Slinging.org Forum
https://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl
General >> General Slinging Discussion >> Absolute maximum slinging length
https://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1499008756

Message started by Leon on Jul 2nd, 2017 at 11:19am

Title: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Leon on Jul 2nd, 2017 at 11:19am
Hi.

I'm planning on making an enormous, maybe slightly over the top sling.

What do you guys think is the absolute maximum length you can make a sling while not losing practicality?

the point of this is obviously to get as much range as i can with this.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by kicktheotter on Jul 2nd, 2017 at 12:28pm
My longest sling is a massive 115cm long from the centre of the pouch to the end of the release cord and to be honest I think that's getting close to usable with regular throws. I have to use helicopter style with it but I have managed to pull off a fig 8 throw a few times but each time it felt like my arm was going to come off. Changing the throwing technique to be like a hammer toss (spinning around and then throwing which is the style Timpa uses) would probably mean you could make longer but you can say goodbye to anything like accuracy at that point. :D I can count on one hand the number of times I've had a successful shot that's landed exactly where I want with my long sling so even longer is going to be really difficult. I find with distance I can actually get a lot further with shorter slings but that may be because of the construction of the sling. It has a very wide pouch and the cords are braided cotton so not the lightest and thinnest. With distance I think that is more key than length. If the sling can move through the air quickly and impart most of the energy into the rock (or whatever ammo it is) then that is what will give you distance.

So in conclusion, You can get them pretty long but if you want distance you really need them light and thin. At least that's my opinion :D

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Leon on Jul 2nd, 2017 at 4:22pm
Isn't it a problem when you have such a huge sling to make it thin while not breaking it due to the centrifugal force?

also, i'm guessing i'm gonna make mine about 1m from the center. that sounds decent enough i guess.

some more questions:
what i was using for my previous slings was regular 4mm cord, three-strained with two cords per strain. should i keep using this way of making them and switch to thinner cord? or should i just make them in a different manner entirely? and if so, what cord thiccness is best?

also, to prevent confusion, are slings always measured from the center of the pouch to the knot?
i'm new here you see...

Thanks a lot :)

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Jul 2nd, 2017 at 5:10pm

Leon wrote on Jul 2nd, 2017 at 4:22pm:
are slings always measured from the center of the pouch to the knot?


yes


Leon wrote on Jul 2nd, 2017 at 4:22pm:
Isn't it a problem when you have such a huge sling to make it thin while not breaking it due to the centrifugal force?


centrifugal force will lower if the radius of curvature gets longer.
but longer slings have more circular wind ups than shorter slings which have more ellipsoid wind ups.

so a longer slings may end up having the same amount of centrifugal force of shorter , that may explain why some get longer distances with shorter slings.


i once used 3m sling from 0,8mm rope and heavy rocks, i tried pirouette(better) and underhand while standing on a rock , results: boring loading and wind up and relatively weak throws.


if you are going for pirouette style do experiments on lengths if you are going for non pirouette style then 1,5m is probably the limit.

pirouette styles have very good potential for range but not accuracy, it also needs a lot of training.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHJ61W579DY watch at 1:38 if you can do pirouette as fast as he can with a 1,5m sling you may reach 100m/s :P


these may interest you :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSEqUMUzbZo i think he's mr boss

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TOVJaSDWmw

http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1237429291/0

http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1340590771/0

http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1175645485/45

Timpa has a very good pirouette
https://www.youtube.com/user/TimpaLinkosling

https://linko-sling.jimdo.com/



Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by kicktheotter on Jul 3rd, 2017 at 2:04am
That's it! Pirouette! I completely blanked on the name last night :D

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Jul 3rd, 2017 at 7:20am
I wouldnt worry about your sling breaking from centrifugal force. Any decently strong cordage will stand up to it without a problem. Paracord for example is rated at 550 pounds. If you got anywhere near that during a throw you could kiss your throwing arm goodbye.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Curious Aardvark on Jul 3rd, 2017 at 9:11am
Really thin cords aren't actually that necessaary.
Both luis and jaegoor tend to use fairly heavy duty distance slings. The weight of the cords actually helps get it up to speed. You're essnetially smashing your way thrugh the atmosphere rather than trying to slice your way through.

The absolute length ofa sling depends to a certain extent on how tall you are.
Around 50 inches is about the practical maximum.

Weirdly while I tend to use metric for all other measurements - height of a person and sling lengths, only seem to make sense in imperial :noidea:

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Leon on Jul 3rd, 2017 at 1:20pm

Curious Aardvark wrote on Jul 3rd, 2017 at 9:11am:
Weirdly while I tend to use metric for all other measurements - height of a person and sling lengths, only seem to make sense in imperial :noidea:

I think it sounds weird to use the metric system in the English language. I just still use metric cause im used to it.

Mine turned out to be around 110cm. Which i'm guessing is somewhat appropriate to my height, since i'm 193cm.

I'm probably gonna make a shorter one though, cause i find it only works well with the pirouette. The pirouette technique was a lot easier than i expected, btw.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Jaegoor on Jul 3rd, 2017 at 2:07pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiLrJ9qEcks

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Rat Man on Jul 4th, 2017 at 6:59pm
When you first start slinging super long slings are a viable way to achieve  great distance. As your form improves you'll find that such slings are no longer necessary. Through much trial and error I have found that for any style but Pirouette, which is fun but innacurate, a sling half the length of your body, folded length, will give you the most distance. That said, I would never tell you to not experiment. Make super long slings and have some fun launching ICBMs. 

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by JudoP on Jul 5th, 2017 at 5:00am
I still struggle getting better range on long slings, my best range comes from about 32-33'' paracord/leather pouch or paracord seatbelt sling.

It just feels a bit woolly above about 36'' for me, feels like my arm action overtakes the sling unless I slow it down deliberately. You can throw heavy rocks more easily though.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Curious Aardvark on Jul 5th, 2017 at 8:00am
yeah with longer slings, technique becomes crucial.

As a short arse, I'm good up to about 40 inches. But no good on slings longer than that. 

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Jul 5th, 2017 at 8:29am
"yeah with longer slings, technique becomes crucial."

That's been my experience as well. I am no distance slinger and don't have the skill to use a really long sling effectively.  They can be fun though, especially with very heavy stones for maximum destruction.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Leon on Jul 5th, 2017 at 11:24am
As said before, it throws really well with the pirouette, but it really seems to only work with the pirouette. Confirming what Aardvark said. It did however get me about 100m of reach (estimated) with some rather crudely made and very heavy and big concrete projectiles. So when you're just looking to have some fun and see some nice destruction (which is what I've mostly been doing so far) it's just for you.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by kicktheotter on Jul 5th, 2017 at 12:23pm
I wish I could see some cool destruction with my long sling but I basically never hit the target :D

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Jul 5th, 2017 at 12:41pm
@Leon what's your record range with a sling?

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Leon on Jul 7th, 2017 at 11:44am

johan wrote on Jul 5th, 2017 at 12:41pm:
@Leon what's your record range with a sling?

Honestly i have no idea, i usually just do a rough estimation using google maps. I've also never used metal ammo yet, and i've also not slung (is that even a correct term?) for that long yet. So far i got about 100 meters with the smaller examples of the concrete projectiles i made.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Rat Man on Jul 7th, 2017 at 2:55pm
I once slung about 200 yards, estimated with Google Earth,  but that was some time ago. I probably couldn't sling that far now. 

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by kicktheotter on Jul 7th, 2017 at 4:37pm
I'm terrible with measurements (like I actually have a learning disability with maths and being terrible at working out distance is a symptom) so I have no idea what my longest range is but using Google Maps is a great idea, I might try that out.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Jul 8th, 2017 at 7:48pm

johan wrote on Jul 2nd, 2017 at 5:10pm:
these may interest you :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSEqUMUzbZo i think he's mr boss


I'm not saying my pirouette is the best. But I think Mr. Boss takes too many steps. Any extra stepping will take speed away.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Jul 8th, 2017 at 8:07pm
Oh yes. This must be put to this  :) :) :)
4m+65cm ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq8YmtTe-_U

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Leon on Jul 9th, 2017 at 5:46pm
whats the range on that?

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by jlasud on Jul 10th, 2017 at 2:32am
1.5 meter sling is the longest I made and used. I couldn't sling further with it, than with my 1.1m sling, as you can't do higher angle shots like 40 degrees,but I could sling big potato size rocks at 150 m with it. It had like 1-2mm thick cords,as long,thick cords, are quite unresponsive at release, and have a big trail angle. Accuracy with them, is another story ...   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agdbbSlT8Mo

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Jul 13th, 2017 at 7:54pm

Leon wrote on Jul 9th, 2017 at 5:46pm:
whats the range on that?

I have not been able to try a suitable lake shore. The nearby lake has too much tree branches at a low level. But now that the thing reminded me, this summer is going to have to find a suitable beach.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by jlasud on Jul 15th, 2017 at 9:36am
I wanted to break the world record,for myself but couldn't get past 350 meters with lead glans . I didn't invest much training in it yet..

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Jul 15th, 2017 at 7:43pm
I have not tried bi-pointed lead. But still I think about 300m around is beginning to be a limit to me   :(

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:39pm

Jaegoor wrote on Jul 3rd, 2017 at 2:07pm:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiLrJ9qEcks


Hallo Jaegor - das hier ist mein erster Post auf "slinging.org", aber ich beobachte dich und deine "Wurfkünste" (Videos u. deine eigene Website) schon seit längerem und wollte auch der "nördlich verorteten Mittelalterszene" schon längst mal mitteilen, dass zumindest ihre Schleuderer nicht "alleine" sind, sondern auch Fans und "Spezialisten" in der Gegend um Nürnberg haben.

Ich selbst schleudere schon seit dem Tage, da "Ayla und der Clan des Bären" erstmalig in den deutschen Kinos uraufgeführt worden ist, denn die "Schlüsselszene" hat mich förmlich aus dem Kinosessel springen lassen und "begeistert", wie nichts sonst in der Welt (zu dieser Zeit war ich halt auch erst 20 Jahre alt und verstand mich selbst noch als so ne Art "Tarzan", der nirgends lieber, als in deutschen Wäldern zuwege war).   

Dein Video macht jedenfalls ausgesprochen deutlich, dass man das Steine-schleudern mit der "Hirtenschleuder" nicht mit dem "Hammerwerfen" oder "Pirouetten-drehen" verwechseln sollte, denn mit letzterem ist allenfalls noch das Gewicht des Geschosses zu steigern, aber nicht die Wurfweite für Geschosse in der "Gewichtsklasse" 100 bis maximal 400 Gramm.

Für Wurfweiten über 250 Meter sind Schleuderfrequenzen nötig, die man weder mit der hier vorgestellten "Pirouette", noch mit super-langen Hirtenschleudern hinkriegen würde, denn gerade die noch machbare Schleuderfrequenz und erreichbare Bahngeschwindigkeit (des Geschosses) hängt sehr stark vom Verhältnis zwischen Schleuder~ und Armlänge ab.

Eine Schleuder mit mehr als 140 cm Länge (foldet) bekommt ein nur 180 cm großer Mann nicht mehr ordentlich auf "Touren", also würde ab da auch seine Wurfleistung wieder stark abfallen, wenn er sich an noch wesentlich längeren Schleudern versuchen würde.

Also gegen "Pirouetten" ist freilich nichts grundsätzliches Einzuwenden, aber das Hammerwerfen verfolgt eben auch ganz andere Ziele, nämlich im engeren Sinne des Wortes überhaupt kein Ziel (target), sondern nur "größtmögliche Wurfweiten für Massen über 6 kg" (in der olymp. Disziplin schleudern die Männer ein "Hammergewicht" von genau 16 engl. Pfund, also fast 7,3 kg).   

Das Steinschleudern ist aber eher mit dem Golfen zu vergleichen: Ziemlich kleine Geschosse, (mitunter) sehr weit entfernte Ziele (Löcher) und sehr präzise "Schüsse" um gleich ein sog. "Ass" zu landen (Einlochen mit nur einem einzigen Abschlag).



The essence of my long german speech in english:

The pirouette style may be good for throwing "hammers" (around 16 lbs. or up to 2 lbs.), but not for slingig light weightet stones under 400 gramms.

In order to throw smaller masses as far as possible (... aaand acurate the same time!), the reachable frequence of "pirouettes" is too low. These frequence and resulted speed of stone also is too low if the slings measure (length) is to high.

I guess for man with height of 1,80 m, the lenght of his sling should not exceed 1,4 meters. Best length may be between 100 und 130 cm.

The "target" while trowing big "hammers" isn't really to hit a "target" but only the highest distance in throwing a big massive hammer for "anywhere". So you can turn pirouettes where you must not see clearly any small targets. But while slinging whith a "sling" like david's you have to focus very clearly and to hit a very small target (the small point between goliath's eyes and helmet or an apple at the head of W. Tell's son, to say it precisely).

By practising the pirouette you can increase the weight of "bullets" only - not the distance for throwing small stones or an "accuratness".

And look: Olympic hammer throwers (and shot putters) needs to hit a wide place of sand or lawn only, so nothing exact!

So slinging is far more like "golf": Small bullets, very long distance(s) and very accurat "shots" to perform an "Ace" (Hole-in-one). For coming closer to this i wouldn't cut my sling much longer as "one arm + wideness of shoulders". 

Nevertheless the "absolute maximum slinging length" surely is far about two times wound around the globe (... minimum ... if not even "most minimum" !!!). :o



PS: Special thanks to Curious Aardvark for register me and for founding & running "slinging.org". I already read it since 18 month (ago?) and find it very helpful to keep slinging & slingers "alive". You have done a very good job with it!   :D ::) [smiley=dankk2.gif]

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Aug 5th, 2017 at 4:47pm

Apex-apoc wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:39pm:
[quote author=183337353D3D20520 link=1499008756/8#8 date=1499105272]

By practising the pirouette you can increase the weight of "bullets" only - not the distance for throwing small stones 


Why not?

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Jaegoor on Aug 5th, 2017 at 6:29pm
Timpa . Das ist schwer zu erklären.  Aber ich versuche es einfach. Ihre piruette ist zu Ende. Ihre Schleuder bewegt sich aber noch. Das bedeutet, das nur noch die eigenbewegung der Schleuder Geschwindigkeit gibt. Dafür braucht es wirklich keine piruette . Der Unterschied zum Hammer werfen ist nicht nur das Gewicht .  Der Athlet lässt erst am Ende der Bewegung los. Der Hammer fliegt. Eine Schleuder öffnet sich aber erst bevor sie das Geschoss freigibt. Da ist ihre piruette lange beendet. Geöffnet wird eine Schleuder durch die schallzunge am Ende . Diese bremst denn lauf/release cord. Die Schleuder öffnet sich. In Tibet verwendet man sehr lange schleudern. Man verwendet sie etwas anders. Auch haben sie eine andere bremse. Oft befinden sich fransen am Brief oder am lauf. Diese bremsen auch. Ich wette das ich ohne piruette weiter werfe wie sie mit piruette . Wofür also ist eine piruette nötig beim schleudern? Die Antwort ist einfach. Für gar nix.  Hohe Distanzen sind machbar wenn Schleuder und schütze aufeinander abgestimmt sind. Sie werden bemerken das sie mit einer kurzen Schleuder ähnlich weit werfen. Wenn sie mir es nicht glauben , glauben sie Lui. Er ist ein großer Meister mit viel Verständnis und Sachverstand für die Schleuder.  Sorry Timpa, das sehe ich bei ihnen nicht. Ihr letzter Versuch mit dem Helm wurde hoch gelobt. Aber warum? Es zeigte nix was eine Schleuder wirklich vermag. Im Gegenteil . Was sie zeigen ist gefährlich und dumm. Sorry. Im slingshot chanel zeigte Jörg einen ähnlichen Versuch.  Dabei verletzte er sich schwer. Es war nur ein Fake . Es machte aber die Gefährlichkeit solcher sinnlosigkeiten sehr deutlich. Es macht zunichte was andere mühsam erarbeiten. Schleudern als Sport . Wenn sie spass dabei haben. Bitte sehr . Sie sind ein freier Mann . Es wäre aber besser sie behielten es für sich. Sorry nochmal für die deutlichen Worte .

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Jaegoor on Aug 5th, 2017 at 6:37pm
Apex.  Ja ich kenne einige slinger aus dem südlichen Raum. Leider ist es recht schwer alle zu versammeln. In Hedeby gibt es eine jährliche Tradition.  Und wir werden mehr. Übrigens lernte ich in Ungarn als Kind sehr lange Slings zu handhaben. Wenn man lernt eine Schleuder verkürzt zu greifen, schnell zu rotieren und erst beim auslösen auf die volle Länge zu werfen, dann hat man verstanden .

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 6th, 2017 at 10:52am

timpa wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 4:47pm:
Why not?


because ...


Apex-apoc wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:39pm:
... the reachable frequence of "pirouettes" is too low. These frequence and resulted speed of stone also is too low if the slings measure (length) is to high.


By making pirouettes (with a long sling) you may by able to give the bullet up to 2 rounds per second.

To accellerate the same bullet up to 65 m/s with a 1,4 m long sling, you need to turn it with more than 6 rounds per second, because the length (circumference) of one round is only 9,5 meter.

While turning the sling "overhead" these frequency could nearly be done (in the last half round before release, while change the circular round into an elliptical path), but not while turning the whole body for pirouettes.

Now perhaps you would say: "But my circle has a biger radius because my sling measures up to 200 cm and my arm is stretched. Therefor I don't need so many rounds per second."

So I would answer: "That's correkt, but already not enough of speed to come close to 65 m/s (which is required to get ranges up to or more than 400 meter)"

And my next question would be: Can you already turn pirouettes with a 300 cm long sling (?) ... with a 400 cm long sling (?) ... with a 500 cm long sling???

Because if NOT you do know "WHY NOT?". Make some calculations and try to turn a 4 m long sling!

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 6th, 2017 at 12:24pm

Jaegoor wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 6:37pm:
Wenn man lernt eine Schleuder verkürzt zu greifen, schnell zu rotieren und erst beim auslösen auf die volle Länge zu werfen, dann hat man verstanden


Also nichts für ungut, aber man hat dann bestenfalls verstandern, dass solche "Faxen" für die Reichweite überhaupt gar nichts bringen.

Das Ziel eines guten Schleuderers ist entweder die größtmögliche Wurfweite oder die bestmögliche Genauigkeit / Trefferquote oder beides bestmöglich kombiniert, aber eben nicht die bestmögliche Bedienung der längstmöglichen Spaß-schleuder.


In english:

Jaegor: "If you have learned to grap (a very long) sling first shortened and to throw its full length (potential) only when change into the last round (for release), than you have understood."  - end of message -

Me: So nothing for non-sense, but than you understood at the most, that those "jokes" effect nothing for higher ranges.

The goal for a good slinger either is the highest range or the highest accuracy or both in most perfect combination, but not the best handling of the worlds longest "joke-sling".

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Curious Aardvark on Aug 6th, 2017 at 12:39pm
have you ever watched tint's sling style video ?
(any excuse to repost it)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSslvqt_cis

Starting at 1:50 - masterclass in how to handle a stupidly long sling :-)

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 6th, 2017 at 1:33pm

Curious Aardvark wrote on Aug 6th, 2017 at 12:39pm:
have you ever watched tint's sling style video ?


Yes - most of the shown styles are the same as my own styles (side-arm & helicopter).


Curious Aardvark wrote on Aug 6th, 2017 at 12:39pm:
(any excuse to repost it)


No - I already wrote (in german / my first post for Jeagor): "Principel nothing is to objekt against "pirouettes" , but it wents for bad results (low ranges & lowest accuracy). Pirouettes are only good for increasing the weight of bullets (have a look for hammer throwers) and the length of a sling."

What should be the sense of using the most possible long sling??? Is slinging an "(martial) art" or a joke for "burning down the daylight" (ment: "... for wasting time")?

Maybe I misunderstood the topic as "the highest length of a sling which almost is full of sense / effect" (*)  :-/

But I've seen you to confirm in the mentioned paradoxon: "master(class) of stupidity" like: "masterclass in how to handle a stupidly long sling". That means of course: "This length is not "a sling or slinging" but non-sense."



_____________________________________________________________________________
* Topic / Editorial: "the point of this (the absolute maximum length you can make a sling ...) is obviously to get as much range as i can with this."  ;)

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by jax on Aug 9th, 2017 at 2:45pm
The caulk tube bucket sling has given me around 900 ft with golf balls and it is 44 inches long
1502304278994-1608418591.jpg (1362 KB | 49 )

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by jax on Aug 9th, 2017 at 2:46pm
The caulk tube bucket sling has given me around 900 ft with golf balls and it is 44 inches long
1502304278994-1608418591_001.jpg (1362 KB | 54 )

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by jax on Aug 9th, 2017 at 2:53pm
The baseball sling has a length of 58 in or 147cm. They average around 420 or 440 ft.
20170809_145047.jpg (1799 KB | 32 )

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 9th, 2017 at 4:43pm
pirouette is used by few members and it seems to have potential .

in pirouette you are not making only circles with the sling but before release the throwing arm moves forward making sling trajectory ellipsoid
also pulling the non-throwing arm to the body increases rotations/second


the leverage of a pirouette style is probably greater than that of other more linear throws..

pirouette surely has issues with accuracy and seems more skill/coordination demanding than other styles


Apex-apoc wrote on Aug 6th, 2017 at 10:52am:
To accellerate the same bullet up to 65 m/s with a 1,4 m long sling, you need to turn it with more than 6 rounds per second, because the length (circumference) of one round is only 9,5 meter.


1,4m sling + 0,7-0,9m(center of chest to fingers or half the height of a man)=2,1m-2,3m

circumference of circle =2*pi*radius=13,2m-14,45m

for 65m/s you need 4,9-4,5 rotations /second
and you need that only at the moment of release not during the whole throwing motion....
i think athletes reach such rotational speeds with a discus in the hand which is heavier than a sling and stone



Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Aug 10th, 2017 at 2:55pm

Apex-apoc wrote on Aug 6th, 2017 at 10:52am:

timpa wrote on Aug 5th, 2017 at 4:47pm:
Why not?


because ...


Apex-apoc wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:39pm:
... the reachable frequence of "pirouettes" is too low. These frequence and resulted speed of stone also is too low if the slings measure (length) is to high.


By making pirouettes (with a long sling) you may by able to give the bullet up to 2 rounds per second.

To accellerate the same bullet up to 65 m/s with a 1,4 m long sling, you need to turn it with more than 6 rounds per second, because the length (circumference) of one round is only 9,5 meter.

While turning the sling "overhead" these frequency could nearly be done (in the last half round before release, while change the circular round into an elliptical path), but not while turning the whole body for pirouettes.

Now perhaps you would say: "But my circle has a biger radius because my sling measures up to 200 cm and my arm is stretched. Therefor I don't need so many rounds per second."

So I would answer: "That's correkt, but already not enough of speed to come close to 65 m/s (which is required to get ranges up to or more than 400 meter)"

And my next question would be: Can you already turn pirouettes with a 300 cm long sling (?) ... with a 400 cm long sling (?) ... with a 500 cm long sling???

Because if NOT you do know "WHY NOT?". Make some calculations and try to turn a 4 m long sling!


I do not fully understand. My English is poor.

But I say this:

If a person has a good throwing hand, the pirouette throwing is long.

If a person has a poor throwing hand, the pirouette throwing is short.

Practising will help here.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 10th, 2017 at 9:52pm
@Parmenion: " ... for 65m/s you need 4,9-4,5 rotations /secondand you need that only at the moment of release not during the whole throwing motion....i think athletes reach such rotational speeds with a discus ..."


No chance - right this is the point: With an by a long sling elongated arm you are not able to make only 4 rounds per second. And while throwing a discus you have your arms not elongated, because nothing longer than only your streched arm (and a discus).

I said, the longer your "arming" (wappon) is the longer becomes the sequence (! not frequence !) of its turning.

Maybe a very tough "Princess on ice" is able to make 5 or 6 turns per second, but those keeps her arms (and legs!) very close to her body and first must have done a very complex / difficult "introduction" / "start" for this moving. But this princess hasn't any "arming" to accelarate with her.

Give her a long sling or rod (each 1,4 m) to hold "streched" far away from her body axis, and she does nothing comparable anymore ... or just maximum 2 rpm.



In the last 30 seconds of his video David McNamara shows you what only "3 rpm" means:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK3H45Qld3k

And right this (orbital speed of bullet) you never never never will reach or imitate with pirouettes! Also the amount of "extension" (for a change into an elliptical trajektor) is nearly "nothing" when making pirouettes, because the relation between small and large axis (of the ellipse) stays nearly 1 : 1, while this could be up to 1 : 3 (!) when throwing by "helicopter-to-sidearm style".



The following vid shows very clear and impressive the length of "extension" when the slinging hand is tracked from behind the body into the front of body:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzUAdkoAfbo

Only this can explain / declare the high difference between calculated orbital speed and real orbital speed. The real speed is more then twice as high as the speed which allways is calculated from the bloody stupid combination in "circle, radius & frequence". In the last moment of slingig the trajector isn't a circle, but an ellipse, and therfore you must not calculate like "Thales" or "Galilei" but calculate like "Kepler" and his third or second law.

And please ... think twice! ... Even timpas fastest pirouette comes up with maximum 1,5 rpm. One second is done within only a second! "Zack" and over! What the hell do you think can be done in only one second?


Is your breakfast done within "15 seconds" too???


Timpa makes ONE full turn / round (and a half) and one second is OVER! While tracking his slinging hand to the front of body (at the same time) that sums up to maximum 1,5 or 2,0 rpm. And while this is done by him I can't see any transmission or change from a circle into an elliptical trajektor. But to speed up a circular round isn't the same as its extension / deformation to an ellipse, because "to speed up in a round" is only an addition, while from its extension results a "qoutient", respectivly a multiplication.

If the remarked "extension" change the circle into an ellipse with axis-relation of 1 : 2 than the orbital speed of circular trajektor becomes twice. If the extension change the circle into an ellipse with axis-relation of 1 : 3 than the orbital speed becomes the "triple" (don't know if this english word is the right one in this case of "syntax" - meant is: "a three times higher speed").

I will try to imagine this "secret of a slings high momentum" with help of a drawing until tomorrow - perhaps until the day after tomorrow (= sunday). At the moment this draw is still in work and only a "vector" in corel draw format (.cdr) - so I have it first to bring to an end and to convert into .jpg or .png which measures fits here on it's best.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 11th, 2017 at 4:20am
how did you measure rpm out of youtube videos? it will certainly have errors
rpm is round per minute
(1 round/second=60rpm)


Apex-apoc wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 9:52pm:
Maybe a very tough "Princess on ice" is able to make 5 or 6 turns per second, but those keeps her arms (and legs!) very close to her body and first must have done a very complex / difficult "introduction" / "start" for this moving. But this princess hasn't any "arming" to accelarate with her.

let's not compare this to slinging. as i said earlier you need to reach maximum speed only at the moment of release and not for a longer time like in ice skating.


Apex-apoc wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 9:52pm:
Even timpas fastest pirouette comes up with maximum 1,5 rpm. One second is done within only a second! "Zack" and over! What the hell do you think can be done in only one second?

everything can be done in one second and less, if a way of throwing has more leverage and bigger acceleration than other styles then if it takes a little time to perform it, it doesn't matter.


although i want to see the drawing you say, don't get too consumed with theory,math and physics unless you can make a real research and even then it will be useless if it isn't supported by experimental data.
so the question should be how many of us can achieve, what jax and timpa achieve, but with shorter slings and/or more conventional styles 

i hope you have experimented with pirouette styles before discarding them as useless...

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Jaegoor on Aug 11th, 2017 at 6:34am
Ich hab pirouette Stile versucht. Sie sind umständlich und bringen effektiv gesehen nichts. Auch wird immer wieder etwas vergessen. Das schnelle drehen einer Schleuder bringt sehr wenig . Dadurch wird nicht die Power einer Schleuder bestimmt. Ich erklärte es schon einmal. Es ist ähnlich wie im Karate. Der letzte kick aus der                                                                                     Hüfte bestimmt Power und Geschwindigkeit. Nicht der Arm.
Das gezeigte Video von Apex hat daher einen kleinen Fehler. Nicht der Arm geht zuerst in eine Vorwärtsbewegung. Die Hüfte kommt vorher. Sie nimmt denn Arm mit nach vorne . So erreicht man sehr hohe geschwindigkeiten . Kommt die Power nur aus dem Arm, wird dieser ihnen mit der Zeit Schmerzen bereiten. Es gibt sehr viele Slinger die daran leiden. Ihre Technik ist einfach nicht richtig.
Sehen sie Lui an. Zuerst kommt die Hüfte, dann der Arm. Er trifft. Mit großer Kraft. Manchmal jedoch gelingt es ihm nicht. Zuerst der Arm und dann die HÜfte. Seine Treffer werden sehr viel weniger. Ich bemerkte dies auch bei mir. Auch bei anderen. Gerne würde ich es ihnen zeigen. Sie würden es sofort verstehen.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 11th, 2017 at 9:16am
@Jaegoor without practice any kind of throwing is cumbersome,try throwing with the left it's gonna be awkward...

if i understand well you are saying that power is coming from ground up, like a whip, not the reverse.
power comes from hip-shoulder separation.

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEpdoAZiHWQ 1:10
Quote:
80% of velocity comes from hip and shoulder separation
don't know how he did the math)

what you say is true but i see that the same principles apply to pirouettes as well.
in pirouettes you use hip shoulder separation .
you are not a stiff cross turning around your long axis :P

that being said, i'm more skilled at linear throws than pirouettes but i haven't practiced the equally at both techniques to form a good conclusion.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Aug 11th, 2017 at 3:51pm

Apex-apoc wrote on Aug 10th, 2017 at 9:52pm:
@


No chance - right this is the point: With an by a long sling elongated arm you are not able to make only 4 rounds per second. And while throwing a discus you have your arms not elongated, because nothing longer than only your streched arm (and a discus).

I said, the longer your "arming" (wappon) is the longer becomes the sequence (! not frequence !) of its turning.

Maybe a very tough "Princess on ice" is able to make 5 or 6 turns per second, but those keeps her arms (and legs!) very close to her body and first must have done a very complex / difficult "introduction" / "start" for this moving. But this princess hasn't any "arming" to accelarate with her.

Give her a long sling or rod (each 1,4 m) to hold "streched" far away from her body axis, and she does nothing comparable anymore ... or just maximum 2 rpm.



In the last 30 seconds of his video David McNamara shows you what only "3 rpm" means:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK3H45Qld3k

And right this (orbital speed of bullet) you never never never will reach or imitate with pirouettes! Also the amount of "extension" (for a change into an elliptical trajektor) is nearly "nothing" when making pirouettes, because the relation between small and large axis (of the ellipse) stays nearly 1 : 1, while this could be up to 1 : 3 (!) when throwing by "helicopter-to-sidearm style".



The following vid shows very clear and impressive the length of "extension" when the slinging hand is tracked from behind the body into the front of body:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzUAdkoAfbo

Only this can explain / declare the high difference between calculated orbital speed and real orbital speed. The real speed is more then twice as high as the speed which allways is calculated from the bloody stupid combination in "circle, radius & frequence". In the last moment of slingig the trajector isn't a circle, but an ellipse, and therfore you must not calculate like "Thales" or "Galilei" but calculate like "Kepler" and his third or second law.

And please ... think twice! ... Even timpas fastest pirouette comes up with maximum 1,5 rpm. One second is done within only a second! "Zack" and over! What the hell do you think can be done in only one second?


Is your breakfast done within "15 seconds" too???


Timpa makes ONE full turn / round (and a half) and one second is OVER! While tracking his slinging hand to the front of body (at the same time) that sums up to maximum 1,5 or 2,0 rpm. And while this is done by him I can't see any transmission or change from a circle into an elliptical trajektor. But to speed up a circular round isn't the same as its extension / deformation to an ellipse, because "to speed up in a round" is only an addition, while from its extension results a "qoutient", respectivly a multiplication.

If the remarked "extension" change the circle into an ellipse with axis-relation of 1 : 2 than the orbital speed of circular trajektor becomes twice. If the extension change the circle into an ellipse with axis-relation of 1 : 3 than the orbital speed becomes the "triple" (don't know if this english word is the right one in this case of "syntax" - meant is: "a three times higher speed").

I will try to imagine this "secret of a slings high momentum" with help of a drawing until tomorrow - perhaps until the day after tomorrow (= sunday). At the moment this draw is still in work and only a "vector" in corel draw format (.cdr) - so I have it first to bring to an end and to convert into .jpg or .png which measures fits here on it's best.


Now too much attention is paid to rotation. The pirouette gives only a good start.
Notes: Hand performs a throw.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Jaegoor on Aug 11th, 2017 at 5:05pm
Parmenion. Es gibt einen Fehler. Slingen ist nicht Baseball. Es gibt Ähnlichkeiten, aber auch große Unterschiede. Hauptunterschied ist ist, die länge der Sling. Sie besitzt eine natürliche Trägheit. Vielleicht drehe ich ein Video um es zu verdeutlichen.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 11th, 2017 at 7:47pm

johan wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 4:20am:
rpm is round per minute
(1 round/second=60rpm)


I said that already - and McNamaras number of rounds are easily to count while viewing the video and remember the rhythm of a "second-to-second-time" like a "tick-tack-tick-tack ...". I am musically too, you know?!

So I have seen and count that McNamara turns even more rounds than 3 "rps" - perhaps up to 3,2. Half a round more or less doesn't matter, because already 2,5 rps are far more than could be done by performing pirouettes. And what you can do in the last half round of release dosen't matter too and in no way, because the same can be done too in each other style of slinging.


johan wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 4:20am:
let's not compare this to slinging.


Why not? You did it compare with discus throwers and other "athlets"!


johan wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 4:20am:
as i said earlier you need to reach maximum speed only at the moment of release and not for a longer time


I said that already too.


johan wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 4:20am:
if a way of throwing has more leverage and bigger acceleration than other styles then if it takes a little time to perform it, it doesn't matter.


Bigger acceleration comes not from longer slings or more leverage ... or perhaps I didn't have understood the point of this statement now.


johan wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 4:20am:
don't get too consumed with theory,math and physics unless you can make a real research


Sure - this I already learned at school 35 years ago, but "Newtons math & physics" and Keplers third and second law of course is verified by facts of expirience already long.

So what?


johan wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 4:20am:
... even then it will be useless if it isn't supported by experimental data.so the question should be how many of us can achieve, what jax and timpa achieve, but with shorter slings and/or more conventional styles 


My expirience in slinging includes more than 27 years of practice and minimum 100.000 throws (no joke!), although while performing allways the same style. And now sorry for "shocking" you with incredible news, but im able to throw a steelball (d = 26 mm; 72,3 g) MUCH FURTHER (!) than Yurek and did it already in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, ... several times.

In 2009 for the first time I threw a ball of tungsten* (type "heavy metall alloy" - dens. 18,5 g/cm³) with diameter 20 mm (= 77 g) about 716 m after throwing it about several times about 680 m. In 2011 I threw nearly the same distance (670 - 708 m) once more, respectivley several times.

Even with simple natural stones (100 -130 g) I achieve 400 m EASYLY and ABSOLUTLY (for) SURE and can land / place it nevertheless all within a rectangle of 15 x 30 meters. That means, the number of stones or balls that I threw could also found again for sure and easily - maximum 3 % of all my shots get lost.

Since 2008 I own 5 balls of tungsten* (red lacquered), threw them about 80 times for more then 600 meters and lost only one until today. Some of them i had to seek for more than 15 hours (in three or four days), but most of all I found again within 3 or 5 hours, because most of them I get placed right there where I mean it to place (means in that case whthin a rectangle of 25 x 50 m - dry mown lawn or a dry mown field - which I couldn't see while slinging. I had to throw it over a row of trees and bushes, what feels (felt) like a couple of "blind shots" - nevetheless I could place it relatively accurat in the intended "target-field").

So believe me: How much the range depends on rotation speed (or frequence) and elliptical "extension" (while release) do I know very well. My "theory" as you said is very good verified by "own expirience from self-made experiments".



______________________________________________________________________________

* "Tungsten" in german means "Wolfram" - in Reinstform hat das eine Dichte von 19,2 g/cm³, ist dann aber ein ziemlich sprödes Metall (bricht fast wie Glas). Gegen Schlag widerstandsfähiger ist jedoch die sog. "Schwermetall-legierung", die dann aber eine Dichte von nur noch 18,5 g/cm³ aufweist (3 - 5 % Eisen und Nickel sind dann mit untergemischt). Das ist dann aber immer noch mehr als doppelt so "schwer" als etwa Chromstahlkugeln (7,8 g/cm³) und auch noch deutlich schwerer als Blei (11,3 g/cm³).

Eine Kugel Wolfram mit D = 20 mm kommt heute in etwa auf 35 bis 40 Euro - das hängt stark davon ab, über welche Kanäle man sie bezieht, denn nicht jeder Betrieb, der mit Halbzeug aus Wolfram handelt, ist zugleich dazu in der Lage (oder willens), daraus auch Kugeln zu drehen, während "Sinterware" in genau dieser Legierung nur äußerst schwer aufzutreiben ist. Ein Rundstab mit D = 20 mm und L = 300 - 330 mm kostete um 2008 etwa 245 Euro (den aktuellsten Preis kenne ich gerade nicht).

Kugeln aus Wolfram-carbid findet man online schon wesentlich leichter (sind auch noch deutlich billiger), aber dessen Dichte beträgt dann auch nur noch 15,3 g/cm³.

Sofern man Wolfram nicht gerade stundenlang im Mund lutscht, ist dieses "Schwermetall" im übrigen auch vollkommen ungiftig und sehr korrosionsbeständig - rein optisch von Edelstahl (Nirosta) praktisch nicht zu unterscheiden - genauso "silbrig", gut polierbar und ebenso "hart" - nur eben schon beinahe dreimal so schwer.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Jaegoor on Aug 12th, 2017 at 3:04am
Sorry Apex.  Ich kenne sie nicht . Ich kenne auch keine Videos von ihnen. Ich schieße seit früher Kindheit. Ich lernte in dieser Zeit sehr viele slinger kennen. Nur ganz wenige waren wirkliche slinger. Die allermeisten waren einfach nur angeber. Sind sie ein angeber? Ich möchte das wirklich gerne wissen.  Wo immer sie in Deutschland auch wohnen. Sicherlich sind sie erreichbar für mich. Bei einem gemeinsamen Treffen werden wir sehen. Was 100000 Schüsse erbracht haben. Was halten sie davon? Facta locuuntur. Damit bin ich bisher immer gut gefahren.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 12th, 2017 at 4:12am

Apex-apoc wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 7:47pm:
Even with simple natural stones (100 -130 g) I achieve 400 m EASYLY and ABSOLUTLY (for) SURE and can land / place it nevertheless all within a rectangle of 15 x 30 meters.


if that's true, then thank you for insisting on your technique.
Please make a gift to the slinging community and share your knowledge.



Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Mersa on Aug 12th, 2017 at 4:14am
700m I'm calling your bluff on this one.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 12th, 2017 at 4:30am
This is the drawing I mentioned to load up here. It should imagine the physikal process of slinging long ranges.

The small black & white circle in the middle of the slinging means the slinging hand (right-handed) and its moving while slinging.

The grey figure besides the middle of the larger red circle means the slinger itself (sorry - his right arm isnt drawn).

"Extension" means the length of track of the slinging-circle while release (respectivly in the last half round, right befor release). From this length of extension results the most important amount of "speed up" while release.

If I said already, the "top speed" becomes twice if the relation between small and large axis (of ellipse) is like 1:2 (or 2:1 = 2). If this relation (quotient) is higher - perhaps 1:3 or 1:2,5 so the "speed up" is higher too.

Because a natural man isn't able to rotate a 1,2 m long sling much higher than 3 rps (= 180 rpm) what is 15 - 20 m/s only, he always have to try to perform the extension as wide as possible.



Of course I never could give them a technical "measuring", but only this "drawn physic" can explain how really measured top speeds (35 - 60 m/s) can come up of those slow rotations.


Transmittierter_Schleuderkreis_01.png (139 KB | 40 )

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 12th, 2017 at 5:24am
On base of this drawn process and "principle" I could build up the following three tables:

For better compareability each table shows only one fix amount of rotation speed (rps). Therefore this condition is written in RED types. If all other conditions are the same you can compare the top speeds from one rotation speed with top speeds of an other rotation speed.

And surely: Top speeds far above 65 m/s are very difficult to perform, because to rotate a 1,2 m long sling with more then 2,5 rps (and widest extension) is very difficult too.
Schleudertabelle_02__eng_.PNG (58 KB | 46 )

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 12th, 2017 at 6:22am

Jaegoor wrote on Aug 12th, 2017 at 3:04am:
Die allermeisten waren einfach nur angeber.


Tja gut - das tut mir natürlich leid für dich. Aber glaube mir - ich selbst habe noch überhaupt keinen "Slinger" kennengelernt / getroffen, und habe auch nicht vor, mir zu aller notwendigen "action" auch noch das Drehen von mehr oder minder tauglichen Beweis-Videos aufzuhalsen.

Für ein Treffen im Raum Nürnberg darfst du mich natürlich gerne mal besuchen - nach "Augenzeugen", die  für ein solches Unterfangen auch die Zeit und Nerven haben, suche ich ohnehin noch. Nur vor dem kommenden Frühjahr (2018) käme mir das sicherlich noch äußerst ungelegen, da ich derzeit auch noch einen ganzen Arsch voll anderer "Baustellen" aufgerissen habe.

Zum Werfen und "Bullets-suchen" kam ich mitllerweile schon seit 18 Monaten nicht mehr, und ich fürchte, das selbe "Problem" wird sich auch noch eine paar weitere Monate hinziehen. Aber keine Sorge - ich laufe nicht weg, und werde mich auch oder vor allem hier noch des öfteren melden.

Außerdem habe ich so ein bisschen den Eindruck, dass du lediglich die Vorteile höherer Materialdichten unterschätzt, denn 716 m mit Wolframkugeln ist gerade mal soviel wie die Hälfte (358 m) mit einem gleichschweren Kieselstein. Der Luftwiderstand - übrigens die einzige Kraft, die der schlußendlich erzielten Schußkraft entgegenwirkt - liegt bei gleichschweren Wolframkugeln um ziemlich genau 50% niedriger als bei natürlichen Steinen (2,4 - 2,7 g/cm³). Gegenüber Würfen mit banalen "Findlingen" verdoppelt sich die Wurfweite also schon allein dadurch beinahe "ganz automatisch".

Ein "Weltwunder" sind diese 700 m also noch immer keines, und ich werfe eigentlich nur deshalb nicht noch weiter, weil derart kostspielige Geschosse einen so armen "Hirten" wie mich beim Beschleunigen ganz schön zu "hemmen" vermögen. Ich fürchte halt, wenn ich so bis an die 750 m weit werfen würde, die teuren Kugeln ganz sicher los zu sein. Die mitunter viele Stunden andauernde Suche danach ist schon so nervenaufreibend genug (es ist ja eben nicht nur der materielle Preis der Kugeln, sondern auch die Action, dieselben neu aufzutreiben).


Was hingegen die erwähnten 100.000 Würfe betrifft, wären genau nur diese in einem Zeitraum von 27 Jahren ebenfalls nicht mehr als ein Klacks, denn 250 Würfe werfe ich schon allein an einem einzigen Tag. In "Hoch-zeiten" (Frühjahr bis Spätherbst) bin oder war (!) ich aber regelmäßig bis zu zwei mal pro Woche auf der Piste.

Wären es tatsählich immer zwei Trainigs-gänge pro Woche gewesen, hätten bis dato eigentlich schon über 400.000 Würfe absolviert werden müssen - die "Winterpausen" (und / oder sonstige Ausfälle) bereits rausgerechnet:

27 Jahre x 35 Wochen pro Jahr = 945 Wochen

Multipliziert mit 500 Würfen pro Woche (weil zwei Trainingsgänge pro Woche) = 472.500 Würfe.

Lass nun mal zum Füße-baumeln-lassen nur die Hälfte aller Würfe weg, und zieh meinetwegen auch noch 5 oder 7 Jahre des "totalen Faulenzens" ab. Was ist dann nichtsdestotrotz noch übrig?

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Aug 12th, 2017 at 9:30am
Really interesting stuff Apex. I am not a distance slinger so I have no idea if 700 meters is possible even with tungsten but you've definitely done your homework. Thanks for posting all this.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 12th, 2017 at 12:18pm
@Apex-apoc
since i can't see what the rest of us are doing differently when slinging for range or accuracy what is your tip to achieve distances like you did?
(consistently)

is your form/technique depicted well by any video on youtube?

what sling(length, materials,etc) did you use for 400m stone throw?

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 12th, 2017 at 12:30pm
also what is "Factor by Extention 2 to 3m" and how is it calculated?

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Blowgunman123 on Aug 12th, 2017 at 3:04pm

Apex-apoc wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 7:47pm:

johan wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 4:20am:
rpm is round per minute
(1 round/second=60rpm)


I said that already - and McNamaras number of rounds are easily to count while viewing the video and remember the rhythm of a "second-to-second-time" like a "tick-tack-tick-tack ...". I am musically too, you know?!

So I have seen and count that McNamara turns even more rounds than 3 "rps" - perhaps up to 3,2. Half a round more or less doesn't matter, because already 2,5 rps are far more than could be done by performing pirouettes. And what you can do in the last half round of release dosen't matter too and in no way, because the same can be done too in each other style of slinging.


johan wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 4:20am:
let's not compare this to slinging.


Why not? You did it compare with discus throwers and other "athlets"!


johan wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 4:20am:
as i said earlier you need to reach maximum speed only at the moment of release and not for a longer time


I said that already too.


johan wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 4:20am:
if a way of throwing has more leverage and bigger acceleration than other styles then if it takes a little time to perform it, it doesn't matter.


Bigger acceleration comes not from longer slings or more leverage ... or perhaps I didn't have understood the point of this statement now.


johan wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 4:20am:
don't get too consumed with theory,math and physics unless you can make a real research


Sure - this I already learned at school 35 years ago, but "Newtons math & physics" and Keplers third and second law of course is verified by facts of expirience already long.

So what?


johan wrote on Aug 11th, 2017 at 4:20am:
... even then it will be useless if it isn't supported by experimental data.so the question should be how many of us can achieve, what jax and timpa achieve, but with shorter slings and/or more conventional styles 


My expirience in slinging includes more than 27 years of practice and minimum 100.000 throws (no joke!), although while performing allways the same style. And now sorry for "shocking" you with incredible news, but im able to throw a steelball (d = 26 mm; 72,3 g) MUCH FURTHER (!) than Yurek and did it already in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, ... several times.

In 2009 for the first time I threw a ball of tungsten* (type "heavy metall alloy" - dens. 18,5 g/cm³) with diameter 20 mm (= 77 g) about 716 m after throwing it about several times about 680 m. In 2011 I threw nearly the same distance (670 - 708 m) once more, respectivley several times.

Even with simple natural stones (100 -130 g) I achieve 400 m EASYLY and ABSOLUTLY (for) SURE and can land / place it nevertheless all within a rectangle of 15 x 30 meters. That means, the number of stones or balls that I threw could also found again for sure and easily - maximum 3 % of all my shots get lost.

Since 2008 I own 5 balls of tungsten* (red lacquered), threw them about 80 times for more then 600 meters and lost only one until today. Some of them i had to seek for more than 15 hours (in three or four days), but most of all I found again within 3 or 5 hours, because most of them I get placed right there where I mean it to place (means in that case whthin a rectangle of 25 x 50 m - dry mown lawn or a dry mown field - which I couldn't see while slinging. I had to throw it over a row of trees and bushes, what feels (felt) like a couple of "blind shots" - nevetheless I could place it relatively accurat in the intended "target-field").

So believe me: How much the range depends on rotation speed (or frequence) and elliptical "extension" (while release) do I know very well. My "theory" as you said is very good verified by "own expirience from self-made experiments".



______________________________________________________________________________

* "Tungsten" in german means "Wolfram" - in Reinstform hat das eine Dichte von 19,2 g/cm³, ist dann aber ein ziemlich sprödes Metall (bricht fast wie Glas). Gegen Schlag widerstandsfähiger ist jedoch die sog. "Schwermetall-legierung", die dann aber eine Dichte von nur noch 18,5 g/cm³ aufweist (3 - 5 % Eisen und Nickel sind dann mit untergemischt). Das ist dann aber immer noch mehr als doppelt so "schwer" als etwa Chromstahlkugeln (7,8 g/cm³) und auch noch deutlich schwerer als Blei (11,3 g/cm³).

Eine Kugel Wolfram mit D = 20 mm kommt heute in etwa auf 25 bis 35 Euro - das hängt stark davon ab, über welche Kanäle man sie bezieht, denn nicht jeder Betrieb, der mit Halbzeug aus Wolfram handelt, ist zugleich dazu in der Lage (oder willens), daraus auch Kugeln zu drehen, während "Sinterware" in genau dieser Legierung nur äußerst schwer aufzutreiben ist. Ein Rundstab mit D = 20 mm und L = 300 - 330 mm kostete um 2008 etwa 210 Euro (den aktuellsten Preis kenne ich gerade nicht).

Kugeln aus Wolfram-carbid findet man online schon wesentlich leichter (sind auch noch deutlich billiger), aber dessen Dichte beträgt dann auch nur noch 15,3 g/cm³.

Sofern man Wolfram nicht gerade stundenlang im Mund lutscht, ist dieses "Schwermetall" im übrigen auch vollkommen ungiftig und sehr korrosionsbeständig - rein optisch von Edelstahl (Nirosta) praktisch nicht zu unterscheiden - genauso "silbrig", gut polierbar und ebenso "hart" - nur eben schon beinahe dreimal so schwer.

What length sling and what style are you using to achieve said distance?

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Aug 12th, 2017 at 4:12pm
If David Engvall world record is 477 meters, then your over 700 meters is really good.
I congratulate you!
With you would be a pleasure to throw a competition of length. Even though I would lose a lot  :(.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 13th, 2017 at 11:36am

johan wrote on Aug 12th, 2017 at 12:30pm:
also what is "Factor by Extention 2 to 3m" and how is it calculated?


When the extension is 2 m, than the FACTOR (F) is an other as if the extension is 3 m. In the branches are written the factors only - one for extension = 2m and one for extension = 3m. With this factors are to multiplicate the "wind-up-speeds" (= what is written under "2,0 Rd./s" or "2,5 Rd./s" or "3,0 Rd./s"). For example (as in the drawing):

3 x 19 m/s = 57 m/s

"3" is the "factor" (= relation between small and large axis of ellipse)

"57 m/s" is what is called "Top speed" in the tables.

I wrote this tables for comparison! You can see how the "Top Speeds" change when the length of sling, the rotation speed and / or the "extension" changes.

What "Extension" means is shown in the drawing. That is not the same as the "factor", because the shape of ellipse depends on "Circumference" (respektively "diameter") and "Extension" at the same time, but both of it can change independently of each-other.

All this "dependings" and "relations" I can't explain better - not in english  :-[ - because partially they are "co-relations" and damned difficult to bring into a few words (of foreign language). Therefore I made the drawing and right this you have to "study" and understand  :D.

In the tables (branches) I have written two different "Top speeds" (the lowest & the highest), because in front of it I have written the lowest and highest factor (which depends on "extension").

Important to know: In the branch "Factor by Extension ..." I wrote the factors only - no "extensions" !

The "extensions" are allways "2m" and / or "3m" (respectively a range in between).



But if you have understood the drawn relations / dependings completely, then let me know what is a better expression as: "Factor by Extension 2 to 3 m". But this expression must be as short as the small place in a branch.

Should I have written there "Factor" only?    :-/
How should I call that what is now called "extension"? Do you know an better expression?

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 13th, 2017 at 1:56pm

Blowgunman123 wrote on Aug 12th, 2017 at 3:04pm:
What length sling and what style are you using to achieve said distance?


The small balls of tungsten (and steel) I threw with slings which were especially made for very small an middle weighted ammo. Its "pouch" was a small piece of Y shaped leather (retention cord was linked a the tripe or "foot" of this Y). A crotched release cord of very thin (fine braided) yarn of polyester (2 x 1,2 mm) was linked at each "arm" of that Y.

This type of sling hasn't any "release resistance", because for release the release cord must not become accelerated or full opened / evolved. In the short moment of release the ball slips through the splitted / crotched release cord. So this cord in relaese moves only along 3 or 4 cm what is practically done within "0,01 seconds".

Other types of slings waste energy for accelerate the release cord, for "sonic boom" and / or to rotate the stone. Right this energy should be safed for better ranges.

Engvall in principle does the same, because his "hook" (for his arrow) had only to tilt by a very small move too. The same advantage easily can be given to a rock sling by crotching or splitting its release cord (and the release side of pouch).

My retention cord at this sling was made of a doubled nylon line (what is a little bit like "wire" and taken for mowing grass - D = 1,4 mm but doubled). This nylon line comes relatively "stiff", but it helps to provide the sling of embroiling the cords while winding up such a small pouch.

Length of sling was 1,32 m (1,26 or 1,27 m in other cases) and my throwing style always is helicopter (more or less over head or more "side-arm").


But another conditions are important too:

For good flowing practise you need two fileds of lawn in a distance of 400 - 500 m and always to wait until they are mown ... and always to wait on dry weather, because the practise is not to absolve with balls of tungsten (their number is to low because their price to high), but with some more heavy (and cheaper) steelballs, which would sunk to deep in / under the ground while impact if this ground still is too humid /wettish / moist.

And you need to increase the range in a lot of small steps only, because you get not the right feed-back if the thrown stones or balls couldnt be found anymore. Ammo always must be found again and for this they always must be thrown relativley accurate.

At last you always have to know and control the "exact" range BEFORE (!) the ball is thrown. The ball (always) have to land right there where you ment it to land. Othewise you can't found it or measure its distance anymore.

To throw a lot of stones straight into the woods or bushes trains only your power, skills and technique. But "to achieve distance" is a little bit different, because range or distance at last is a very clear "number" of yards or meter(s). Therefore it doesnt help to throw the balls or stones only for "somewhere". Somewhere is nowhere! Much more you have to know the measure of distance and right for this the exact position of all thrown balls ... and for this to find it all again.

But if the seeking for "hidden" balls tooks to much time, than the practise never comes in a good flow. Therefore you should increase your range only simultanously to your accuracy.

I mean, at first you have to know the place and distance where the balls SHOULD BE placed. For example in a rectangle of 10 x 20 m (the longer side in direction of throwing) which lays in a distance of exactly 300 m. Then you throw always exact that distance only until you are able to place all balls "absolutely correkt" (means: "within the rectangle"). No ball must be lost.

First when you are able to do this for sure, then you can try the next distance (350 m) ... and so on. Never increase this distance if you still loose steelballs. All balls have to be placed right or throwen not at all.



And importend as well: Don't make much more than a hundred "shots" within one month when throwig so strong, and never throw so strong if your "rest" (pause) was longer than 14 days. To absolve a lot of "easy" shots in between (minimum all week) is very importent to prevent "Epicondylitis ulnaris humeri (a type of "tennis ellbow). If necessary throw a couple of stones with pure hands only, but always keep on throwing.

If you get a tennis ellbow for longer than a month than the practice is absolutly "over" for more than a year, because its healing is damned slowly. On the other side it is absolutly normal to have always a little bit "tennis ellbow", but that must be a kind of tennis ellbow which subsides within three days always.

