is better explained and talked about there because of the people involved. Discgolfreview.com

Blake T, Dan Beto, Mark Ellis, I think Garret Guthrie, Fran Delicious, Bradley Walker, and a number of other well ranked pro players post there regularly (regularly for DGR that is). I understand its useful to you guys though. It is useful to know after all, but check their posts out. I think you'll be pleased.

Where do you think garu gets so much of his info? calm down garu, we know your smart.

cool guys.
shut down DGCR everything we wanna know is already on DGR. let's pack it up and move out.

 

[garublador]

Where do you think garu gets so much of his info? calm down garu, we know your smart.

"So much" is an understatement. "Pretty much all" would be a more accurate.

FWIW, I got lost several pages ago. It seems we were arguing semantics on the first page and then people who understand aerodynamics and mechanics much better than I do started talking intelligently.

Here's what I want others to take from all of this:

You can force a disc to act more or less overstable than "intended." It's good to be able to do this on purpose, it's bad if you can't control it.

 

[CwAlbino]

Could you clarify this statement, because I don't think you said what you meant to say. In the world of mathematics (and subsetly physics), how you say something (wording and order of wording) can be infinitely more important than what was actually said. (That was more geared at the entire thread. So many inconsistencies and in fact, falsities.)

Sorry I shoulda quoted etc and gone more in-depth

God, I hate classical mechanics, so I won't chime in much. I feel like I've seen this several times, that the torque is going around the disc, which is not true. The torque is a vector pointing downward in this case. Unless of course you're treating it as a bivector coming off the exterior product, in which case the clockwise motion is the orientation given along with the orthogonal direction.

Off axil torque if taken literally in this case, which is apparently what is being argued (I don't really know, I skimmed 85% of this thread), just implies as you apply your force to the disc (the one that makes it go spin), you don't keep the disc in a level plane (what ever that angle plane may be is irrelevant).

Here you are talking about OAT and the torque that tries to push the disc off it's gyroscopic axis.

Here where I was quoting Rameka, I believe he's talking about spin, and the forces/torque that create the spin. Which is clockwise.

Wrong, Here is the correct definition of turn.

Turn: When a disc is fired off, it carries a lot of speed in its initial path. This causes the disc to act like it ignores the friction of air for a short period of time. Because we can count air friction as having a negligible effect during this period, all that factors into the tendency of the disc is torque. The direction of torque on a RHBH throw is clockwise (if seen from above).

I know I don't post in here but I just wanted to say why. I kind of understand where dreadlock is coming from. DGR is all about this kind of stuff and a lot of what you guys are talking about is better explained and talked about there because of the people involved. Discgolfreview.com

Blake T, Dan Beto, Mark Ellis, I think Garret Guthrie, Fran Delicious, Bradley Walker, and a number of other well ranked pro players post there regularly (regularly for DGR that is). I understand its useful to you guys though. It is useful to know after all, but check their posts out. I think you'll be pleased.

Where do you think garu gets so much of his info? calm down garu, we know your smart.

I don't read DGR, you can thank FrankDelicious for that. I see/do enough trolling on gaming forums that his actions here have totally turned me off of DGR.

 

[cfair]

^^^

HA! Thats frank. Just let frank be frank and don't let him get to you, you never have meet him in real life. BTW he is here too as well. Sans admin power.

 

[cfair]

cool guys.
shut down DGCR everything we wanna know is already on DGR. let's pack it up and move out.

I'm not saying shut down DGCR, I'm just saying when it comes to the technique section most the trusted people on the site (garu, three putt) get/share their info on DGR because the guys on DGR have put the form of the game through a lot to figure it out.

DGCR has its merits...