Author Topic: Lane#1 Report - Physics Research Results Posted at Lane1 (Read 1360 times)

WillynHook · « **on:** August 21, 2006, 04:20:11 AM »

To all:

The physics experimental and theoretical research report is now posted
at Lane#1. As with anything scientific, start with the summary, then go back and read
all the rest of the material. Read carefully, it is specific. Calculus knowledge is a plus,
but I tried to wrap understandeable discussions around all of it.

http://lane1bowling.com/tech/lane1_report.html

Dr. Joe

--------------------
Dr. Joseph Howard
Joe's Physics Page

"Imagine what you could do,
if you could do what you imagine"

F.O.S. Member & Physics Researcher
Uranium Pearl - 16 lbs
Uranium Solid - 15 lbs
Cobalt Bomb - 15 lbs
Tsunami H^2O - 15 lbs
Bullet - 16lbs
XXXL - 16lbs
Lane 1: 4 Ball Roller

CG_Matters · « **Reply #1 on:** August 22, 2006, 09:33:34 AM »

Gonna be lots of crow eaters out there today.

Nails · « **Reply #2 on:** August 22, 2006, 09:47:57 AM »

quote:
This is amazing!!!

Here we start to show the smoking gun about advantage the Diamond or Dual Cone (conical) core has over other shapes with pure math and yet I have waited to see the nay-sayers come out in full force.

I know it stings when all that you believe in proven to not be as you thought. I bet some of you that believed the Diamond's core claim was crap, now feel how the rest of the world felt when they learned that *gasp* the world was round, or even more amazingly that the *gasps louder* that the earth isn't the center the of universe.

Now does all this wonderful information make the Lane #1 balls better than the rest? No, as match-up can overcome the slightly increased energy retention.

I enjoyed the report and what I could understand, so WillynHook, thanks for all that hard work, but I would love to see measurements based off of the difference between a Morpheous 2.0 core or the "Vanguard" core.

Thanks!!

-IEQ
--------------------
Our Team is proudly sponsored by Lane #1

We placed 1st during our trimester!!! Show me the money!!!!!!!

Guess what?? I gotta a Fev-ah, and the only prescription...... is more cowbell.

More of that Lane#1 humility that wins you so many fans.

I only had time to look at the summary so far, but I didn't see what I'd call absolute truth. Comparing a cone like shape to a sphere or a cube is pretty meaningless since those pure shapes aren't exactly used much. Second, the densities of the core make a big difference. Especially now that Lane#1 themselves have added more offset mini diamonds that change how it would roll compared to a true diamond. A diamond will roll different than a diamond with an offset heavy spot, right? So, if that matters for a diamond, then it matters just as much for other shapes as well. Third, conservation of energy isn't the only factor that matters or we wouldn't see much diversity in core shapes and densities. Asymmetric cores are popular because sometimes you want the ball to lose more energy quickly. The fast spin times allow the ball to transition from hook to roll at (hopefully) the correct time.
--------------------
Telling it like it is.

WillynHook · « **Reply #3 on:** August 22, 2006, 11:38:09 AM »

quote:
The problem is that Dr. Joe assumes all cores have the same size (radius?), mass, and rotational velocity in the summary portion. If you think this is true, please slap yourself.

It is not a "problem" - it was a choice to highlight the
differences that only the shape of a core will produce.
Since it is often the "shape" of the core that is argued about, that is the choice in the calculations that I made. Of course, all balls are tossed with
different rotational velocities, have cores of different sizes, masses, etc.
I chose to highlight the differences in "SHAPE."

Dr. Joseph Howard
Joe's Physics Page

"Imagine what you could do,
if you could do what you imagine"

F.O.S. Member & Physics Researcher
Uranium Pearl - 16 lbs
Uranium Solid - 15 lbs
Cobalt Bomb - 15 lbs
Tsunami H^2O - 15 lbs
Bullet - 16lbs
XXXL - 16lbs
Lane 1: 4 Ball Roller

Edited on 8/22/2006 12:44 PM

WillynHook · « **Reply #4 on:** August 22, 2006, 12:01:06 PM »

quote:
Going back in the report, there are large differences between theoretical and actual numbers. The theoretical moment of inertia of the diamond core is 5.20x10^-3 kgm^2 and the actual is 3.144x10^-3 kgm^2 if I understand the data correctly. The differences are similar for the Cherry and Voodoo core. And these are numbers for only one axis. Where are the other two? Am I missing them? Or are the second numbers for the other axis? If so, those should be tabulated and explained in the summary. Not the theoretical values.