So always have a very attentively eye on this little pains in your ellbow.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 13th, 2017 at 4:17pm

Apex-apoc wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 11:36am:
All this "dependings" and "relations" I can't explain better - not in english  Embarrassed - because partially they are "co-relations" and damned difficult to bring into a few words (of foreign language). Therefore I made the drawing and right this you have to "study" and understand  Cheesy.


use your language i'll try to understand  through google translate. Also what principles of physics are used to explain velocity multiplication in your theory?
The trajectory(in the image you uploaded) doesn't explain where/how/how much force  is applied by the hand during the throw . So it's of little use without the theory.


For 700m in vacuum you need 82m/s at 45 degrees
for 680m 81m/s.
Since you throw very dense projectiles we can do the hypothesis that it is like you throw it in a vacuum.

82m/s in your tables above is achieved with  at least 1,4m sling, 3 rounds per second, extension 3m.
I have to note 3m extension is as much difficult as doing more than 3 rounds per second with long sling.

About your model I have understood these:
1. the longer the sling the more difficult it is to turn it around fast
2. the higher the rounds/sec the smaller the extension  (biomechanical limits... the higher the velocity of an object the more difficult it gets to apply force to it)
you have to do 3m extension and 3 rounds/sec , two difficult things at a time …

so either
a. your model is wrong, and there's more to it...
b. you are lying
c. you do more than 3m extension
ci. you do more than 3 rounds/sec
d. “instant” release slings have a tremendous advantage over simple slings
e.you are HULK
f. it is pretty easy to achieve the mentioned distance/speed but not  many of us can spot the landing, and do measurements ,so didn't notice this miracle . You are accurate and consistent ,you noticed....

which of the above is true?




Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Mersa on Aug 13th, 2017 at 4:36pm
Sounds like a s-clash sling.


Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 13th, 2017 at 5:19pm

johan wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 4:17pm:
Since you throw very dense projectiles we can do the hypothesis that it is like you throw it in a vacuum.


Thats not correct. The density of a ball of tungsten is in relation to "profile", respectivley in relation to "drag" exactly twice as high as in natural stones. In other words: The drag of tungsten is only 50% of the drag of stones, and so its "range" is (as) tiwce as high too.

If you can throw a stone for 370 m, than you can throw a ball of tungsten (same mass) for 740 m ... "automatically" (while using lead - same mass - this factor is only 1,6 instead - not 2,0).

So if you had to be a Hulk for this, so you had to be too the same Hulk for throwing stones for only 370 m, but this was done already long ago and "allways" (and by Bray, Yurek, Engvall, etc. ...).

So in any point of theory you made a thinking error. Length of my sling was 1,32 m only (+ 15 cm maximum from the radius of a slinging hand). And I can't remember (or imagine) to have rotated with much more than 3 rps (4 rps I hold for absolutley undoable).

The only one possibility that I can imagine would be an even higher "factor", because Keplers second law counts on interplanetry ellipses (of gravity) and is a little bit tricky to "transfer" for acclerations in slinging. Also keep in mind, that comparisons with "hulkish conditions" can not be done if the "energy" is not known, because to throw 77 g (with 82 m/s) is not the same as to throw 150 g (with the same speed or for the same distance).


Relative drags (in relation to drag of stone):

Tungsten - 50 % (factor of range = 2,0)
Lead - 60 % (factor of range = 1,6)
Brass / Gunmetal - 66 % (factor of range = 1,57)
Steel - 67 % (factor of range = 1,48)
Stone - 100 % (factor of range = 1,0)

A ball of stone with 150 g has diameter 50 mm
A ball of tungsten with 150 g has diameter 25 mm

Thats exactly the half (50%) and therefore the ball of tungsten flies twice as far as a ball of stone.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Aug 13th, 2017 at 5:45pm
Apex how do you avoid your ammunition sinking into the ground on impact? Seems like that is an issue for our members who sling lead.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 13th, 2017 at 6:03pm

Morphy wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 5:45pm:
Apex how do you avoid your ammunition sinking into the ground on impact? Seems like that is an issue for our members who sling lead.


I never slung lead, but even balls of tungsten (or steel) doesn't sink very deep when lawn is dry (= hard). Sometimes they sticks in the ground (do not "jump"), but never so deep that they aren't to found anymore.

All balls of metal I have laquered in red, and even when they sink 3 cm deep (= 1 cm top edge "under ground") they still can / could be seen / found.

Of course the laque is then "gone" mostly, but this small damage is easly renewed again with a simple spay can.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Mersa on Aug 13th, 2017 at 6:58pm
I think in theoretical terms things can potentially travel further in air than in a vacuum(with gravity as a constant). If perfect spin and angle are achieved and lift is generated. Real life might be harder to replicate.
I've slung lead and it's not easy to find, even painted bright colours. You may be on some very compacted soil but for me it's buried deeper than 3 cm. I also don't sling anywhere near the speeds your talking.
Who knows if your telling the truth, enjoyable reading none the less.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 13th, 2017 at 7:51pm

Mersa wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 6:58pm:
If perfect spin and angle are achieved and lift is generated.


Spin & lift couldn't be in play, because I slung with an "instant-relaeas-sling". No spin, no lift (shots with lift I call "vögel" - like "birds" that fly by itself, but in no way to do with "balls").


Mersa wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 6:58pm:
Who knows if your telling the truth, enjoyable reading none the less.


And even this is not the best joke on it already, because the best joke is, that the distance(s) that I threw with steelballs in 1998 -2009 I could see first two years after the last "big shot" in 2011, because "to google the map" I was able the first time in 2013. Before I had neither notebook nor "tower" (computer), nor an interesse to know greater ranges so exactly.

Until 1998 "400 m" was the only one of larger distances, that I had measured exact (by hand) - all further distances I threw without to know how much further. I could only "imagine": "Oh yes - this shot was going much further than 450 m - perhaps 500 m, ...", but never knowing for sure or for telling somebody.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Aug 13th, 2017 at 8:51pm
Wouldnt no spin be a detriment Apex? Maybe Im not understanding what youre saying. Seems like a rifled spin is pretty standard for getting the best flight out of a projectile.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Mersa on Aug 13th, 2017 at 9:57pm
I think with a ball you want a low release angle and backspin for max distance (theoretically speaking).

https://youtu.be/QtP_bh2lMXc
Basketball Magnus effect.

No spin would be hard to aim long distance. But the density used may reduce this all to a near vacuum like resistance.

Just a casual 300m 400m throw recorded and posted will be gladly accepted as evidence.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 14th, 2017 at 12:51am

Morphy wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 8:51pm:
Seems like a rifled spin is pretty standard for getting the best flight out of a projectile.


No - this axis of spin holds on strikt in direktion of flight to guarantee that the top of bullet always runs "ahead". Not realy for achieving higher ranges.

Here we do not speek about "bullets" with a top and a bottom, but about "balls". On the other hand of course I have no knowledge about bipointed projektiles of lead. Maybe they have the property to align themself in direction of flight.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 14th, 2017 at 1:05am

Mersa wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 9:57pm:
Basketball Magnus effect.


The magnus effect, respectively the axis of spin isn't automatically in that direktion that helps for throwing higher distances.

The effect also can generate a curve / deflection to the right or left hand ... or even cause a strong suction downward.

Can you determine the direction of magnus effect?

If not, than this effect would "damage" your best range mostly.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Mersa on Aug 14th, 2017 at 1:38am
As far as I understand bipoint lead is essentially trying to reduce drag and also benefit from rifle spin.
Spheres are less accurate to spin in the right direction but do have a lift potential.
I would say yes to being able to achieve predicted spin with the correct shape projectile. Not in all techniques but some.

Without counteracting gravity (lift) the speeds you are claiming to throw are huge.

Show me!

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 14th, 2017 at 2:31am
Okay guys - thanks for teasing me so much  :-X. Therefore now I have a strange searching behind of me and found an incredible useful tool online:

http://www.schuetzenverein-ettenheim.de/sportschiessen/ballistikrechner.php    ("Schützenverein" means "protect clup" - Ettenheim is in Baden-Würtemberg / Germany - coincidentially very close to that town where I was born = "Lahr im Schwarzwald" in 1966).

There you can insert some of conditions, respectivley "parameters" of throwing (wight, volume, range, "top speed" ...) and this tool will calculate "energy of shot", "hight of flight", "range" and "flight time" of the ball. (

And note: ONLY FOR PROFILE OF BALLS! (thanks god).

This could answer the question of necessary top speed, because only if you insert the speed of "100 m/s" than the mentioned ball of tungsten (77 g / 20 mm) achieves the range of 720 m (if drag is calculated too - otherwise it goes over a thousand meters).

The calculation gives one result without of drag and one resault with drag  8-).

Then try the same calculation with a ball of stone or concrete (77 g / 40 mm) and you will see the half of range only, but exactly the same "energy" (= 385 joule).

Some experiments on this tool also has shown, that best angle of shot isn't 45°, but 43°. Okay - that is peanuts of course - but to know the speed and energy now is very GREAT ! ! !

Try it ! (and ask me if you could not understand any german expression on this tool).



top speed
100_Meter_pro_Sekunde_01.png (7 KB | 46 )

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 14th, 2017 at 3:26am
360 km/h (= 224 mph) seems to be incredible high, but note: If you want to throw a ball of stone for 370 m only you nevertheless need the same speed and the same energy (385 joule if the mass of bullet is 77 g).

Either you reach this speed or your "rock" never comes close to 350 m.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 14th, 2017 at 4:56am
so you are saying 100m/s is achievable and that also others have done it.

my problem is that most throw half that speed even when trying hard.

what i'm trying to understand is : more or less everybody slings the same way, even if you made a graph and constructed a model that model is based on reality since we live in the same reality  , what is it that enables you (or a record holder) to throw double the velocity of all else?

could an average guy replicate your results by doing the same you did?

if yes ,then it's easier than we think. In this case i'm really interested on better explanations and details.

if no, then you represent a very small minority like all record holders, you should be happy of your achievements but your theories can't help the rest of us achieve what you did.





Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 14th, 2017 at 5:47am

johan wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 4:56am:
if yes ,then it's easier than we think. In this case i'm really interested on better explanations and details.


Ben Johnson wasn't Hulk. Is it now "easy" for you to run the 100 m in less then 10 seconds? What do you make wrong while running?

I am not Hulk too, but is it easy to throw much more than 100.000 rocks (in 27 years, respectively 19 years until 2011) ?

_______________________________________________________________________________


A few minutes ago I insert the parameters of Yureks throwing (505 m) into the mentioned "tool", because somewhere he said his "lead" have had a weight of 90 g and the flight of this had been broken by collision with an "aquaduct". So I take the hypothetical distance of 525 m (without collision) and calculated a lead-size of 24,7 mm (profile of ball) by myself.

The result of "tool" then was 85 m/s (= 306 km/h) and 325 Joule of energy.

So the difference between his and my shot isn't such a great thing or "wonder" - especially when he says by himself, that he was not a well trained / experienced slinger.




johan wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 4:56am:
could an average guy replicate your results by doing the same you did?


I would say "yes - if you would have talent for this and the time for another few years of practice - means somewhat about 50.000 throws within the next 5 years". Don't know what is your personal "record" and your condition right now.

And you are right: The secret momentum of slinging is somewhere hidden in the last half of round and in transformation it from a circular shape to a (long small) elliptical shape.

My drawn & theory in the main should say only that the most amount of speed can't get from making pirouettes or other types of pure "circles". But also it can't get from only one pure long elliptical turn with an initial velocity of only 10 m/s.

I mean, the transformation from circle to ellipse (what I had called "extension") is that what makes the most important "factor". But even the best faktor can't do a lot if the other factor is only 10 m/s. So both of them have to be brought at its best amount:

Do not start with a "la-la-la-weak-slinging"  :whistle: ... while thinkink "all horses power" (300 km/h) could came out of the last move an strength. That is what I wan't to say.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Mersa on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:33am
Well I agree with the theory you presented to back up your claim. Just find the claim astonishing and hard to believe.
Love to see a video.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by JudoP on Aug 14th, 2017 at 7:45am
Would you be able to post a video of your slinging?

If Larry Bray can send a stone 400m+ (which has been verified) then I don't see why 700m shouldn't be possible with ultra dense ammo and an equally skilled/strong slinger.

This would be a world record by some distance though so I think you can understand people being skeptical and wanting to see video.


Quote:
Here we do not speek about "bullets" with a top and a bottom, but about "balls". On the other hand of course I have no knowledge about bipointed projektiles of lead. Maybe they have the property to align themself in direction of flight.


I've used clay glandes and they do self-orient (after a time). Having self-oriented, glandes should naturally have larger mass to drag ratio- packing more mass through a smaller 'hole in the air', It's probably more complicated than that, but it's a long time since I've studied fluid dynamics.

IIRC the bipointed shape is the most aerodynamic bi-directional flyer, with the teardrop shape being the most aerodynamic single-directional flyer.

Of course using a sufficiently massive/dense projectile the difference in air resistance might become largely negligable between ball and glande anyway.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 14th, 2017 at 8:14am
from what i know yurek used elongated projectile(50g), bipointed which is more aerodynamic than a sphere and thus needs less speed (for vacuum 71m/s) so he probably threw 71-85m/s and that is only if he didn't mess with angle of attack.

you are saying 77g at 100m/s.


Apex-apoc wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 5:47am:
I would say "yes - if you would have talent for this and the time for another few years of practice - means somewhat about 50.000 throws within the next 5 years". Don't know what is your personal "record" and your condition right now.


i can't believe the answer hides in just more throws, and then the sling does all the work.
are you talking about specific training  year in year out and having a peak one time per year like olympic throwers? or you can perform consistently( with small deviations) throughout the year without risking major injuries in your arm?

personal records:
200m 90cm sling(old), http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1474293154/new, measured with camera frames  57m/s 72cm sling 50g stones .
a spotter would be very helpful...

in 2017 (till today) performed 9261 throws, of course most of them are accuracy and form training, if it was for speed i'm afraid i would have serious shoulder problems.



Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Aug 14th, 2017 at 8:18am
It makes sense that if a stone can be thrown over 400 meters a piece of tungsten could go much further than that.

There are a few things Im a little mystified on but nothing that immediately screams "fake" to me.

The only way to make it official for the world to see is through Guiness World Records though.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Aug 14th, 2017 at 12:46pm
I say the same as she Mersa: I'd love to see you when you're slinging! Could you make a video? If you do not want to show at your face, put the balaclava on the head  :)
The finest thing would be to see a slow motion film like David Morningstar.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by wanderer on Aug 15th, 2017 at 6:57am
Apex-apoc

I have a few questions.

I don’t understand your tabulation of relative drags. Whatver it is it does not seem to be a characteristic of the projectile alone. How do you define it, and thus compute relative drag?

It seems you are applying conservation of angular momentum (Kepler’s second law) to get your speed multiplication in the elliptical motion, but I don’t understand why that can be applied here.

(edit) - actually.. I see why this now. Probably no need to answer for angular momentum :).


Kepler’s third law is to do with period and semi-major axis under inverse square law attraction, so I’m puzzled as to how that applies here as well - actually I can't make out where you might use it, although you mention that you do. The motion in the throw may be (approximately elliptical) but the constraints seem to me to be rather different.

In the ballistics simulator, how is the drag coefficient for the sphere defined? Does the simulator account for variation in drag coefficient for ‘high’ speeds?


Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by wanderer on Aug 15th, 2017 at 7:02am

Mersa wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 6:58pm:
I think in theoretical terms things can potentially travel further in air than in a vacuum(with gravity as a constant). If perfect spin and angle are achieved and lift is generated. Real life might be harder to replicate.
I've slung lead and it's not easy to find, even painted bright colours. You may be on some very compacted soil but for me it's buried deeper than 3 cm. I also don't sling anywhere near the speeds your talking.
Who knows if your telling the truth, enjoyable reading none the less.


There's no doubt that heavy backspin extends range for mid-weight things like stones and golfballs. I'm not sure how much effect it might have with solid (polished?) metal spheres. Probably rather little - and Apex-apoc seems keen to avoid wasting initial kinetic energy going into spin.


Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by WojtekimbieR on Aug 15th, 2017 at 11:35am

Apex-apoc wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 5:19pm:

johan wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 4:17pm:
Since you throw very dense projectiles we can do the hypothesis that it is like you throw it in a vacuum.


Thats not correct. The density of a ball of tungsten is in relation to "profile", respectivley in relation to "drag" exactly twice as high as in natural stones. In other words: The drag of tungsten is only 50% of the drag of stones, and so its "range" is (as) tiwce as high too.

If you can throw a stone for 370 m, than you can throw a ball of tungsten (same mass) for 740 m ... "automatically" (while using lead - same mass - this factor is only 1,6 instead - not 2,0).


So if you had to be a Hulk for this, so you had to be too the same Hulk for throwing stones for only 370 m, but this was done already long ago and "allways" (and by Bray, Yurek, Engvall, etc. ...).

So in any point of theory you made a thinking error. Length of my sling was 1,32 m only (+ 15 cm maximum from the radius of a slinging hand). And I can't remember (or imagine) to have rotated with much more than 3 rps (4 rps I hold for absolutley undoable).

The only one possibility that I can imagine would be an even higher "factor", because Keplers second law counts on interplanetry ellipses (of gravity) and is a little bit tricky to "transfer" for acclerations in slinging. Also keep in mind, that comparisons with "hulkish conditions" can not be done if the "energy" is not known, because to throw 77 g (with 82 m/s) is not the same as to throw 150 g (with the same speed or for the same distance).



Relative drags (in relation to drag of stone):

Tungsten - 50 % (factor of range = 2,0)
Lead - 60 % (factor of range = 1,6)
Brass / Gunmetal - 66 % (factor of range = 1,57)
Steel - 67 % (factor of range = 1,48)
Stone - 100 % (factor of range = 1,0)

A ball of stone with 150 g has diameter 50 mm
A ball of tungsten with 150 g has diameter 25 mm

Thats exactly the half (50%) and therefore the ball of tungsten flies twice as far as a ball of stone.

(emphasis mine)

I'm very surprised nobody reading this has pointed out that this method is entirely incorrect. It's not how physics work. You cannot calculate range of a projectile this way at all...


johan wrote on Aug 13th, 2017 at 4:17pm:
Since you throw very dense projectiles we can do the hypothesis that it is like you throw it in a vacuum.

This approximation is actually quite useful and even somewhat accurate if you substract about 20% of range.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by JudoP on Aug 15th, 2017 at 12:28pm

Quote:
I'm very surprised nobody reading this has pointed out that this method is entirely incorrect. It's not how physics work. You cannot calculate range of a projectile this way at all...


