3/13/2021 0 Comments Model Golf Screensaver
Vaughan 4 and Neal and Wilson 2 performed three-dimensional (3D) inverse dynamic analyses of the golf swing whi ch described the kinetics at the golfers wrist; however, perha ps more rel- evant to future golf swing modelling research, both stud ies concluded that the shaft did not move in a constant plane.The model incorporates a flexible club shaft and a variable swing plane.A genetic algorithm was developed to optimise the coordination of the models mathematically represented muscles (torque generators).The kinematic and kinetic results confirmed previous findings on the proximal.
Model Golf Screensaver Generator T MParameter values for the muscular torque generators used to power the model Generator T m (N m) s act (ms) s deact (ms) x max (rads) C Depiction of the convention used to express the angular position of the Torso, Shoulder and ClubProximal, the most proximal club segment. The club was modelled as four rigid segments connected by rotational spring-damper elements Golfer model segment parameters Convention used to express the arms longitudinal rotation. ![]() Model Golf Screensaver Free Public FullDiscover the worlds research 20 million members 135 million publications 700k research projects Join for free Public Full-text 1 Content uploaded by Sasho James Mackenzie Author content All content in this area was uploaded by Sasho James Mackenzie Content may be subject to copyright. Sprigings Published online: 2 July 2009 International Sports Engineering Association 2009 Abstract Previously, forward dynamic models of the golf swing have been planar, two-dim ensional (2D ) represe nta- tions. Research on live golfers has consistently demonstrated that the downswing is not planar. This paper introduces and evaluates the validity of a 3D six-segment forward dynamics model of a golfer. The model incorporates a exible club shaft and a variable swing plane. A genetic algorithm was developed to optimise the coord ination of the models mathematically represented mus cles (torque generators) in order to maximise clubhead speed at impact. The kinematic and kinetic results conrmed previous ndings on the proximal to distal seque ncing of joints and the muscles powering those joints. The validity of the mathem atical model was supported through comparisons of the mode ls swing kinematics and kine tics with those of a live golfer. Intro duction Over the past 40 years, the golf swing has been analysed using kinematic 1, inverse dynamic 2 and forward dynamic 3 methods. The appropriateness of the method depends on the research qu estion being addresse d. For example, a kinematic analysis provides a description of the motion and is suitable for describing the orientation of a golfers swing plane 1. An inverse dynamic method estimates the underlying kinetics for a particular swing and, as on e exampl e, is appropri ate for estimating the torque acting at the wrist duri ng the downswing 4. Forward dynamic methods widen the scope of possible research questions by permitting what if questions to be investi- gated 5. Provided the forward dynamic mode l is valid, a researcher can investigate such things as the inue nce, on clubhead speed, of an optimally delayed wrist torque 6. Regardless of the method, most researchers have made simplifying assumptions to make the analysis tenable. The key is to ensure that the simplication is inconsequential to the particu lar questio n being addresse d. A recurrent simplication in the golf swing literature has been the assumption that the downswing can be rep- resented as a movement occurring in a single const ant plane 3, 6 16. However, there is research which suggests the downswing is not planar.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |