VERY Confused, Swingweight for Dunlop Aerogel 100 vs 200 ?
- Thread starter Fedace
- Start date
i sort of wonder that myself.
you can post facts, evidence, theories, myths, video footage, scientific data from nasa employees and still no matter what you say, unless it is "Fedace you are 100% correct" you will get an argument.
but by all means, don't stop, I find this thread highly entertaining. Also I would question the education of anyone who says they are as smart and college educated as Fedace yet has never learned to counterpoint an argument better than "I'm right, your wrong".
Most college educated people I know have enough reason, deduction and people skills to at least hold an argument in a polite and constructive manner, even over the interweb, but what the hell do I know?
ls206
Hall of Fame
I think you could expand that to most people
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
yes, that's true. BUT the static weight on the 200 is higher, and distributed in a more polarized fashion. you can still get the same balance if you place lead (or just frame weight) in the handle and the head, because the weight in the head is farther from the balance point than weight in the throat will be, the swingweight increases geometrically. on the 100, the weight is focused in the throat, meaning the frame is depolarized. it can have the 7 pts headlight balance because most of the weight is right there at the balance point, but closer to the handle. the swingweight won't be terribly high with this arrangement, but will allow for more total weight while keeping a low swingweight.
conversely, the 200 feels, and probably is, more polarized, meaning the weight is distributed closer to the ends of the frame. the balance point will be maintained if the weight is distributed properly, but because the weight is furthur from the axis of rotation, the swingweight is affected in a greater way per ounce, or gram, than the 100.
i seriously dont know why you wont accept this, there's no reason not to. other than insane stubbornness.
you're as stubborn as Nadal_Freak (and it's not a compliment)
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
prove that statement. are you telling me there's no way to get weight into the frame of a constant beam? you're really not living up to your claimed degree. frames are hollow, and you can add weight on the inside of them. it's not really that hard.
how does it not apply to the SW argument?
i'm not sure why you feel it doesnt, because it actually completely does.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
HeadPrestige
Professional
i can't believe this thread is still going
Fedace
Banned
Are you trying to say that every racquet that is the same thickness from throat to head has the weight distributed equally?
edit: haha, I don't know what the SW argument is anymore, I think Fedace forgot a long time ago too
I really think, you guy's definition would be valid in the world of Quantum physics but i dont' think it is valid in Newtonial physics.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
I really think, you guy's definition would be valid in the world of Quantum physics but i dont' think it is valid in Newtonial physics.
oh shutup with your physics crap. physics are physics. its your argument that doesnt hold up in any realm of physical science, not ours. we have backed up our arguments with factual evidence, including mathematics based formulas, yet you still sit there like you're all high and mighty thinking you're smarter than us, despite all evidence in this thread to the contrary.
i feel this is a good representation of you right now.
mawashi
Hall of Fame
vsbabolat
G.O.A.T.
I think Fedace is confusing balance with swingweight.
This is a photo of how you measure a racquet's swingweight on a Babolat RDC Machine.
This is a quote from a competing website by a racquet stringer and customizer for the Pros on Tour that goes by the name REBOB on the website:
"As you may have guessed, I use an RDC swing weight scale, so I am not that familiar with the stopwatch method although I have seen it demonstrated. Your assumption that the swing weight is simply a matter of a calculation of the weight and balance would not allow the scenario you provided in the hypothetical. Since if both racquets weighed the same and had the same balance then their SW would be the same. The difference is explained that you can have 2 racquets with the same weight and balance, say 300 grams and an even balance. Racquet 1 has 150 grams on each end, while racquet 2 has all 300 grams at the center. They will have vastly different swing weights and feel. That is an absurd analogy, of course, but it does demonstrate the difference in SW and balance."
This is a photo of how you measure a racquet's swingweight on a Babolat RDC Machine.
This is a quote from a competing website by a racquet stringer and customizer for the Pros on Tour that goes by the name REBOB on the website:
"As you may have guessed, I use an RDC swing weight scale, so I am not that familiar with the stopwatch method although I have seen it demonstrated. Your assumption that the swing weight is simply a matter of a calculation of the weight and balance would not allow the scenario you provided in the hypothetical. Since if both racquets weighed the same and had the same balance then their SW would be the same. The difference is explained that you can have 2 racquets with the same weight and balance, say 300 grams and an even balance. Racquet 1 has 150 grams on each end, while racquet 2 has all 300 grams at the center. They will have vastly different swing weights and feel. That is an absurd analogy, of course, but it does demonstrate the difference in SW and balance."
Last edited:
Fedace, I'm not saying you're dumb or ignorant or anything. I'm just saying that someone mathematically solved your question you asked yet you refuse to believe it saying that he had errors in his calculations yet you fail to point out the errors. If your statements had a little more validity in them then more people would believe you.. meaning you need to back your sh*t up with some facts dude...
and aristotle was a smart man indeed but even he was wrong.. accept it and move on
and aristotle was a smart man indeed but even he was wrong.. accept it and move on
oh shutup with your physics crap. physics are physics. its your argument that doesnt hold up in any realm of physical science, not ours. we have backed up our arguments with factual evidence, including mathematics based formulas, yet you still sit there like you're all high and mighty thinking you're smarter than us, despite all evidence in this thread to the contrary.
i feel this is a good representation of you right now.
It's far worse than that. It's a. . .
Fedace-FAIL
-SF
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
really funny. too bad you don't know anything about quantum physics.
Fedace
Banned
what are you talking about,,,i practically pioneered the connection between string theory and 11th dimentional physics....
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
hahaha...as if you knew what string theory was.
Fedace
Banned
I am one of the pioneers that established the connection between string theory and 11th dimentional physics. i don't think you even knew there was a connection, do you ??? This had been one of the most controvertial subject in theoratical physics for last 5 years.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
i know you need a spelling program on your computer, because you're missing every other word.
you're not actually impressing anyone with your banter, and despite your claims, you haven't shown proof of your so-called pioneering connection. i seriously doubt you have any idea what you're talking about. at least you know string theory exists, which means you're not totally clueless.
edit: fedace ran away again. i guess the fact that i was about to question him on M-theory and its contents was too frightening, especially because he was about to be proven wrong.
Last edited:
mtommer
Hall of Fame
I had forgotten to mention the most important element in determining swingweight that hasn't been brought up yet. This is of course string tension. I checked with TW and yep, sure enough the 200 was strung higher than than the 100 when they did their test. In order for the string to be in tension it must be held by a weight at that tension. Without any weight there can't be tension. Now, as you can clearly see from a strung racquet the tension isn't lost when we eventually take it off the stringing machine. Therefore the string must hold weight within it for it is still in tension. It is this difference in string weight (higher tension equals more weight) that explains why the swingweight for the 100 is so much lesser than the 200. Simple Fraudian physics here folks.
And Fedace, 11th dimension? That is soooooo old news. If you want to talk about 329th dimension applications as they relate to string theory then we might have an interesting conversation. Well, depending on how versed you are in 329th full poly string theory at any rate.
And Fedace, 11th dimension? That is soooooo old news. If you want to talk about 329th dimension applications as they relate to string theory then we might have an interesting conversation. Well, depending on how versed you are in 329th full poly string theory at any rate.
anirut
Legend
Fedace, you remind me of something.
Here's the story.
If ever you've follow the troubling political situation here in Thailand, you'll know the troubles were actually caused by a group of people calling themselves the PAD.
Now the name PAD stood for "People's Alliance for Democracy", when actually they not for democracy at all.
This name is to LURE people into believing that they're doing it for democracy when, in reality, the group was actually planned by the dictator-group (a lot of the upper class people) wanting to crush the lower classes.
And what the PAD does is telling LIES - a lot of it - and kept going with lies until people believed that it was the truth. They were so successful with lies that the people were willing to hold the two airports as hostages and crumbling the nation's economy, much to the satisfaction of the upper classes, I should think.
So, Fedace, I've seen a lot of the PAD action in real life.
And I don't wanna see it on a webboard.
BTW, the PAD has its name. But I call it the "Pathetic Alliance for Dictatorship".
Here's the story.
If ever you've follow the troubling political situation here in Thailand, you'll know the troubles were actually caused by a group of people calling themselves the PAD.
Now the name PAD stood for "People's Alliance for Democracy", when actually they not for democracy at all.
This name is to LURE people into believing that they're doing it for democracy when, in reality, the group was actually planned by the dictator-group (a lot of the upper class people) wanting to crush the lower classes.
And what the PAD does is telling LIES - a lot of it - and kept going with lies until people believed that it was the truth. They were so successful with lies that the people were willing to hold the two airports as hostages and crumbling the nation's economy, much to the satisfaction of the upper classes, I should think.
So, Fedace, I've seen a lot of the PAD action in real life.
And I don't wanna see it on a webboard.
BTW, the PAD has its name. But I call it the "Pathetic Alliance for Dictatorship".
Last edited:
BreakPoint
Bionic Poster
The most critical factor to swingweight is actually the weight distribution. You can have two racquets with the same static weight, same length, and even same balance but two very different weight distributions.
What are you smoking?
Shangri La
Hall of Fame
That makes a good signature...lol
mawashi
Hall of Fame
Last edited:
mtommer
Hall of Fame
(hint: sarcasm)
ag200boy
Hall of Fame
Yes i should have realized the "DarthVader" avatar was you ..... As you say THE WAY THE WEIGHT IS DISTRIBUTED IN TWO FRAMES, tells me exactly NOTHING. and FEELS like weight is more throat downwards while 200 is more even.......NOT........
FACT: Balance Points do not lie, unless TW has it wrong ?? 200 is 8 pts head light whereas 100 is only 7 pts headlight.
"DESPITE THE BALACE POINTS" ??????????????????????????/ now you are talking feelings NOT facts......
so i say my theories on Swingweigh is correct and you say yours is right, we have different Opinions on what SW is,,,,,,Lets leave it at that...
i will try to explain this in a way that a complete idiot can understand
you have 2 racquets, both with the same balance point, the X represents where the weight is located:
racquet A:
XXX-----------------XXX
racquet B:
--------XXXXXX---------
racquet A has weight farther from the axis of rotation, resulting in a higher swingweight
EDIT: sorry clayisfun already posted this. and fedace somehow managed to say a rod with 5 g on either side and a rod with 10g in the middle had different static weight?
fedace, if you cant even comprehend simple concepts like 5+5=10, how are we supposed to believe that you were one of the pioneers of the relationship between string theory and 11th dimensional physics.....