I skipped most of the earlier posts but yes you are right.

Projectile motion with drag is very complex and analytic solutions for distance are not even possible. It can only be calculated computationally or approximated.

The statement that drag is inversely proportional to range (even just approximately) is not rigorous and needs mathematical justification.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Aug 15th, 2017 at 2:40pm
Interesting. I dont know enough about these subjects to offer any useful skepticism. But please, continue. My popcorn is ready.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 15th, 2017 at 2:41pm

WojtekimbieR wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 11:35am:
I'm very surprised nobody reading this has pointed out that this method is entirely incorrect. It's not how physics work. You cannot calculate range of a projectile this way at all...


What "method"? Drag depends 1 : 1 in cross-section of bodys moved in fluids / gases (unless the bodys are of a more or less aerodynamic shapes like rockets, UFOs or dolphins).

The diameter of a sphere / ball of tungsten (weight 100 g) is half of "diameter" of a ball of stone (with the same weight). So the cross-section of a sphere / ball of tungsten is only a QUARTER (25%) of cross-section of the stone (with the same weight or mass). So it would be to expect that its range even were the forthfold.

But this "second halving" of the tungstens drag gets a "compression" (termination) as a result of its higher range (that is similar to a longer flight time - dont know how to explain better or with all details in english).

Maybe in a physical absolutely correct calculation this had be to calculate more complex for more accuracy ... but anyway: PLEASE (!) go to this side http://www.schuetzenverein-ettenheim.de/sportschiessen/ballistikrechner.php and try it:

Insert a sphere with weight of 100 g while diameter is 60 mm ... choose a speed of 100 m/s and let the tool calculalte what the shooting-distance is.

Then try the same once more, but this time with diameter 30 mm (also 100 g) and look what range will be the result after calculation.

DO IT !!! (... and you will see it will be nearly the twice of range of the sphere with diameter 60 mm!). 

And PLEASE - english is not my mother tounge - do not expect an complex / abstract explanation of math in mathematically expressions from me, because these expressions to me are not only "mathematically", but "foreign language" too in the same time. Partially this would be english "slang", respectively "professional chinese" I never heard and never read.

Do you want to ask your questions in german?
Und darf ich dann auf Mathematisch-Deutsch antworten???


... so "YES", my so-called "relative drags" in my small table are approximations only. But what do you want? Do you want to throw rocks as far as possible, or do you want to calculate an orbital flight way to saturn and to celebrate "science" there?

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 15th, 2017 at 2:53pm
And sorry for not answering all the other questions, but to answer in english takes me four times more time as you to formulate a short question or a simple "opjection" or argument.

This is that time what I simply do not have. I would have to write about a couple of hours to answer all the questions that was been fomulated from you (all) in only one and a half day.

To speak or write english I am really don't used (but I hope by reading and writing here - sometimes - to get more practice and a little bit better ond more quickly english-speaking).

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 15th, 2017 at 3:46pm

Apex-apoc wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 2:53pm:
And sorry for not answering all the other questions, but to answer in english takes me four times more time as you to formulate a short question or a simple "opjection" or argument.

This is that time what I simply do not have. I would have to write about a couple of hours to answer all the questions that was been fomulated from you (all) in only one and a half day.

To speak or write english I am really don't used.


i prefer an answer in german than none at all....


wanderer wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 6:57am:
It seems you are applying conservation of angular momentum (Kepler’s second law) to get your speed multiplication in the elliptical motion, but I don’t understand why that can be applied here.

(edit) - actually.. I see why this now. Probably no need to answer for angular momentum Smiley.


Kepler’s third law is to do with period and semi-major axis under inverse square law attraction, so I’m puzzled as to how that applies here as well - actually I can't make out where you might use it, although you mention that you do. The motion in the throw may be (approximately elliptical) but the constraints seem to me to be rather different.


i don't understand how heavy mass (sun) relates to hand and sling , how is the keplers 2nd law applied in slinging?
the only thing that seems similar is geometry
if you have understood please explain

@WojtekimbieR,JudoP
you seem to agree with the approximation i made , that's a minimum speed, Apex-apoc claims 100m/s (!!) .The problem that concerns me the most is not external ballistics  but the internal ballistics(of slinging) that throw something 77g heavy at 100m/s (or even 80m/s)



Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 15th, 2017 at 3:54pm

johan wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 3:46pm:
if you have understood please explain


Even Kepler himself hasn't seen / understood or explained WHY (!) that second law is as it is. He only determines this kind of "moves" / "accelerations" as a fact or "natural phenomenon". But one is for sure: If acceleration comes from gravity, from jet engines, from diesel engines or from muscles doesn't matter. There is only a force / actio and type of move as "re-actio". The matter here is only "centripedal force contra centrifugal force" - with or without any sling, string or rubber band.

Do you think "force field lines" are substancial strings?

But even Kepler has build a kind of sling to imagine that a "moon" had to flew away if there were no "gravity". He was taken a small ball and a line to bind the ball and slung it around to show, respectivley to "feel" the force that he than called "centrifugal force". And than he said also: "... and my hand which holds it on orbit is the earth (... ähm ... but don't ask me what the crappity smack is the line!)".

But I have to correct me in spite of an earlier argument of you: In any kind of way has this "second law" absolutly to do with "leverages" and / or "mechanical translations" (dont know if "translation" is the right expression in this case too).

Auf Deutsch hieße die mechanische "Übersetzung" aber ebenfalls "Übersetzung" (genauso, wie die spachliche Übersetzung). Übersetzung = translation.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 15th, 2017 at 4:51pm

Apex-apoc wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 3:54pm:
Even Kepler himself hasn't seen / understood or explained WHY (!) that is as it is. He only determines this kind of "moves" / "accelerations". But one is for sure: If acceleration comes from gravity, from jet engines, from diesel engines or from muscles doesn't matter. There is only a force / actio and type of move as "re-actio". The matter here is only "centripedal force contra centrifugal force" - with or without any sling, string or rubber band.


different forces are applied in different manners and angles, in theory an arm might perform what you are saying, but in reality an arm has many limitations.
with the 2nd law of keppler  the max velocity of a planet is when it is closer to the sun, how do you tranfer that to hand and sling?


Apex-apoc wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 3:54pm:
But I have to correct me in spite of an earlier argument of you: In any kind of way has this "second law" absolutly to do with "leverages" and / or "mechanical translations" (dont know if "translation" is the right expression in this case too).


i don't understand what you are trying to say. if you can't write it in english rewrite it in german

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by JudoP on Aug 15th, 2017 at 4:56pm
@Apex- Please don't take this as a hostile attitude! I'm trying to work out what's going on the best I can, and I'm sure you can offer some good insight if you can throw anywhere near 700m (or even 400-500m).


Quote:
What "method"? Drag depends 1 : 1 in cross-section of bodys moved in fluids / gases (unless the bodys are of a more or less aerodynamic shapes like rockets, UFOs or dolphins).


This bit is not what we are disputing- it is true that drag is proportional to the area cross section. The formula as far as I can remember is:

d=k A v^2

d=drag
k=some constant factor
v=velocity

So d and A are plainly directly proportional. '1 to 1' as you say.


Quote:
But this "second halving" of the tungstens drag gets a "compression" (termination) as a result of its higher range (that is similar to a longer flight time - dont know how to explain better or with all details in english).


d and A are proportional, but this does not bear any direct relation to the flight time or distance traveled. As drag increases so distance traveled and time of flight decreases, but there is no reason this should be on a '1:1 basis', or inversely proportional to the area/drag (in fact, if it was so simple this would be very well known and easy to work out).

A computer simulation is certainly a useful tool for these questions, but care should be taken when trying to derive general rules from it as these will break down outside a certain range of data.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 15th, 2017 at 5:03pm

johan wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 4:51pm:
i don't understand what you are trying to say. if you can't write it in english rewrite it in german


Do you want to drive me crazy???

Let's make it vice versa: Give you now an absolutly "understandable" explanation for achieving Yureks "80 m/s" from only a lot of circular rounds (rps). Or do you already want to say he rotates his charge 7 or 8 times per second along a circumference of 10 or 11 meters???

Where does this speed come from? From "rounds per second" multiplicated with "leverage"? 

And how can you apply a "round" or a "second" to an arms limitations???

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 15th, 2017 at 5:23pm
sorry i don't want to drive you crazy , i just don't understand.

your records are a lot more different than yureks.
77g 100m/s=> 385 joule
50g 80m/s=> 160 joule
and more...
but yurek is as questionable as you and i don't remember he was talking about any consistency of range....
(i can't even find the first time he mentions his record!and the details of his record are all over the place)



Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by JudoP on Aug 15th, 2017 at 5:25pm
@Parm


Quote:
@WojtekimbieR,JudoP
you seem to agree with the approximation i made , that's a minimum speed, Apex-apoc claims 100m/s (!!) .The problem that concerns me the most is not external ballistics  but the internal ballistics(of slinging) that throw something 77g heavy at 100m/s (or even 80m/s)


Centripetal force of the above on a 1.3m sling:

F = (mv^2)/r

F = (0.077*100^2)/1.3 = 592N

Equivalent to about 60kg or 132lbs. Quite a lot, but this would be peak force at the point of launch. An arm can certainly hold 60kg of weight, it would be hard to use the forearm/shoulder and especially wrist in generating this force though.

Interestingly it compares with throwing a 150g rock @ 50m/s from a 25'' balearic sling. I gather this is possible?

F = (0.150*50^2)/0.63 = 595N

One explanation of why the former is comparatively rare might be that the rotating resistance (air resistance on cords and pouch while spinning) would be much higher than with a shorter sling moving slowly.


Personally I can't understand why someone would try throw a heavier rock with a short sling, it's hard on the arm- I can't do it. I have to use longer slings to get any reasonable launch speed.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 15th, 2017 at 5:39pm

johan wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 5:23pm:
but yurek is as questionable as you and i don't remember he was talking about any consistency of range....


Anyway:

Let's make it vice versa: Give you now an absolutly "understandable" explanation for achieving Yureks "80 m/s" from only a lot of circular rounds (rps). Or do you already want to say he rotates his charge 7 or 8 times per second along a circumference of 10 or 11 meters???

TAKE ONLY 15 g INSTEAD OF 50 g FOR YOUR EXPLANATION ! ! !

Where does this SPEEEEED (!) come from? From "rounds per second" multiplicated with "leverage"? 

And how can you apply a "round" or a "second" to an arms limitations???

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 15th, 2017 at 5:43pm
@JudoP this comparison is wrong.
i agree with apex apoc that the sling creates an ellipsoid which makes the radius much bigger than the length of the sling(or arm+ sling) , i think most of us know it....
and probably the centrifugal force never reaches 592N

but i disagree that the initial rotations have a direct relation with the "muzzle" speed .It's like saying all the energy is already in the initial rotations, you just make it an ellipsoid and it speeds up, like you don't need to put extra energy.
and can't understand how the factor by extension works. it needs mathematical proof and physics explanation.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 15th, 2017 at 6:01pm

johan wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 5:43pm:
It's like saying all the energy is already in the initial rotations, you just make it an ellipsoid and it speeds up, like you don't need to put extra energy.


That never was said. I said much more, both of them (wind up & "extension") are like "factors" in a multiplikation: If one of them is to low, then the other can't rescue "all horses" alone.

It's much more like area of a rectangle: Most area results from same long sides (while the same scope).

2 + 10 = 12 ... but in multiplication it is 20.

6 + 6 = 12 too ... but in multiplication right this is much more (36). 

... and now try the same with "0,5" and "11,5" and call the "0,5" your "initial rotation" !


Also "extension" (deforming the circle) needs extra input of energy, but "rps" of 50 or 150 g is another package of energy which is like "saved in a circular moved charge".

Recursive to my drawing: Not 5 m/s x 3 is 57 m/s, but 19 m/s x 3 is 57 m/s.

But if you want to insist at the opinion that initial rotation doesn't count, than you have to explain where the speed of 57 m/s are coming from.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Mersa on Aug 15th, 2017 at 6:08pm
I say enough theory show some footage. Everyone has cameras these days , everyone has access to google.

Just Film something so we can see.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by JudoP on Aug 15th, 2017 at 6:14pm
@Parm

Of course- that's quite obvious (it's late here!) :D

Well, in that case a decent estimate could simply be arm length+sling length. Assuming the motion of the projectile is roughly perpendicular to the center of the rotation, circular motion laws should still apply.

By this and having a roughly 60cm arm-

Balearic 150g rocks:

F=(0.150*50^2)/1.2 = 312N ~ 32kg

1.3m sling with 77g rocks:

F=(0.077*100^2)/1.9 = 405N ~ 41kg

More realistic for the peak force? It's still a lot for fingers/wrists.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 15th, 2017 at 6:15pm

Mersa wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 6:08pm:
Just Film something so we can see.


Do you believe in the "filmed" landing on the moon, or do you much more believe in "filmed" Godzilla?

How do you film a 700-m-throwing? Would you be the "filmer" and riding the bullet or would you be much more a "satellite"???

Right then if you have a cam & internet (& TV & newspaper ...), than you should know that film, foto or video verifies exactly NOTHING!

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Mersa on Aug 15th, 2017 at 7:42pm
All of the equations that are being used are only trying to solve small Static parts of a much larger DYNAMIC problem.

So much of this conversation is theoretical and really provides little evidence that it's possible in a real life application.

Every different technique uses more or less of the potential energy of the energy your body provides. The type of sling , stretch, wind resistance, pouch , release, length and weight then play another role where some energy is lost some is gained. Then projectile weight, density, shape, angle, spin come into play and this might be the hardest most misunderstood part. Wind direction, density of air , moisture content and air temperature would all have effects on the projectile.

With all the numbers that have been thrown out there all of it really means squat. All that we get out of the STATIC equations are minimums in perfect conditions which makes the numbers seem even more outstanding.

A video would give all the other members more proof that:
1: You are not the hulk
2: Your size ( you could be a much taller or bigger than expected)
3: Your slinging technique (this is maybe the most interesting)
4: Breakdown of footage ( some members can calculate speeds using fps and audio files)
5: What your tungsten balls look like
6: The no spin release
7: What 100m/s does to a wall or other target at close range
8: and with all the claims of accuracy and distance a throw of a stone with a view of a lake at say 300-450m away throw , show splash . Shouldn't be a problem for a man of your caliber

As for the Godzilla comment.
I agree footage can be manipulated and make things that are false seem real. So can theoretical physics

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Aug 15th, 2017 at 8:20pm
If I remember correctly Yurek(?) mentioned years ago calculating Luis Pons Livermore slinging large stones ( I want to say something like  7-8 ounces) at approx. 45 m/s. The fastest he had found up until that point.

Take this with a grain of salt as this was years ago. That being said English warbow shooters hold enormous weights with three fingers. So definitely seems in the realm of possibility.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 16th, 2017 at 2:35am

Mersa wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 7:42pm:
A video would give all the other members more proof that:


Please remember that the topic is not: "How to proof a mentioned but incredible range" or: "Apex-apoc - the legend (or the liar)", but "absolutely maximum sling length (... what & why - so why not 3,5 m)".

When watching a video of my throw you wouldn't see much more than by watching the difference in one video of a novice (absolving "helicopter style") and a video of D. McNamara (or Brian who makes a showy strong "extension" with a lot of whole body motion).

If you not able to see the "secret leverage of a slings dynamic" in any video than you wouldn't see it in any other video. And of course a red laquered tungsten ball looks exactly like any red laquered marble (without laque it looks exactly like steinless steel in shape of a ball).

And "NO" - I do not have a camera and also have no intentions to buy one, let alone to cut videos in video-cut-and-convert-programs.

My heigth is 1,78 m and my weight today is 68 kg only (in 1990 - 2010 it was 6 kg more muscles because I had trained like a swimmer and a gymnast).


And remember that it was parmenion who want's to know if I have only "theory" or even "experience", and than I said (quasi): "very much experience (& skills) from practice". Altready in this moment I could have conter also: "And what is the experience behind your counter-theory? Perhaps that one that I do not believe or experience in making videos only?"

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by yonderstone on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:36am
I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but the burden of proof generally falls upon the person making the claim. You are claiming to throw nearly twice the distance of the current world record for slinging. Throwing a 1188 grain projectile at 328 fps is comparable to a .38 special handgun in terms of energy upon impact.

I hope that you can appreciate the skepticism that slingers, who have trained for years, might have when assessing the validity of this claim. I love a good physics discussion as much as the next guy, but no claim is scientific unless it is falsifiable: able to be proven or refuted by evidence. In this case, I believe that everyone here would be eager to accept your claim as it would be exciting and inspiring if any kind of evidence were shown.

I do hope you don't take my words as disrespectful. I just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.

Ich will nicht respektlos klingen, aber die Beweislast fällt allgemein auf die Person, die den Anspruch macht. Sie behaupten, fast die doppelte Distanz des aktuellen Weltrekordes für das Slinging zu werfen. Das Werfen eines 1188-Kornprojektils bei 328 fps ist vergleichbar mit einer .38 Spezialpistole in puncto Energie beim Aufprall.

Ich hoffe, dass Sie die Skepsis zu schätzen wissen, dass Slinger, die seit Jahren trainiert haben, bei der Beurteilung der Gültigkeit dieses Anspruchs haben können. Ich liebe eine gute Physik Diskussion so viel wie der nächste Kerl, aber kein Anspruch ist wissenschaftlich, es sei denn, es ist falsifizierbar: in der Lage, bewiesen oder widerlegt durch Beweise. In diesem Fall glaube ich, dass jeder hier eifrig wäre, deinen Anspruch zu akzeptieren, da es spannend und inspirierend wäre, wenn irgendwelche Beweise gezeigt würden.

Ich hoffe, du nimmst meine Worte nicht als respektlos Ich dachte nur, ich würde meine 2 Cent hineinwerfen.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:43am

yonderstone wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 3:36am:
but the burden of proof generally falls upon the person making the claim.


Thats a claim too (... Mr. Hitchens), so bring the required proof for it!

Freilich weiß ich deine / eure Skepsis zu schätzen, aber nun erkläre du mal, weshalb deine Schleuder (sling) keine zwei Meter lang ist, sondern nur 0,8 oder 1,2 Meter (auch wenn du sehr weit werfen wolltest).

Simply take this discussion that kind as if I had never said "700 m", but only "300 m". What makes here the difference? Do you take now a sling with length of 1,5 - 1,8 m ?

But if NOT, so WHY not ???

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by yonderstone on Aug 16th, 2017 at 4:12am
That the burden of proof falls upon the person making the claim is not a new idea, in philosophy, science, and law this is the case. Russell's teapot is a common analogy to support this point, where Bertrand Russell wrote that if he were to claim that a teapot was in orbit around the sun in between Earth and Mars that he could not expect his claim to be believed since it could not be proven.

