Aitor wrote:Some video analysis tools allow us to know where the fulcrum really is. For this cast the fulcrum wasn't in the upper hand. It never is there.
I need a lot more info that that Aitor, which cast in particular are you referring to?
Come on Aitor you will have to do much better than that.
How do I know the guy taking the test was really capable of being top hand neutral? Maybe you could bring the machine to my place, Im sure you will get a different reading!
I wasn't trying to put myself as an example of anything (of anything good, that is ). It is just an example of an analysis tool that tells us where the center of rotation of the system is.
You could send a video to Gordy showing a cast with the fulcrum style and see what the results are.
I bet that no good cast can have the fulcrum in the upper hand.
Aitor is not like us, he is Spanish, and therefore completely mad.
Cheers, Paul
No discutas nunca con un idiota, la gente podría no notar la diferencia.
Immanuel Kant
Aitor wrote:I wasn't trying to put myself as an example of anything (of anything good, that is ). It is just an example of an analysis tool that tells us where the center of rotation of the system is.
You could send a video to Gordy showing a cast with the fulcrum style and see what the results are.
I bet that no good cast can have the fulcrum in the upper hand.
You have a strong opinion on something that appears to clearly be unproven Aitor.
Why would a top hand fulcrum cast be as inept as you suggest?
See, I can't say anthing about the distribution of power between hands on pics, that shows hand/rodposition only. Even in a video it is hard to "truely see" for me or to analyze. Even standing next to the caster...
I can't.
What I also want to add here is, that there seems to be a confusion about the fulcrum itself. Aren't you mixing up the real fulcrum, that lies in the tophand of Robert and something I would call a "virtual fulcrum", that lies between the two hands?
Isn't it only a point of view or, how Einstein would call it, the frame of reference?
A simple example: where is the fulcrum on a steamlocomotives driving conrod?
On the wheel?
Or "somewhere on the conrod" as we usually "see" it? (clearly not)
Juergen Friesenhahn wrote:What I also want to add here is, that there seems to be a confusion about the fulcrum itself. Aren't you mixing up the real fulcrum, that lies in the tophand of Robert and something I would call a "virtual fulcrum", that lies between the two hands?
Isn't it only a point of view or, how Einstein would call it, the frame of reference?
Hi Juergen,
The definition of a fulcrum for our purposes would be "a point around which a lever rotates"
That can be a "real fulcrum" - in our case the lever rotates around a point supported by a hand or an "imaginary fulcrum" - an unsupported rotation point.
Now clearly the two cannot exist on the same lever at the same time. That so far has been at the core of the discussion.
(Actually the two can co-exist but it's a physics trick question which I may post up for interest at another time).
During most casts the fulcrum point moves, it starts below the caster and moves towards the hand/s. It's possible to use a DHD as purely first, second and third class levers. But I don't think anyone does this!
There is an equation for a moving fulcrum point, but I don't need to know it! It came up when we were discussing the definition of Stroke Length :p
I have a pretty good idea if someone is top or bottom hand dominant by watching them, as I'm sure we all do!
Juergen Friesenhahn wrote:What I also want to add here is, that there seems to be a confusion about the fulcrum itself. Aren't you mixing up the real fulcrum, that lies in the tophand of Robert and something I would call a "virtual fulcrum", that lies between the two hands?
Isn't it only a point of view or, how Einstein would call it, the frame of reference?
Hi Juergen,
The definition of a fulcrum for our purposes would be "a point around which a lever rotates"
That can be a "real fulcrum" - in our case the lever rotates around a point supported by a hand or an "imaginary fulcrum" - an unsupported rotation point.
Now clearly the two cannot exist on the same lever at the same time. That so far has been at the core of the discussion.
(Actually the two can co-exist but it's a physics trick question which I may post up for interest at another time).
To quote Robert again,
"If there is a see saw on the back of a truck at a parade and the truck is moving, there is no change in the fulcrum on the see saw, or its position on the see saw."
This analogy really did it for me and suggests that indeed a fulcrum and a moving fulcrum can be one and the same.