Last edited:
d-quik
Hall of Fame
i am dealing with a similar type of oblivion in another thread but since it is a very alien topic, i do not have the numerical support found here against fed-ace.
its okay, giving up "arguing" with an idiot. but when the aforementioned idiot actually believes that you got schooled and that it is you, not the idiot, thats a moron, its really annoying. whatever.
its okay, giving up "arguing" with an idiot. but when the aforementioned idiot actually believes that you got schooled and that it is you, not the idiot, thats a moron, its really annoying. whatever.
I could be wrong but wasn't this theory first developed and explored in the early 80's?
also isn't the string theory, superstring theory, or M-theory have to do with a common thread that connects all physics? Isn't this the unifying field theory that Einstien was working on?
I guess my point is what the hell does this have to do with tennis and swingweight?
I really thought this stuff was all about common threads to explain physics and the big bang theory, but I could be wrong
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
it has nothign to do with swingweight, he just likes trying to prove his supremacy. however, his claim of connecting 11 dimension physics with string theory is not only false, but nearly impossible, as the level of analysis required of both theories would be on such a level that i doubt he would be flaunting it here.
if i was that smart, i'd be smart enough not to brag.
string theory is now commonly applied to all theories and mathematical formulas related to that idea, and includes in that description 'string theory' all of the mentioned, including M-theory and superstring theory, right up to supergravity and greater than 3 dimension theories.
at least, this is what i've come to understand in my limited schooling on the subject (psychology majors don't tend to take advanced physics courses, but i wanted the challenge
)it has nothign to do with swingweight, he just likes trying to prove his supremacy. however, his claim of connecting 11 dimension physics with string theory is not only false, but nearly impossible, as the level of analysis required of both theories would be on such a level that i doubt he would be flaunting it here.
if i was that smart, i'd be smart enough not to brag.
string theory is now commonly applied to all theories and mathematical formulas related to that idea, and includes in that description 'string theory' all of the mentioned, including M-theory and superstring theory, right up to supergravity and greater than 3 dimension theories.
at least, this is what i've come to understand in my limited schooling on the subject (psychology majors don't tend to take advanced physics courses, but i wanted the challenge
well it's nice to know I didn't burn all those brain cells away in college.
tyler_durden
New User
well, i know i'm a first time poster here,
but seriously, fedace what is wrong with you? cmon man, stop being so arrogant and listen to some of the people here.
and if no one is giving you the answer you're looking for just leave it be. why dont you just go out and play some tennis instead of wasting all your time here?
i'm sure your game could use improvement, and i think practicing is a better use of your time than posting as you are
but seriously, fedace what is wrong with you? cmon man, stop being so arrogant and listen to some of the people here.
and if no one is giving you the answer you're looking for just leave it be. why dont you just go out and play some tennis instead of wasting all your time here?
i'm sure your game could use improvement, and i think practicing is a better use of your time than posting as you are
tyler_durden
New User
Ok, but then, if you already knew the answer to your question, why'd you ask it? I don't get it.
If you're trying to show us you're smart then this is a stupid way to do it.
Again stop wasting your time with this bull and practice.
Seriously, does it even matter if the swing weight differs between the ag 200 and the ag 100? who cares?
anirut
Legend
Fedace is trying Hitler's technique here.
He knows he's wrong but keeps saying he's right.
This, psychologically, may result in other people getting confused and take a sway towards his "lies" because he stood one-leggedly to say he's right, making himself look so credible.
This is how "false prophets" are made and they use this method to hypnotize their prey.
He knows he's wrong but keeps saying he's right.
This, psychologically, may result in other people getting confused and take a sway towards his "lies" because he stood one-leggedly to say he's right, making himself look so credible.
This is how "false prophets" are made and they use this method to hypnotize their prey.
Fedace, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this board is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.NOTHING,,,, i have a feeling that all those years ago, they probably told him the same thing when he said,,,,world Is ROUND, not flat. and the critics said,,, wtf is wrong with you...??? how sad is that...
D
Deleted member 25923
Guest
A simple wrong would have been fine.
A classic quote nonetheless, one of my favorites.
Brownie points to whoever figures out what movie it's from.
Btw AT9, how's your maestro treating you?
Billy Madison FTW!
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
I do not know where Fedace's sincere miss belief of swing weight ends in this thread and where he begins to play along with the utter stupidity of his rationalizations; but I know that what credibility he had a person capable of rational thought is ruined, not by ignorance but arrogance.
-SF
-SF
This is a very typical ploy of some TW posters who post stuff that anyone knowledgable on the subject knows is wrong....they are tenacious and outpost the person who is right, so therefore consider themselves the victor and often bring some gullibles along for the ride. typically they have nothing of substance to contribute so they resort to creepy personal affronts