Britannica.com has a nice short summery on the principle of falsifiability if you are up for a quick read:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability

It is also taught in most basic level science classes here in the United States. I am happy to provide more evidence to support this assertion, if you like.

Your turn.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 16th, 2017 at 4:21am

yonderstone wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 4:12am:
It is also taught in most basic level science classes here in the United States.


This all I know allready. But where is the required proof for it?

Simply to say "it is simply the case, philosophy or fact" makes sense in no way!

"Hitchens razor" is no jota sharper than razor foam! In principal he said only: "You have to proof your claim and mine I have not!"

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by yonderstone on Aug 16th, 2017 at 4:32am
So what kind of evidence would be satisfactory for you? Would you like me to provide citations? Quotes? Where do you draw the line? (especially for something that you claim to already know) Christopher Hitchens did not come up with this principle, and I'm not sure why you are bringing him into this conversation.

In the case of your slinging, it seems to me that the members of this forum who have responded to you have asked for video or something. Everyone is crowding around ready to salute and admire you if what you are saying is true.

If you are so skeptical of the entire idea of falsifiability as a basis for accepting claims, then you should be understanding of the folks here being skeptical of your claims about being able to accomplish these kinds of slinging feats.


Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Mersa on Aug 16th, 2017 at 5:09am
In regards to the topics title. As long as you can personally weild without effecting results.
In regards to apex and his claim, I hope that what you say is true. I love slinging and this would be a great feat. Without anymore evidence it will remain unknown.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by JudoP on Aug 16th, 2017 at 5:38am

Mersa wrote on Aug 15th, 2017 at 7:42pm:
With all the numbers that have been thrown out there all of it really means squat. All that we get out of the STATIC equations are minimums in perfect conditions which makes the numbers seem even more outstanding.

I agree footage can be manipulated and make things that are false seem real. So can theoretical physics


It's a little forthright to throw all calculation out of the window. None of the equations I've posted are static(?) they apply in dynamic situations. Whether they deliver minimums or perfect conditions (also maximums, approximations etc) are up for debate and reasoned argument, not subject to arbitrary rejection.

The challenge is getting the physics right, or getting a good model approximating the reality as close as possible.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 16th, 2017 at 6:07am

JudoP wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 5:38am:
The challenge is getting the physics right, or getting a good model approximating the reality as close as possible.


Maybe a larger number of "drawings" (sorted like 12 steps or 24 frames in a flipbook) could answer the question for origin of the secret "factor" (or "top speed"). I mean the mystik turn, lever or moment(um) has to be hidden somewhere in the watchable turn, and what is hidden, that also has to be "trekable into daylight".

I think I will try this to draw anewed in the months of winter: Each step / frame must show a pair (or couple) of propotional "true" vectors (of force) and than show, where or how they get changed while forming (more and more) the ellipse.

It's a shame, to sling stones with the sling for a lot of decades - respectivley millenia - but not to know how and why it works. It seems the "slingshotter" knows her physiks better.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 16th, 2017 at 6:58am
@JudoP http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1502880716/0#0
i hope this answers how your comparison(reply #93) is wrong

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by JudoP on Aug 16th, 2017 at 7:47am

johan wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 6:58am:
@JudoP http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1502880716/0#0
i hope this answers how your comparison(reply #93) is wrong

I've added a reply on the new thread.

Already saw the error in #93 as per my last post  :)

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Aug 16th, 2017 at 12:41pm
Please, can you make such a video as Yurek does?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJooCQldw0M

This would be really important for the whole sling culture. If you can throw so fast and 700m, it would be important to document it! It should not be a legend.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 16th, 2017 at 4:52pm
@timpa:

Ahaaa! I allready known this video, but I haven't known that "Mr. Jugas" is "Yurek".

But "Yurek" also is "Jerzy Gasperowicz", or not???

Unfortunately I am not abel to make videos, but I have a friend working in an advertising agency. Perhaps he is allowed some day to take some "equipment" for making a video of a 700-m-throwing. But how is such a distance to catch on camera?

I like the video where you were slinging balls of steel on a frozen see and where "squeaks" are recorded (and no squeak if balls reached the opposite shore).

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Aug 17th, 2017 at 12:29pm
Thanks A-a!
I was thinking of the same problem (catch on camera). There were only two solutions: a new ice and a calm lake. And of these I did the videos.
But also Yurek's metal bridge is one solution.

Yes, Yurek/Jerzy/Jugas are the same person.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by yonderstone on Aug 18th, 2017 at 2:28am
It would have to be a good sized lake for a 700m shot! Even if we couldn't see it land, it would be awesome just to see the technique and the sheer speed/force of the shot. It's really quite exciting to consider.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 19th, 2017 at 4:22pm
@Apex-apoc
you have described the sling you used to throw tungsten balls 700m.
But what sling and what shape of stones did you use for the 400m throw?

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 19th, 2017 at 7:26pm

johan wrote on Aug 19th, 2017 at 4:22pm:
But what sling and what shape of stones did you use for the 400m throw?


Sling: "Instant release sling" (germ.: Jagdschleuder) - Lenght: 1,26 m or 1,34 m (for stones I had two of them - one with braiden waxed linen cords and one with braiden polyester cords and clear perlon line).

Stones: 110 - 130 g / 40 - 46 mm - Shape: "nearly round and smooth like balls" (the 15 best of my collection).

Best (measured) range while using a "normal" sling (which gives the stones high rotation) was 361 m in a distance of 23 m beside the "target" (this kind of target was a 350-m-mark in form of a peg).

If I throw with a "Jagdschleuder" I mostly bring the stones much closer to the mark, even when the distance / target is a 400-m-mark. So I use the normal type of sling only for some practice in "using this type" and for shorter distance (up to 125 m).

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 19th, 2017 at 8:28pm

yonderstone wrote on Aug 16th, 2017 at 4:32am:
Christopher Hitchens did not come up with this principle, and I'm not sure why you are bringing him into this conversation.


Because of this:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor ; ... and it's signifcant similarity with your cited "maxime".

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Thearos on Aug 20th, 2017 at 9:39am
Without wishing to be inflammatory, I would like to say that I find distances of 400m with stones and 700m with special ammo difficult to believe (if these are the feats that Mr Apoc is claiming). My only reasons for saying this is that in my own slinging experience, which is very long though admittedly not distinguished by great skill, such distances are beyond imagining. 

On the other hand, I note that Mr Apoc's stones are the perfect weight (100+g) and shape, i.e. aerodynamics heavy "smashers" that retain their momentum, as Aussie once told me. Whenever I have slung with such stones, namely smooth "hand-fillers" that are a bit bigger than egg size (if I am correct), and that require courage and commitment to sling well, I have reached better results than usual for me. Mr Apoc's sling length is also recognizable as a very good length, perhaps the perect length, for power throwing over great distances. So who knows ? Perfect stone, perfect sling, extremely good technique, all would make for very impressive results.

What distances have people seen with the big guys slinging for fun on Menorca ?

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Aug 20th, 2017 at 7:08pm
It sling I was throwing  about 300 meters, was exactly 1.3m/51inch. (ice and lake videos)
But the helicopter style, I do not have any chance. It succeeds only me pirouette.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Thearos on Aug 20th, 2017 at 7:33pm
I only sling helicopter. I do not know my maximum distance, but  by estimate would place it a bit over 100m (maybe 120m) with good stones and a long sling. This based on slinging at a cliff where I shoot at targets at known distances (25m, 40-45m, and 80 or so, where I already find it difficult to reach the target range and certainly have no great hopes for accuracy).

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Mersa on Aug 20th, 2017 at 8:05pm
What length is your sling thearos?
I only started measuring distances in the last month and I'm getting around 100m out of stones of various sizes and my best measured shot was just short or 120 with a golfball. (I no longer use golfballs as I had a very scary rebound and put me off). I feel some shots were further but can't claim as I wasn't on flat ground or found stones or combination. My sling is only 27inch. Hoping to break into the 200m mark without increasing sling length.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Thearos on Aug 20th, 2017 at 8:49pm
I have a short sling (finger tip to elbow) for target practice and two bigger slings (finger tip to shoulder and finger tip to breastbone) for shots at distance

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 21st, 2017 at 11:20am

Thearos wrote on Aug 20th, 2017 at 9:39am:
On the other hand, I note that Mr Apoc's stones are the perfect weight (100+g) and shape, i.e. aerodynamics heavy "smashers" that retain their momentum, as Aussie once told me.


And I can not remember / repeat enough often that stones high rotation and a slings "sonic boom" is nothing else than wasted energy, although a very nice sound here or there. Take this waste away and your range will win up to 15 % more distance.

The differences between a "Hirtenschleuder" ("sheperd sling" - made for herding sheeps) and a "Jägerschleuder" ("hunters sling" - made for hunting or war) are also very important for an evaluation in remarked ranges.

When slinging stones I can't reach the 400-m-mark too with a sheperd sling. For this type of sling I also would say: "... is as much as impossible!" But while using a hunting sling (for humans) even more distance is possible, because my own (measured) "best range" was not only 400 but 443 m.

And of course are these 43 "extra meters" not only the mentioned "15 % extra distance from saved energy" but also a result of a flight that is much more "straight on" (what in lingo also means: "saved mouse-meters") than a flight along some "magnus effekt lines".

I know so called "birdies" (thrown stones that don't want to follow the trajectory-parabola but to follow some ghosty "lifters" or directions to the left side / right side) very well ... and that of course is "funny" too ... but while searching for range the same isn't funny at all but "scheiße" (= damnd).

Also when searching for more "hits on target" this unpredictable flightways are anything but "helpful" (especially when targets distance is far more than 50 m). Right then when slinging the helicopter style the flightway is very "unpredictibel" because the pouch than has a little "swinging" rotation and so a direction that never is known.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Bill Skinner on Aug 21st, 2017 at 11:30am
That's interesting and I will admit I never thought about it but you can actually see the pouch twisting with thin cords.  I never thought about it affecting my accuracy due to it changing my release angle.

This might go a long way to explaining why I am more accurate with a braided sling than I am with a para cord sling.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 21st, 2017 at 11:57am
@Apex-apoc what is the orientation of the spin(of the stone) with the "frictionless" sling when you throw? or you don't care?

jax used fins on some of his designs:http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227069230/30

i need to try such sling to understand how much difference in spin there is.

could you upload pictures of your record slings? are they similar to jax's?

what is the difference in reload time?
relaxed and aiming i throw 5/min with normal split pouch

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Aug 21st, 2017 at 11:58am
Apex Ive noticed this as well. Good to know Im not crazy. This is one of the things that can make long distance target accuracy more difficult to understand that a simple formula.

Sometimes a stone coming out of the pouch at a slight angle other than straight will take a while to show the true effects of the release error. Many times Ive noticed this when switching from a target at 30 meters to around 50 and above. Suddenly my shots drift more to the left. Whereas at 30 they were hitting dead on.

Its similar to when you throw a shot with a ton of backspin and everything seems fine and suddenly the shot can arc sharply up. Although that is more to do with spin than angle, either way it tends to take a bit for the effect to come into play.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 21st, 2017 at 1:04pm

Bill Skinner wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 11:30am:
why I am more accurate with a braided sling than I am with a para cord sling.


Generally this is correct, but also "para cord" isn't allways the same as "para cord" - there are offered better and lower qualities. I have (for example) bought a black round very fine and thin braiden yarn of polyester (12 strands and D = 1,0 mm) what is nevertheless incredible "stiff" or "resistent" against twisting. It is braiden by mashine and so braided very strong / dens but flexible nevertheless.

Looks like "para cord" (without pattern) but isn't one. It has no "sole" (germ.: "Seele" - in german so also is called the "core" of ropes or yarns - the same word as the "sole" of men) and can be bought by "kanirope" (rope factory in germany).

If you would braid with good braided yarns (instead of twistet yarns) than you would get a sling that is "extra-twist-resistant" and still thin.

Even when a sling is braided with five strands (flat) but from twisted strands while all strands are twisted in the same direction (clockwise or counterclockwise) then even the braid tends a little bit to wind down. This braid than is "twist-resistent" for only one direction. I mean "braiding" alone can't terminate any "drill" totaly.

Best way to make a braid "twist-resistant" for each direction is to braid a "tube" - a so called "coat braid" (with sole / core). When this is realy good braided but from twistet jute, wool, silk, hemp, sisal or linen then its twist-remembering has to be ereased by (multiple) watering and drying.

But when it is braided from twisted yarns of "plastic" (nylon, polyester or polypropylen ...), than the twist-remembering can only ereased with slow heating while a long time (2 - 3 hours up to 90° celsius - some more but even more slow when made of nylon because nylon keeps some water that begins to boil (boiling ?) if have not enough time to damp out).

So there also are offered some braiden ropes where its "bundels of monofilaments" are not twistet, because a rope of twisted strands allways keeps a little instabil against twisting down (= re-twisting / conter-twisting).

A special process of heating could also twisted plastic-yarns prevent from twisting down, but even that should be allready done by the factory because for "own's kitchen" this process is too awkward and difficult / sensible.



But you are right: There also are offered some "types" of "para cords" thats "twist-resistance" is very low. And "yes" - the accuracy of a sling can be very bad if its cords are braided too "sluffy". Therefore my tip for you: When not principal allergic against all "in-natural" high-tech materials then once in future also try a 2 or 2,5 mm thick "nylon line" what is stiff nearly like thin wire and made for mewing lawns.

Have you ever seen such nylon lines? It's neither twisted nor braiden nor woven but up to 4 mm thick and "strong as Harry" even when only 1,5 mm thick!

To get this fixed on leather-pouch is a little bit "tricky" (I must admit: "right very tricky") but when mastered this problem than it is the most perfect stuff for making the worlds best and most effective slings: Thin, light, elastic, hit-resistant, stone-resistant, light-resistant*, rott-resistant and EXTREMLY twist-resistant. It's almost like the RESISTANCE in its self.

But never forget: Also thick leather can be a wonderful fitting material for accuracy slings - as a sling (cords) it is only very sensible against water, rain and wet weather (fog).

_______________________________________________________________________________

* light-resistance of nylon is not totally as high as on polyester but nearly. For this the heat-resistance of nylon is a little bit higher as on polyester.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Jaegoor on Aug 21st, 2017 at 7:09pm
Thearos ich sah in Palma Jaume Darder mit einer sehr kurzen  Sling 400m weit werfen. Darüber war ich damals sehr erstaunt.  Jaume ist ein Meister , ähnliche wie Luis , Juanjo Caballero und andere.
Ich selbst habe schon sehr hohe Distanzen geschossen. Mein bestes projektil war eine Blei Kugel . Diese war mit Glas überzogen.  Ich möchte die Ergebnisse aber nicht veröffentlichen.
Sind 700m möglich?  Definitiv ja. Ob ich glaube das Apex  diese Distanz erreichte ? Wenn ich es sehe , glaube ich es . Vorher eher nicht. Zuviel Gerede  über Hebel und dreh Geschwindigkeit. Wären sie ein Slinger wie sie es sagen, dann wären ihnen wichtige Faktoren bekannt. Diese nennen sie aber überhaupt nicht.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Thearos on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 4:10am
Hallo Jaegoor,
wie habt ihr die Entfernung bei Jaumes Geschoss vermesst ? Oder ist das nur Ungefährliches ?

Tja, ich geb zu, dass, wenn ich auf dem Feld 700m anschaue (mein smart Handy hat eine Entfernungsmesser-app), fällt mir dies als eine wirklich unglaubliche lange Entfernung.

Gehe jetzt schleudern, ohne Technik, rohe Steine, 25m Zielentfernung. Nur Amateurisches.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 4:24am
from google translate, Jaegoor :

Quote:
Thearos I saw in Palma Jaume Darder with a very short Sling 400m far throw. I was very surprised at that time. Jaume is a master, similar to Luis, Juanjo Caballero and others.
I myself have already shot very high distances. My best projectil was a lead ball. This was covered with glass. I do not want to publish the results.
Are 700m possible? Definitely yes. Whether I believe the Apex reached this distance? When I see it, I believe it. Previously not. Too much talk about lever and speed. If they were a Slinger as they say, then important factors would be known to them. But they do not call them at all.


@Jaegoor since you  witnessed a 400m throw with a short sling then why didn't you believe Apex apoc in the first place?


Jaegoor wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 7:09pm:
Wären sie ein Slinger wie sie es sagen, dann wären ihnen wichtige Faktoren bekannt.


I'm self taught, with a mentor or a teacher i would be in 6 months where i'm now in 6 years.If important factors are known to you why not share them?no one is born with knowledge.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Jaegoor on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 5:50am
Thearos . Wir brauchten nicht messen. Wir schossen 2009 auf seinem Grundstück . Daran grenzte weitere Grundstücke. Überall waren Obstbäume.  Alle Grundstücke waren durch eine niedrige typische mallorqine Stein Mauer von einander getrennt. Die Größe der Grundstücke war gleich und bekannt. Er traff eine der Mauern . Der Einschlag war gut erkennbar.

Parmenion. Ich teilte mein Wissen hier bereits recht häufig.  Doch immer wieder kommen die gleichen Diskussionen.  Das ist ermüdend.  Die Fragen nach verschiedenen Stilen . Immer wieder. Doch wo sind die Ergebnisse?
Ein Professor in Deutschland erklärte mir, das man mit einer Schleuder rein rechnerisch keine fliegende Ziele treffen könne.  Er erklärte es sehr genau.  Es war logisch. Aber es stimmte nicht. Menschen vor mir haben es getan. Ich kann es, andere könnten es auch. Der Professor war mit einigen Studenten bei mir zu Besuch. Ich zeigte es ihm. Bei der Gelegenheit traf ich eine fliegende Flasche . Es brauchte einige Versuche, doch ich schaffte es. Seitdem trainiere ich es gelegentlich.
Ich stelle die Aussage von Apex nicht grundsätzliche in Frage. Doch ich möchte es sehen. Bei seiner Beschreibung fehlen wichtige Faktoren. Wären sie ihm bekannt, dann würde er wissen, das die Rotationgeschwindigkeit der Schleuder nicht der wichtigste Faktor für Distanz oder Power ist. Es ist ist nur ein Teil. Deshalb wäre ein Video gut. Nicht um zu beweisen das er tatsächlich diese Distanz zu schießen vermag. Nur um zu sehen wie routiniert er im Umgang mit der Schleuder wirklich ist. :P

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 6:26am

Jaegoor wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 7:09pm:
Zuviel Gerede  über Hebel und dreh Geschwindigkeit. Wären sie ein Slinger wie sie es sagen, dann wären ihnen wichtige Faktoren bekannt. Diese nennen sie aber überhaupt nicht.


