Author Topic: Interesting Thought on CG in Symmetrics (Read 953 times)

BrunsWolf · « **on:** August 03, 2007, 02:57:59 PM »

While driving around town today, instead of watching the road, i was thinking about the holy war on here regarding CG placement. As i ran a stop sign, the following idea came to mind.

Just because symmetric balls are symmetric, it doesn't mean that they have to have the same type of symmetry. If you look at the core of the Original Inferno, you will notice that it is only laterally symmetric if cut where the ring goes around the core. The early BVP core and the Monster cores (bell/mushroom) have radial symmetry. (The Fury also has radial symmetry, just not 360* of it and also horizontal symmetry)

My point of the idea:

Imagine turning a laterally symmetric object around its center axis (pin), lets say like a school binder. When it turns, there is a notable difference in the attributes and how the binder's center of gravity (someplace towards the spine of the binder)moves with it moving. Also, think what would happen if you "throw" it by holding it in a different place everytime while keeping it facing up (pin in the same spot).

Now lets look at a radially symmetric object, like a light bulb. When you turn it around its vertical/central axis, there is no difference in the movement of the bulb's center of gravity. Hold it from the bottom so the top (pin) is up and, when thrown, it will travel the same way that if you rotated it 90*, keeping the top facing the same way.

I know this is probably just another crazy thought of mine, but it "could" be why there was a difference in all of the tests done. I'm in no way shape or form a physicist (but hope to be one day). All i'm saying is that it could be nothing or could mean a lot. Not that I belive that the debate would end because of some kid's philosophy.

I just want to know your thoughts on my thought. Hopefully, it might just make us all think a little bit more.

On a side note, wouldn't it be intersesting if the company leading the CGMADDAHS pact makes cores that cause less difference due to 40* radial symmetric cores (or however many corners the diamonds have)?

Anyway, i'd like to hear everyone's comments!

--------------------
Today:......was it you?........or was it the Laneman?.......or was it God?

Unoffical Youth Brunswick Staffer
Yea, I'm a crown bearer. Why aren't you???

Jared Wolf
Jonesboro, AR
http://brunswick802.bowlspace.com/

Edited on 8/3/2007 11:25 PM

Steven · « **Reply #1 on:** August 03, 2007, 11:26:59 PM »

Jared: Don't run stop signs over the CG issue.

It's not worth it.

As for the following:

quote:
I know this is probably just another crazy thought of mine, but it "could" be why there was a difference in all of the tests done.

It's good that you're thinking, but the reality is that all the tests pointed to showing that CG matters to some degree. The debate is endless on weather it matters for mere mortals. But the point is that the original Brunswick video visually showed it mattered (even though it was unintended), the Lane#1 demonstration by Richie showed it mattered, and the recent USBC tests concluded it mattered. It's all there for anyone willing to evaluate things without bias.

Accept this and you won't be forever searching for a magic answer that doesn't exist. It's all very simple in this case.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

BrunsWolf · « **Reply #2 on:** August 03, 2007, 11:29:33 PM »

"But the point is that the original Brunswick video visually showed it mattered (even though it was unintended)"

Mathematically, it was the same if i remember correctly from the CATS analysis
--------------------
Today:......was it you?........or was it the Laneman?.......or was it God?

Unoffical Youth Brunswick Staffer
Yea, I'm a crown bearer. Why aren't you???

Jared Wolf
Jonesboro, AR
http://brunswick802.bowlspace.com/

Steven · « **Reply #3 on:** August 04, 2007, 12:07:22 AM »

quote:
Mathematically, it was the same if i remember correctly from the CATS analysis

Plot diagrams are supposed to be graphical representations of reality. Given this, don't you think it's odd that the plot showed no difference between the positive shots going through the nose, while the final negative shot struck?

Given the Brunswick video, if you we're plotting what you visually took in for the purpose of communicating with others, would you create a graph that suggested all the shots were the same?

If you're honest, you wouldn't.

Over time, you'll learn to evaluate presented 'facts' for yourself and make you own evaluations. The Brunswick video is a good starting point for that lesson.
--------------------
"Sometimes, the best move is the one we don't make"

BrunsWolf · « **Reply #4 on:** August 04, 2007, 02:12:04 PM »

anyone else have any thoughts?
--------------------
Today:......was it you?........or was it the Laneman?.......or was it God?

Unoffical Youth Brunswick Staffer
Yea, I'm a crown bearer. Why aren't you???

Jared Wolf
Jonesboro, AR
http://brunswick802.bowlspace.com/

Verbs · « **Reply #5 on:** August 04, 2007, 03:59:05 PM »

A wise man has said that while the difference in where and how the cg is placed is not absolutely zero, it isn't much.

In my unscientific thinking, if your released the ball exactly the same, at the exact same speed, with the exact same trajectory on a lane where the condition NEVER changed, then the well trained human eye could possibly see a minor difference. But until this person is born or made

, for all intent, the cg placement makes VERY LITTLE difference in ball reaction.

Now pay attention to your driving!!

Verbs
--------------------
Larry Verble

Author Topic: Interesting Thought on CG in Symmetrics (Read 953 times)

BrunsWolf

Interesting Thought on CG in Symmetrics

Steven

Re: Interesting Thought on CG in Symmetrics

BrunsWolf

Re: Interesting Thought on CG in Symmetrics

Steven

Re: Interesting Thought on CG in Symmetrics

BrunsWolf

Re: Interesting Thought on CG in Symmetrics

Verbs

Re: Interesting Thought on CG in Symmetrics