|
|
Post by utchuckd on Feb 4, 2007 9:44:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by airraider on Feb 4, 2007 10:09:41 GMT -6
I own a 44 magnum, and I can say with all certainty that no one throws a pass equivalent to 4 rounds from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Feb 4, 2007 10:23:40 GMT -6
I own a 44 magnum, and I can say with all certainty that no one throws a pass equivalent to 4 rounds from it. Spaced out over the surface area of a football...it is possible. Doesn't "Feel" like it because the force is spread out over a wider area... I teach physics, and believe it or not, it is true |
|
|
|
Post by coach79 on Feb 4, 2007 12:48:32 GMT -6
I could see how all that is possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by fbdoc on Feb 4, 2007 15:55:06 GMT -6
Neat stuff - Professor cqmiller, I'll believe you if you say it's true. Physics is the only class I ever dropped in college!
|
|
|
|
Post by bulldog on Feb 5, 2007 19:15:13 GMT -6
I've read Tim Gay's book. It is a little light on the math, but I think he geared it to the average coach. Obviously, he knows what he is talking about. He has a website that has some topics: physics.unl.edu/outreach/football.htmlYou will need Quicktime to view the video lessons. I would recommend the book, but most coaches who have borrowed the book returned it shortly. As for the bullet, you are considering the velocity of the bullet, not the force it delivers. If you remember that F=ma, the mass of the bullet is the real limiter in the equation. I use physics in teaching my players all the time. Most of it is to give reasons to what most football coaches already know: - why to stay low (center of mass, rotation) - don't stop your feet (momentum wins collisions) - keep your head up (collisions and axial loading) |
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Feb 5, 2007 19:49:47 GMT -6
F=ma.........that's why my 165 lb. LB (4.7 forty) hits A LOT harder than my 190 lb. LB (5.1 forty)
|
|
|
|
Post by captain31 on Feb 5, 2007 22:13:57 GMT -6
According to this:
F=Eckel
|
|
|
|
Post by bulldog on Feb 6, 2007 1:03:08 GMT -6
The winner of a collision is actually determined by momentum, not Force.
P=mv
The equation shows why you will lose a collision when velocity = 0 - you will have zero momentum, and therefore no ability to win. It also shows that (all other things equal) mass can be overcome by speed.
A 165 lb, 4.7 kid (at top speed) should generate the same momentum as a 190 lb kid who runs 5.4, or a 179 lb kid who runs 5.1. The 'other factors' include who is lower relative to their center of mass (hitting either high or low of center of mass will cause rotation) and the angle of incidence or 'hitting on the rise'. Some kids tend to accelerate into collisions, and some tend to be high. A male player's center of mass is about his belt buckle, so lowering the shoulders so that they are parallel to the CM (flat back) delivers more mass in the collision.
|
|
tedseay
Sophomore Member
Posts: 164
|
Post by tedseay on Feb 6, 2007 2:03:51 GMT -6
...and don't forget the mechanical advantage offered by angle blocking...
|
|
|
|
Post by dubber on Feb 6, 2007 16:02:02 GMT -6
The winner of a collision is actually determined by momentum, not Force. P=mv The equation shows why you will lose a collision when velocity = 0 - you will have zero momentum, and therefore no ability to win. It also shows that (all other things equal) mass can be overcome by speed. A 165 lb, 4.7 kid (at top speed) should generate the same momentum as a 190 lb kid who runs 5.4, or a 179 lb kid who runs 5.1. The 'other factors' include who is lower relative to their center of mass (hitting either high or low of center of mass will cause rotation) and the angle of incidence or 'hitting on the rise'. Some kids tend to accelerate into collisions, and some tend to be high. A male player's center of mass is about his belt buckle, so lowering the shoulders so that they are parallel to the CM (flat back) delivers more mass in the collision. you're right |
|
|
|
Post by cqmiller on Feb 6, 2007 23:12:41 GMT -6
This thread could turn into what I call, "A Geek Revalation" in my classes really fast...good to see some people paid attention in school...unlike most my students!
|
|
|
|
Post by bulldog on Feb 7, 2007 10:55:55 GMT -6
Knowing physics and being good at science and math does not make someone a 'geek'.
From Wikipedia:
"The social and rather derogatory connotations of the word make it particularly difficult to define. The difference between the terms "geek" and "nerd" is widely disputed, as the latter might be identified as someone who is unusually intelligent, and the former as someone who has an eccentric interest towards a certain category or topic. Below are some definitions of the word; all are still in use to varying degrees."
They go on to list a bunch of definitions. But as everyone on this board has a passion for football could we ALL be called 'football geeks'? Perhaps. But as anyone who is interested in Physics AND Football, we fall outside of the formal definition of a geek since we have divergent passions.
Was this response 'geeky'? Maybe.
|
|