You are missing the point of the experimental section. (Which is probably my fault for not wrapping an explaination around it.) The theoretical calculations
are for constant density perfect solids of a given shape (the actual cores were not). The theoretical calculations were used to see how close these
perfect solid moment of inertia numbers would be to the actual experimental values. The theoretical numbers were in fact very close to the experimental numbers
which allows me to say that the theoretical comparisons of the core SHAPES are scientifically valid. After showing that the experimental values
and theoretical values are close enough I was then able to do the comparisons
to all the other possible rotational axes in the theoretical work. Again,
I was comparing the "shapes" of the cores. Not the cores.

I did work to scientifically compare the "shapes." The only way to
determine how a "shape" will influence the physical behavior of an object
is to keep all the other variables fixed (i.e. mass, radius(size), density, etc). I wanted to answer the question: "if we keep all the other variables
of a core the same and ONLY THE SHAPE is different" what can be concluded?"

I'll add more thoughts later. I'm off to a meeting.

--------------------
Dr. Joseph Howard
Joe's Physics Page

"Imagine what you could do,
if you could do what you imagine"

F.O.S. Member & Physics Researcher
Uranium Pearl - 16 lbs
Uranium Solid - 15 lbs
Cobalt Bomb - 15 lbs
Tsunami H^2O - 15 lbs
Bullet - 16lbs
XXXL - 16lbs
Lane 1: 4 Ball Roller

Edited on 8/22/2006 11:59 AM

Ragnar · « **Reply #5 on:** August 22, 2006, 12:05:16 PM »

{brief hijak}

quote:

I'll add more thoughts later. I'm off to a meeting.

Ah, yes, the bane of academic life. Or, how administrators try and limit productivity, thereby justifying lower salaries.

(hope your not an admin, Dr. Joe. BTW, this report is great stuff.)
--------------------
"I do desire that we may be better strangers." Willie the Shake, As You Like it(III,ii)
http://ystig.com/spaghetti.jpg

Myser · « **Reply #6 on:** August 22, 2006, 12:26:12 PM »

Dr. Joe did do a fair amount of work, but I really don't see it as meaning much. Also doesn't talk about why having a larger moment of inerta is an advantage, it seems to me that you would want a lower moment of inerta when there is very little friction and a higher one when there is a lot of friction.
--------------------
Born a Lefty... Forced to become right handed...

I have a NIB 16lb TOO HOT that I have no intrested in msg me if you want it (it was a prize)

T Brockette · « **Reply #7 on:** August 22, 2006, 03:04:33 PM »

Thank god this dumb redneck doesn't have a clue what ya'll are talking about.

--------------------
Tracy

absoluteisanidiot · « **Reply #8 on:** August 22, 2006, 03:29:53 PM »

Inertia when hitting the pins.

Ragnar · « **Reply #9 on:** August 22, 2006, 03:32:04 PM »

Tracy, he's talking about scoring (with bowling pins). Hose will chime in later to discuss scoring with hot chicks.
--------------------
"I do desire that we may be better strangers." Willie the Shake, As You Like it(III,ii)
http://ystig.com/spaghetti.jpg

WillynHook · « **Reply #10 on:** August 22, 2006, 05:04:02 PM »

To All:

quote:
Gonna be lots of crow eaters out there today.

There should be no crow eating over this work on either side. I only
looked at one aspect of the overall ball design - specifically the core
shape. The work did not look at the entire ball - that will be future
research.

What can be said is that when Richie says, "the ball generates 20% more energy,"
he is not just "making stuff up" to sell balls because there is some
valid reasoning behind the statement. I would prefer that instead of the
word "generates" that it was "retains" because in science the word "generates"
has very specific and important meaning.

quote:
I know it stings when all that you believe in proven to not be as you thought. I bet some of you that believed the Diamond's core claim was crap, now feel how the rest of the world felt when they learned that *gasp* the world was round, or even more amazingly that the *gasps louder* that the earth isn't the center the of universe.

Yeah, that is a bit over the top. I didn't "prove" anything. I did lend some
weight and credence to the claims that Lane#1 uses to sell the idea behind
their "diamond core" and thus also their ball designs to bowlers. Lane#1 is
not just expousing unsupportable claims to sell balls.

quote:
Comparing a cone like shape to a sphere or a cube is pretty meaningless since those pure shapes aren't exactly used much.

They are used more than you think. And/or the "base" stucture in quite a few
of the cores start with these shapes. I hope to begin looking at more exotic
shapes next, but the calculus is...well...scary to ponder.

quote:
Second, the densities of the core make a big difference.

Absolutely true. I can increase the density of the spherical core or double
the radius and get very different numbers. However, I was looking at
differences in the shape, not the density.

quote:
Third, conservation of energy isn't the only factor that matters or we wouldn't see much diversity in core shapes and densities. Asymmetric cores are popular because sometimes you want the ball to lose more energy quickly. The fast spin times allow the ball to transition from hook to roll at (hopefully) the correct time.

Nails, you know your stuff. I have no problems with these statements either.
And, in fact, that is part of the point of the research project. The shape of
the core DOES MATTER in how energy is retained and transfered down the lane
and ultimately to the pins. You and Lane#1 agree to at least that point.

quote:
More of that Lane#1 humility that wins you so many fans.

Unfortunately, that goes for all sides.

quote:
Dr. Joe did an amazing amount of work to explain and calculate the moment of inertia when all that information can be found in 15 minutes of Google searching.

Yes, I am sure you can "find" a lot of answers to moments of inertia using
google, but that is not scientific research nor teaching. This was a project
undertaken by a student and myself to fully explore and USE techniques in
calculus, experimental data, critical analysis, etc.... Let me tell you,
I have greatly spruced up my own mathematical skills after this project.
It was also a great exercise for my student and I to design and build an
experimental rotational appartus to make actual measurements.

quote:
Ah, yes, the bane of academic life.

No comment, but yes.

quote:
Also doesn't talk about why having a larger moment of inerta is an advantage, it seems to me that you would want a lower moment of inerta when there is very little friction and a higher one when there is a lot of friction.

Yes, sure sounds good. What about at the pins? Seriously, I'd like to see
some debate about this from you or others.

Whew,... this is a long response to some things. I am greatly enjoying the
debate about the Lane#1 Report - I would only ask that we keep it civil.

Dr. Joe

--------------------
Dr. Joseph Howard
Joe's Physics Page

"Imagine what you could do,
if you could do what you imagine"

F.O.S. Member & Physics Researcher
Uranium Pearl - 16 lbs
Uranium Solid - 15 lbs
Cobalt Bomb - 15 lbs
Tsunami H^2O - 15 lbs
Bullet - 16lbs
XXXL - 16lbs
Lane 1: 4 Ball Roller

Author Topic: Lane#1 Report - Physics Research Results Posted at Lane1 (Read 1360 times)

WillynHook

Lane#1 Report - Physics Research Results Posted at Lane1

CG_Matters

Re: Lane#1 Report - Physics Research Results Posted at Lane1

Nails

Re: Lane#1 Report - Physics Research Results Posted at Lane1

WillynHook

Re: Lane#1 Report - Physics Research Results Posted at Lane1

WillynHook

Re: Lane#1 Report - Physics Research Results Posted at Lane1

Ragnar

Re: Lane#1 Report - Physics Research Results Posted at Lane1

Myser

Re: Lane#1 Report - Physics Research Results Posted at Lane1

T Brockette

Re: Lane#1 Report - Physics Research Results Posted at Lane1

absoluteisanidiot

Re: Lane#1 Report - Physics Research Results Posted at Lane1

Ragnar

Re: Lane#1 Report - Physics Research Results Posted at Lane1

WillynHook

Re: Lane#1 Report - Physics Research Results Posted at Lane1