Gut - es fällt allmählich auf, dass Sie mich nicht leiden können und / oder lediglich beleidigt sind, denn die Anmerkung, dass ich die "wichtig(er)en" Faktoren überhaupt nicht nennen würde - Hebel, Schleuderlängen und (Rotations-) Geschwindigkeiten also unwichtig wären - kann erstens mal schon aus Sicht eines Laien nur der komplette Unsinn sein, und zweitens nennen Sie die angeblich noch viel wichtigeren Gründe noch im gleichen Post und Atemzug ebenfalls NICHT.

Das heißt, Sie reden hier nur ganz ausgsprochen "trotzig", also allein um der Besserwisserei und Widerrede willen.

Gehen Sie mal auf Ihre eigene Website - dort erinnert Sie nämlich ihr eigener Text daran, dass Sie die "Hebelwirkung von Hebeln (an Schleudern)" bereits selbst hervorgehoben haben:

https://fundamittere.jimdo.com/funda-mentale-fragen-und-antworten/

Also reißen Sie sich nun einfach mal ein bisschen zusammen. "Unwichtig" sind in diesem Zusammenhang wohl eher Ihre "Grundstücksmauern auf La Paloma", die zwar nie gemessen worden sein sollen, aber alle den selben Abstand zueinander hätten. Doch tatsächlich noch viel unwichtiger ist, ob eine Bleikugel mit Glas überzogen worden ist und / oder ob Sie Ihre Schleuderweiten damit ab sofort oder demnächst geheimhalten möchten.

Ob Sie im Spessart, am Strand der Nordsee oder "bei den Meistern" auf den Balearen schleudern / werfen, ist für eine zu erzielende Wurfweite defacto noch viel unwichtiger.

Also bitte WAS reden SIE hier zusammen?

Ich erkenne inzwischen recht gut, wie Sie ticken: Sie fürchten ganz einfach um die baldige Relativierung ihres Titels, der da so schön "Deutscher Schleudermeister" lauten sollte, in Wirklichkeit aber nur von Ihnen selbst "produziert" worden ist und darum schon ohnehin kaum mehr als ein "Wackelpeter" war.

Meine Posts stellen Ihre völlig frei erfundene Kompetenz und "Lehrlizenz" infrage - nicht wahr?!! Sie vermögen in mir nur ihren "GEGNER" zu sehen.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 6:55am

Jaegoor wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 5:50am:
Parmenion. Ich teilte mein Wissen hier bereits recht häufig.  Doch immer wieder kommen die gleichen Diskussionen.  Das ist ermüdend.



i can understand that this is tiring.But instead of saying for example:" no this is not working"and leaving us with no explanation you could say:"this has already been discussed read this thread...."

so could you point out some threads which you think are crucial for understanding the way of mastering accuracy and power/range?
or a sticky note by the moderators would help

yurek said something similar in one of his posts " i've already talked about that, you can find it on previous posts ..."
the problem is that this forum has 309 pages 20 threads each = 6180 threads (that's only on general slinging discussion)
search allows maximum of 200 results
even when searching for posts made by one member there is trouble...


Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 7:32am

johan wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 11:57am:
i need to try such sling to understand how much difference in spin there is.


There is practical no spin at all if also the bullet is some "slippery". Right in the moment of release the bullet is set free - not only 1/100 second for "e-volution" of pouch (and cord) get lost.

Unfortunately I don't have any pictures from my own slings, but I can upload one picture that I found somewhere in internet. Of course I have no permission for "paste & copy" from it's owner (can't remember the source), but I can upload it here now for a short time and then clear / erease again.

So take a copy from this (... on coming friday or weekend I will erease it):   


EDIT: Image deleted on 11.Sept.2017

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Jaegoor on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 7:34am
Apex ich beginne sie lustig zu finden. Ja es gab einmal im Ansatz eine Deutsche Meisterschaft. Die Resonanz war nicht sehr hoch. Gründe dafür waren verschieden. Es waren nur sehr wenige slinger da. Und Nein ich ernannte mich nicht selbst zum Gewinner.  Zur Zeit finden keine Treffen weiter statt. Aber es sind weitere geplant. Allerdings nicht als Deutsche Meisterschaft.  Sie sind herzlich eingeladen. Und nochmal so  nebenbei. Es ist mir völlig egal was sie mir glauben oder für wie relevant sie das schießen bei Jaume halten. Ich sah sie jedenfalls nicht dort.  Ich sah von ihnen überhaupt nix bisher. deshalb werde ich ihr schießen beurteilen, nicht ihre Worte.  Was ist daran unverständlich ? Da ich sie also in keinster Weise kenne, auch keine Taten von ihnen in irgendeiner Form gesehen habe, warum um alles in der Welt sollte ich sie nicht leiden können?

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 7:42am

Jaegoor wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 7:34am:
warum um alles in der Welt sollte ich sie nicht leiden können?


Habe ich doch schon erklärt: Weil sie doch tatsächlich den "Schneid" besitzen, hier zu behaupten, dass die von mir erwähnten Hebel, Schleuderlängen und Geschwindigkeiten keine Rolle spielen würden, bzw. "unwichtig" wären (konkret also genau deshalb, weil ich ihren zumeist nur sehr ungenauen Anmerkungen exakt zuwiderrede).

Dass Sie sich bezüglich dieser Bemerkung nun auch noch dumm stellen und stattdessen (zugunsten etwaiger Ablenkung) von meiner "Abwesenheit in Jaume" sprechen möchten, macht dann eher Sie selbst recht "lustig", bzw. bedauernswert.

Haben Sie überhaupt mitbekommen, was hier TOPIC ist?

Es fiel auf slinging.org jedenfalls schon häufiger auf, dass Sie auch hier ganz gerne den "Lehrer" geben, aber dennoch nie ganz bei der Sache sind und (wie soeben auch parmenion anzudeuten versuchte) dieselbe auch nicht auf den Punkt zu bringen vermögen.

NENNEN Sie doch ganz einfach die "viel WICHTIGEREN Faktoren", und zwar so präzise und evident, wie nur irgend möglich, wenn Sie das können oder ein "Könner" sind!

Erklären oder begründen Sie, weshalb Hebel und (Winkel-) Geschwindigkeiten, wie behauptet, keine Rolle spielen, bzw. "nicht wichtig sind".

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Thearos on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 9:08am
May I put in a plea for peace ? I hope to learn from this thread how to shoot further.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 10:39am

Thearos wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 9:08am:
I hope to learn from this thread how to shoot further.


Sorry - of course you are hoping right and one thing is (I know) absolutly for sure: If you want to throw a very high distance, then also the bullet have to get a very high speed. That simply is totaly logical!

In a "researching" (and discussion) is now the relation between "speed", "length of sling" (circumference), "rounds per second" (respectivley "initial velocity") and a kind of "mystic turn" (or "change of forces") within the last half round right before release to accelerate a relative slow bullet up to "top speed", that counts far more than 55 m/s.

But even only 40 m/s isn't to achieve with simple (= circular) "rounds per second" over head as for example in "helicopter style" or "around the whole body" as for example in "pirouette style".

So the question is now: Where the hell could the missing 40 m/s come from to get something like 80 m/s at least???

To land a bullet of 150 g "stone" (that means a size of 49 mm) in a distance of 310 m, we need a top speed of minimum 70 m/s (and an energy of 379 Joule). But even this subsurposes the most perfekt angle of throwing of exactly 42°/43° too. That's simply the facts that can't tolerate such ugly remarks like: "That all isn't important - Mr. Apex dont know what is important at all and is not really a slinger. If he really would be a slinger he did know what is much more important than speed or levers".

Such silly speech can't help us in anyway.

But sure: To have an arm, a bullet and a sling ... two legs and something to eat ... surely is much more important than "leverage & speed" but is nonsense nevertheless because an other / wrong topic.

To me it is pretty clear what he wants to say - he want to say something like: "best technique & greatest skills" or "the right secret moving of your hip like master Joda has done allways and so I too", but that can't answer our questions because we want to know exactly how this "mystic moving" goes. Not only big bloomy words or that it is a damnd secret.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 12:23pm
Guiness is the only way to settle a question like this. This is not the first thread on long distance claims. It wont be the last.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 12:30pm

Morphy wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 12:23pm:
Guiness is the only way to settle a question like this. This is not the first thread on long distance claims. It wont be the last.


don't you wanna know why some reach much more than 200m ? guinness will not say how, just what happened

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 12:36pm
I enjoy reading it as much as anyone but the main contention in the thread is if its really possible. I will be reading it either way, but the only way to go from theory to proof is guiness. Thats all Im saying.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by kicktheotter on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 1:24pm
I was thinking you meant "Just have a pint of Guiness". Not a bad suggestion...

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Jaegoor on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 2:49pm
Ok klingt lustig.

Zum Thema weitschießen . Apex wenn sie mich nicht als lehrer wünschen,  kann ich damit leben. Aber weder werde ich mich rechtfertigen noch muss ich mich mit meinem Können und Wissen verstecken. Ganz sicher nicht .
Und ja. Ganz ohne Hebel und Geschwindigkeit geht's nicht. Aber die Frage ist wie setzen sie es um. Und da fehlt mir halt noch etwas. Wie geben sie der ganzen Power und Hebel die richtige Richtung? Sie können sehr langsam drehen, denoch aber mit einer hohen Geschwindigkeit und Power schießen.  Warum dreht man denn überhaupt?  Es gibt Videos wo sie sehen das recht langsam gedreht wird. So zum Beispiel Lui. DENNOCH erreicht er eine wirklich hohe Geschwindigkeit.  Und das mit einer recht schwerfälligen balearic Sling. Die antwort ist recht einfach. Er versteht es seine kraft plötzlich enden zu lassen. Vergleichen wir es mit einem trebuchet oder einem onaker. Bei einem trebuchet fällt ein Gewicht  nach unten. Der Hebel wird bewegt. Das Gewicht endet aber in seiner Bewegung am untersten Punkt.  Es pendelt vielleicht noch ein wenig, aber die höchste Kraft wird im Hebel erzeugt durch die endgegengesetzte Bewegung vom Gewicht. Bei einem onaker ist das ganze noch etwas krasser. Der hebel hier wird gespannt und schlägt dann mit hoher Energie  gegen einen Balken. seine bewegung endet abrupt. Ähnliches passiert auch beim Kampf Sport . Schläge haben einen Endpunkt wo die Kraft umgesetzt wird.  Eine Schleuder funktioniert nicht viel anders.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 3:06pm

Jaegoor wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 2:49pm:
Ähnliches passiert auch beim Kampf Sport . Schläge haben einen Endpunkt wo die Kraft umgesetzt wird.  Eine Schleuder funktioniert nicht viel anders.


Hören Sie auf, sonst brech ich noch ab vor Lachen. Hätten Sie nämlich recht, so würde man Autos, Züge und Raketen nicht etwa fortwährend antreiben, sondern auf einem Schlitten beschleunigen und diesen Schlitten am Ende einer begrenzten Beschleunigungstrecke gegen einen Rammbock knallen lassen, mit der seltsamen Begründung, dass die Reichweite der Fahrzeuge dann größer wäre.

Was Sie hier vom Stapel lassen beweist gerade mal, dass Sie keinerlei Ahnung von der Physik ihrer "Waffe" haben, denn selbst der "mittelalterlichste" Bogenschütze versuchte zu harte Schläge von seiten der Bogensehne oder Wurfarme zu vermeiden. Solche Schläge sind nämlich nur ein "notwendiges" (= ganz unumgängliches) Übel ältester Waffen.

Tontaubenwerfer arbeiten deshalb schon ganz anders (sanfter) aber nicht minder effizient.

Und falls es ihrer Aufmerksamkeit trotz aller Studien des Mittelalters entgangen sein sollte, dass die mächtigeren Katapulte mit Wurfarmen arbeiteten, die völlig frei durchschwingen konnten also eben überhaupt nirgends dagegen knallten, so weise ich Sie natürlich auch drauf gerne extra noch einmal hin.


Jaegoor wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 2:49pm:
Der hebel hier wird gespannt und schlägt dann mit hoher Energie gegen einen Balken. seine bewegung endet abrupt.


Ja und? Manche Onaker waren auch mit Räder versehen, aber ganz todsicher nicht deshalb, damit das Geschoß weiter flöge. Der abrupte Stop des Wurfarmes hat an diesem Gerät einen völlig anderen Grund. Soll ich Ihnen den vielleicht schnell mal nennen oder erklären oder kommen Sie nach diesem meinem kleinen Tipp auch noch von selbst drauf?

Doch schön, dass Ihnen Hebel und Geschwindigkeit nun doch noch einigermaßen wichtig erscheinen und zumindest zwei bis drei Wörtchen wert waren. Durchlaufen Sie des öfteren derartig krasse Sinneswandel oder gehören Sie jetzt einfach ebenfalls zu jenen Schleuderern, die keine wirklichen Schleuderer sind?

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 3:26pm

Kick wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 1:24pm:
I was thinking you meant "Just have a pint of Guiness". Not a bad suggestion...


Hey we're 10 pages in here. Couldnt hurt.  ;D

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 5:00pm

Morphy wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 11:58am:
Many times Ive noticed this when switching from a target at 30 meters to around 50 and above. Suddenly my shots drift more to the left. Whereas at 30 they were hitting dead on.


I made my experiences with this phenomenon right in the beginning of my "slinger career", because after had seen "Ayla (The Clan of the Cave Bear)" in the main thing I was excited of her slings power - not so much from Aylas accuracy.

So I build my first own sling only a few days after had it seen there and still becomes excited much more, because the seen power or "range" then I experienced as deadly real. Thenceforth I allways searched for more and more range only and accuracy on short distances was never a topic to me for a very long time.

When I wanted something to hit then this thing had to be in a distance of minimum 150, better 250 m and when I failed this target (pracical I failed it always of course) then it never annoyd me. To land the bullet 2, 3 oder 4 m beside the target was much more and allways a big pleasure to me, because only the power of sling and the contemplative looking for stones in lonesome natur or agriculture earth (for hours) and to find these stones again and again until i knew them as " true friends" was right that I ever was looking for.

Today I am slinging at the most for a deeper experience in the wideness of a landscape that is surrounding me. With the longest throws I wish to grap in the landscapes deepnes. And sometimes when I am so "stalking" for stones like for old or new true friends then I remember the strange story and figure from the russian movie "Stalker" (colours like a black & white movie). I loved this movie and also this "stalker" in it's mystic landscape (called "the zone") where he worked as a scout or pathfinder said: "Attention here - before making a step here you first have to throw a stone right there where you want to go to". But his bullets were not really "stones" but a couple of on small white limps bounded nuts that he slung too.

Do you know that old strange movie? I never will forget this crazy story about mens deepest wishes in a deadly, bushy and ghosty surrounding full of secrets.

http://www.filmstarts.de/kritiken/702.html


My slings allways were very long slings and so I also had noticed their cords differences in twist-resistance very soon. But in hitting targets on short distances I am extremely bad even today after a many thousands shots. I can't hold a shot so deep, that it could hit a target right in front of my feets.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Jaegoor on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 5:20pm
Ok sie haben natürlich denn vollen Blick. Ich habe nicht vor sie zu überzeugen. Dafür das ich so wenig von meiner Waffe verstehe , beherrsche ich sie doch ziemlich gut. Und auch von Bögen haben sie nur wenig Ahnung. Die bogenenden wurden stark verjüngt,  damit sie mit höchst möglicher  Geschwindigkeiten nach vorne schnellen können. Wenn sie einmal einen Bogen mit 100 und mehr lbs  geschossen hätten,  wäre ihnen das Thema handschock mit Sicherheit bekannt. Moderne Bögen kompensieren das mit gewichten und stabilisatoren. Hedeby Bögen haben breitere tips. Sie sind dadurch erheblich langsamer als spätere engliche langbögen. Aber auch deutlich gutmüdiger Ein onaker hat Räder um ihn zu bewegen. in dem moment wo der hebel anschlägt , wird das Geschoss freigegeben. Da ändern Räder  rein gar nichts. Vielleicht wackelt er danach ein wenig, der Schuß selbst ist da aber schon passiert. In einem verbrennungsmotor passiert was? Lineare Bewegung entsteht durch viele kleine Impulse. Deshalb werden Motoren getaktet .

Ihr ganzes Wissen über Hebel usw.nutzt rein gar nichts wenn sie es nicht auf einem Punkt umsetzen können.

Parmenion / Thearos ich unterhalte mich gerne im privaten Modus weiter mit ihnen. Vielleicht gelingt uns eine Verständigung.  Hier werde ich mich nicht weiter äußern.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Thearos on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 7:20am
I get the bits about long and thin sling; I'm interested about the issues of torsion; I agree with weight and best ammo, and energy conservation. I am even ready to agree that helo is problematic, even though it's the only way I sling; I've never tried pirouette.

What I don't understand, and may have missed, is how Mr Apoc slings, and would be interested to find out more.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 7:31am

Thearos wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 7:20am:
and may have missed, is how Mr Apoc slings, and would be interested to find out more.


my understanding from his posts is :
helicopter style with multiple rotations at max.
and then a perfect arm path and as long as it can be .

much like what anyone does for range probably like yurek. but how 100m/s is possible i don't know. i start to think it could be genetics (bruce lee like :P)

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 10:06am

Thearos wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 7:20am:
What I don't understand, and may have missed, is how Mr Apoc slings, and would be interested to find out more.


My slinging style is similar at the most to that of D. McNamara, respectively like he does in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK3H45Qld3k  (especially like done in the last 30 sec. of this video ... but without the "twitches" that are a sign of "overexertion" or uncertainty)

With this style it is very easy to create very steep release-angles (30° - 60°) or even to throw in the tops of high trees that are standing very close (... because this style is pretty close to "underarm" where bullets practicaly comes "from below").

Otherwise nearly right as parmenion said:

• High initial velocity (min. 3 rps.)
• A significant long "extension" = hands / arms motion from behind the body into its front - so "long streched" (surposed from the whole upper body) ...
• ... started at the perfect moment ... (can be felt) *
• ... and done in a very short time (can be practiced / trained) *

The special difficulty is to absolve such a wide extension within that short time, because the SEQUENCE (!) of such a high rotated sling is only 1/3 second (frequence = 3 rps !) - so its last half is a 1/6 second only (if not even much shorter because of its high acceleration!). In this time the whole extension of length up to 2,6 m has to be started and completed.


* Attention: Right this generates an extremly high burden to the ellbows inner side and can cause joint-inflammatory very easily. Do not practice more than 25 throws per week when they are so hard ... or for practice take tennis-balls instead of more heavy stones ! ! !

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Thearos on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 10:54am
Mr Morningstar, for his helicopter style, also recommends pushing the arm as far back as possible.

I like the point about timing in the swing (quite difficult to get right). The idea about explosive concentration of movement is also interesting.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 11:55am

Thearos wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 10:54am:
I like the point about timing in the swing (quite difficult to get right).


Yes - if you want to catch it correct for best range then its time window is even smaller than the window for the correct moment of release. Perhaps +/- 1/40 second. To fail it means not allways an interruption of release-process (to start trough anew) but allways a loss of some range.

While throwing stones that loss can count up to 35 m (so not "+/-" but allways "minus") or 10% of aimed distance. First when this loss would be more - also "felt as more" - then the body or brain decides for an interruption. Thats why it comes often to such (thus?) moments, where you not know how to decide when not knowing what you want.

Therefore you have to choose (or to imagine / remember) a target even when accuracy then no more counts. Because to have no target (aim) the brain makes to much confused. This necessary target then is only for knowing what you want to do. First when such a target is known, decided or remembered, then the brain can handle all "feelings" right. If not then not.

Otherwise you allways risks a "twitch", an interruption and / or loss of range (= throws that are to short / weak for reaching the target).

So to have a target is better in each case - while throwing for range only or only for accuracy. Because throwing for "nowhere & all over" (like McNamara for his filmed video-demonstration has tried in its last 40 seconds) makes your body or brain absolutely gaga / confuse.

McNamara there was not concentrated for a complete (sensefull) throw but to demonstrate a "motion without a sense (= aim / target)". This is why he twiched / interrupt a few times: He was confused because the sense / aim of his task was not decided but "twice" or twofold.

Distances without target does not exist (!) - so never throw for ranges without a target. A distance is only that what have a start and an end.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 2:52pm

johan wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 11:57am:
jax used fins on some of his designs:http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1227069230/30


Parmenion: Sorry for overlooking one or two of your mentions / questions ... but I said it allready to jax: Cause of drag these fins or flags lets the pouch not turning absolutly free. But while rotating the sling in helicopter-style the pouch has to turn in the same direction, number and frequence as the sling, respecively the sling hand. So these fins would only twist up the pouch if the sling gets a lot of turns.

Loading-time:

Loading time also is not so strong in my focus or researching, but when this "instant-release-mechanism" is combined with jaxons "captured release machanism", these loading time should become shorter, because then you practically have a kind of "muzzle-loader" - also not only two but three sides for loading.

Those slings can load stones like a excavator shovel.   ;)

But such tricks as "to catch a up-thrown stone from air" (like legendary Ayla shall have done)* than aren't possible anymore, because slings "phase", respectivley "force line" than is broken (respectively to weak / instabil).  :-/


_______________________________________________________

Please help in grammar: Must I write "... Ayla shall have done" or "should have done" (as the author wrote) ???  ... and: "AN up-thrown stone", "A up-thrown stone"  or "a thrown up stone" (in german: "auf~" od. "hochgeworfener Stein") ???

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 3:51pm

johan wrote on Aug 23rd, 2017 at 7:31am:
but how 100m/s is possible i don't know.


For this you only had to understand the dynamic of pendulum (and A. Einstein): When a permanent "extension" (acceleration) is given to a deflected pendulum then it also would commute even without a field of gravity (... "gravitiy propably is nothing else as an accelerated inertial-system ... heavy mass = sluggish mass).

According to Einstein it doesnt matter if a force pulls on the pendel-mass or on its pivot point (in counter-direction). Therefore I said: "Imagine a (still standing) turntabel and put a mass on its edge. When trecking now the whole turntabel in perpendicular direction to the radius between pivot point and mass, then the table would start to turn (also without gravity or running motor)"

For this some very simple but very revealing experiments can be done with a simple flat round "can" (~ 12 or 15 cm wide; 3 - 10 cm high) and a much more simple "marbel" or small ball (Ø = 15 - 20 mm). To get the marbel (in the can) in some slowly rounds (= less "rps") you first have to move this can in bigger circles (... moving by hand). But when the marbel has gotten some faster "drive", then suffice SMALLEST LINEAR MOVEMENTS (back & forth) to make the same marbel even MUCH MORE FASTER (= a lot of "rps"). 

That kind of "running marbel in the can" indeed seems partially extremly "magic" ! There in is the slings enigma to find (... of course in the sling itself too, but in a small can and marble under hands and eyes the same pricipal is more easy to handle, watch and study).


_____________________________________________________

Please help in english: Is "motion" absolutely synonym to "movement" ???

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Thearos on Aug 25th, 2017 at 2:39am
It sounds a bit like the style I called "full-on" and experimented with 3 years ago, when I had a lake and heavy round pebbles.

http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1406286375/0

I note what you say about not having a target to aim at. But when I "stuttered" in the shot, it was not because of that uncertainty, but because I was not used to shoot at that weight (120g ?) and with that speed-- I fear uncontrolled accidents.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Thearos on Aug 25th, 2017 at 5:06am
To quote myself:
"Very high speed, always increasing, and whipping into the final insane speed is exactly the "edge-of-control" helicopter (or Balearic or whatever)"

" the extra fast spin really does make a huge difference ! And you have to build up to that with acceleration"

"...note the long ranges reached by "extreme speed" slinging. The knack is getting the transition from ultimate, high-speed rotation to the throw"

"Look at a vid of Yurek slinging, with the slow build-up to a final hurricane-speed loop and throw"

""hurricane' style with accelerated multiple rotations is best for long distance, if you can get control. "

"I then took out sling 2, which I haven't used in a while-- a Rockman, long, from finger to opposite shoulder. It's a bit difficult to shoot; fig-8 is out of the question. You need to start it up with firm revolutions (otherwise the stone might slip the pouch-- disgrace), then build up to the hurricane revolutions, and the full-on release-- great energy, full-on whang. This is shooting the "longsling" the slinging equivalent of the longbow, the great war bow."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMBJ0sofwwU

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 25th, 2017 at 7:43am
@Thearos the problem is that describing the feel(of throwing) is a completely different thing than describing the actual motion..


Thearos wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 5:06am:
This is shooting the "longsling" the slinging equivalent of the longbow, the great war bow."

the longbow is good for war but not better than asiatic bows for range.


Thearos wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 5:06am:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMBJ0sofwwU

lol the laugh :P
they seem out of tune to me .


Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 25th, 2017 at 7:50am

Thearos wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 2:39am:
not because of that uncertainty, but because I was not used to shoot at that weight (120g ?) and with that speed-- I fear uncontrolled accidents.


But to fear (as to feel or to imagine) uncontrolled accidents (= fail-shots) and "uncertainty" is quite similar to each other (... if not even the same) - isn't it ?!!

What else could go wrong if not only the bullet?

But I know what you mean: High speed rotation can make confuse the "feeling of rhythm" even when I only try to whip a whipped cream by hand and much too fast (faster than usually or "learned"). Then often comes the moment of "right now" where brain no longer knows where the hand or spoon is (... "what time it is" ... or what the rhythm should be). That feeling partially is like to be a "spazzer".

With practice the brain (and / or body) can learn to control each frequences nevetheless - even the very high frequences up to 5 or 6 rps. But more than 3 or 3,5 rps already range in the upper class of difficulty because the resulting centrifugal force becomes so high that at least the body (arm / hand) has to capitulate when also the wight of bullet is much more than 120 g. 

And to the bullet 3 rps in a long sling is much more speed than 3 rps in a short sling - as twice as high if also the length is twice.

Nevertheless there is an upper limit in length-increasing because the "effect" at least also depends of the relation between length of sling and "extension": Extension is relative - so even an extension of 2,5 m can be only a short one if the length of sling is 2,0 m too.

Best effects for range comes from a high relation (should be more than 2 - means twice as long as length of sling), but also this has to be in a good relation to the advantage of a greater radius (circumference). Therefore the best length of sling is somewhere between 1,15 m and double length of an arm (2 x 67 cm = 1,34 m in case of mine - but not measured to finger-tips but to the "ring-place" of ringfinger because there hangs my loop).

But also the learning of higher rotation speeds runs better if the practice allways keeps assigned to a target because brain also learns from feed-back: It always has to "see": "When feeling X (while release) then the result is Y".

...

Only for dreams the brain computes "prophecies / forecasts" from absolutly free founded parameters. But for reality it computes "highbills" only, only from known parameters (= amounts). Therefore it has to have experience, real results (= facts) and feed-back if it also wants to be a good slinger and not only a good dreamer.

And "yes" - even the change from shorter slings to longer slings (... to slings of different length and "haptic") has to be trained and learnded, because a real "sling-master" lands the bullet even than in the best place when for that only a "shitty old belt" or string tanga is given to him.

This is why I also want to have practice with (different) "sheperd slings" and not only with (different) "hunter slings". So do never brake your turnus of practice because of having broken your "best sling" only. When your best sling is broken or lost then train with your "bad sling" again, but never interrupt the practice for much more than only two weeks.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Aug 25th, 2017 at 8:29am
The Full On thread LOL.... those were the days.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 25th, 2017 at 11:05am

Thearos wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 5:06am:
To quote myself: ... but at the price of loss of control-- and elbow pain the next day.


Unfortunately I have to say the pain in your ellbow is a GOOD SIGN, because this indicates to have made a strong pull right against the pull of stone ... so in the correct moment. That's of course a conflict in moving-directions allways, but not to avoid (... mens arms anatomy isn't made right for this extreme contradiction).

Only the try to force the ellbows resistance evolution has absolutely to be avoid. In this case the PAIN, respectivley its smallest amount (and healing) has to be the "leader" in your range progression, because this evolution needs much more time than evolution of muscles.

Have allways a very close (carefully) watch at this pain but never call it a bad sign or an "enemy". Otherwise allready the range would become your enemy too.

Pull and keep ellbows pain in awareness / consciousness and handle it together with the range like a friend who has become a little bit ill - so start the ellbow to love (not the pain but the ellbow!), even when that special kind of care sounds a little bit like "esoteric hocus-pocus".

But now that I do not mean especially to you but "generally" (at all, of course).

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Thearos on Aug 25th, 2017 at 11:31am
I meant uncertainty about not knowing what to aim at. I havent' shot "full on" for a long time, mostly just patzing at 25-50m.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Aug 25th, 2017 at 11:52am

Thearos wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 11:31am:
I meant uncertainty about not know what to aim at. I havent' shot "full on" for a long time, mostly just patzing at 25-50m.


you are too conscious of your aim. your aim is at the direction your center of mass is moving, for long distance focus more on perfect form.

find a safe place to practice long distance slinging so the safety of other beings doesn't prohibit your performance.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 25th, 2017 at 12:44pm

Thearos wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 11:31am:
I meant uncertainty about not know what to aim at.


Okay - I understood: "Should I rotate much more or should I focus the directions and / or surrounded people ... etc ..." - but what I meant nevertheless was to focus on target only, because everthing else the brain makes in~ or subconscious, respectively "intuitiv". Only for theoretical explainings also the other conditions are to bring / to trek in consciuosness.

The aim must be to hit the target only and so the TARGET in each case. Poses while posing and creating "stylish throwing models" are other kinds of "aim".

When I am throwing I feel nothing conscious but subconscious ... but I see (or imagine) very clear (conscious) the end of an aimed distance. And first after a very hard throwing is done than I began to remember a very high restistance or "angle" and / or a pain or hurt in my ellbow. But right after the shot it seems to me like not knowing anymore what I have done in detail.

So I higly recommend to throw "intuitiv" at the most - that is what I wanted to have said: If only the target is clear and enough experience in the "back", than the brain makes all right what is to do for reaching it alone or "automatically". And when this is done and you ask your brain (= yourself) what the body have done now and in detail then also the answer would come like done from the brain all alone.

But when it manages a hard or accuracy throw then it manages a hard or accuracy throw, and first when it formulates some answers for some questions then it formulates answers, because one of this is not the other. Although speaking is a deed (respectively a lie and a "miss-deed") it is not the same as a deed, because the tounge has ability to go independent of promisses, but the body can not move independent of natures premis (law & order).

So you can lie (to speak against your own or your forefathers speech), but you can't handle against that word what is "(fathers) law". If you handle against that word what is law, then you experience a negative (natural) selection as it is formulated from C. Darwin: You would get beaten, killed or "selected".

Mens speech goes not conform to the "true story" (that what really happens), because Adams speech is not the "truth" but SLANG (serpent). An idiom or slang has no rules - it is not "logical" but "idiotic" - but what really happens is nothing else but logical (or "causal") and a rule.

This is why german and french sounds different from english, russian or chineese, although the "true (his-) story" (physics) is the same all over the world: Mens speech goes not conform / synchron to that what happens, but what happens of course and ALLWAYS goes conform to that what happens and is "predicted".

Either you do like predicted or you feel "gods beating & punishment (pains & needs)" - absolutely independent of what YOU wish, say, think, celebrate, please, pray or teach, because your "idiom" doesn't matter: Only LOGOS (= lat.: "lex" / "legis") matters the things.

Therefore I said: To do "some-thing" is absolutely different from to do "some-thinks (thoughts / imaginations)" or "idiotic words" (idioms / slang). "Do not watching (= pray for) pictures from what is in heaven, under heaven on earth or under earth in the water (... because pictures* are dead and never the truth, while I AM noting else but THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE)".

Thats not only a silly religion or superstition but "wisedom" and absolutely correct: No thing is a dead thing and allways captured correct when seen in a "flow & context" or "intuitiv" (... so even not "captured"). To take some things out of its flow or context is allways a kind of "problem".


______________________________________________________________________________
germ.: "Bildnis" (similar to "Bildung") and engl.: "building" is the same word! "Picture" instead of this comes like ital.: "pitura" from "passio" and means only a "situation" (scene) which is PASSED and like freezed, congealed or starved (compare: "freezed frame"). The latter means "to become rigid" and comes from "star(a)" (= idol - sth. what not moves).


Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Thearos on Aug 25th, 2017 at 2:30pm
Now (to bring Jaegoor back in) a while back I had exchanges with Jaegoor in which he explicitly told me not to go for accelerating swings, but to have slow rotations with the final speed and power in the two last swings. I decided to go full on when watching Yurek / Mr Jugas sling. As I said, it's not a style I like a lot (if I have the right space for slinging, I might sling 3-4 shots this way);  my usual style is slow revolutions with final acceleration-- and I use it to shoot at targets.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 25th, 2017 at 3:22pm

Thearos wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 2:30pm:
in which he explicitly told me not to go for accelerating swings, but to have slow rotations with the final speed and power in the two last swings.


thats simply for a different task - not for reaching targets in farest distance but for reaching targets in nearest distance. But if I want to hit a target in a distance of 30 - 50 m, than I throw the bullet with pure hands and hit the target as good as with a sling (if not even better, because I trained that kind of throwing with left and right hand very often).

Advantage by using a sling than is only the greater power (speed & mass).

Baseball pitchers regulary throw very flat (10 - 15° - speed up to 46 m/s) but reaching 95 m nevertheless. When throwing steep (40 - 45°) they reach nearly 140 m. A baseball has diameter about 73 mm and a mass of 142 - 148 g, and much more than 200 g are even with a sling no more very "comfortable".  Want to say: Even in a sling 250 g feels nearly inacceptable heavy.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Thearos on Aug 25th, 2017 at 4:53pm
I am quite baffled by YouTube videos of baseball pitchers reaching vast distances, I must say (especially because they throw further than I sling).


Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 25th, 2017 at 5:15pm

Thearos wrote on Aug 25th, 2017 at 4:53pm:
I am quite baffled by YouTube videos of baseball pitchers


me too - pains in my ellbow I feel alone by watching them throwing.

Here some facts - https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/LoriGrabel.shtml

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by kicktheotter on Aug 26th, 2017 at 2:26am
My sister's boyfriend is a rugby player and built like a tank and he can throw stones unbelievably far just with his hands. At least as far as I can sling them. With him I can see why biceps are called guns because he really shoots them.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by JudoP on Aug 26th, 2017 at 7:22am

Kick wrote on Aug 26th, 2017 at 2:26am:
My sister's boyfriend is a rugby player and built like a tank and he can throw stones unbelievably far just with his hands. At least as far as I can sling them. With him I can see why biceps are called guns because he really shoots them.


You should give him a sling and see what he can do  :D

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by kicktheotter on Aug 26th, 2017 at 7:40am
Well despite being a rugby player he's one of the clumsiest people I know so I think that would just be asking for trouble :D

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Aug 28th, 2017 at 4:15pm

johan wrote on Aug 14th, 2017 at 8:14am:
from what i know yurek used elongated projectile(50g), bipointed which is more aerodynamic than a sphere and thus needs less speed (for vacuum 71m/s) so he probably threw 71-85m/s and that is only if he didn't mess with angle of attack.


Now I found the topic / thread and post again where Yurek wrote that the mass of his "record-throw" counts indeed 90 grams (as I said before). Its shape: "Glandes"  http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1175645485/45

In an other post he calculates for this (respectively for "example", but taking the same mass and a range as: "a little
over 500 m") an energy of 288 joules (and rounds that up for some spin-energy to 300 joule) while setting the necessary velocity at 80 m/s. Unfortunately it is not to see how he calculates any ranges and / or drag.

That means also, that his big range bases at the most on using that type of bullet (high density & glands shape), because the stone (52 g) of Larry Bray for a range of 437 m had to be thrown with velocity of 110 m/s. In velocity that's much more, although only a little bit more energy (315 joules instead of 288 - 300 joules).   http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1296392712/45




Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Aug 30th, 2017 at 4:13pm

johan wrote on Aug 22nd, 2017 at 4:24am:
from google translate, Jaegoor :

Quote:
Thearos I saw in Palma Jaume Darder with a very short Sling 400m far throw. I was very surprised at that time. Jaume is a master, similar to Luis, Juanjo Caballero and others.
I myself have already shot very high distances. My best projectil was a lead ball. This was covered with glass. I do not want to publish the results.
Are 700m possible? Definitely yes. Whether I believe the Apex reached this distance? When I see it, I believe it. Previously not. Too much talk about lever and speed. If they were a Slinger as they say, then important factors would be known to them. But they do not call them at all.


@Jaegoor since you  witnessed a 400m throw with a short sling then why didn't you believe Apex apoc in the first place?


Jaegoor wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 7:09pm:
Wären sie ein Slinger wie sie es sagen, dann wären ihnen wichtige Faktoren bekannt.


I'm self taught, with a mentor or a teacher i would be in 6 months where i'm now in 6 years.If important factors are known to you why not share them?no one is born with knowledge.


When I throw about 300m, I must to throw a 1,3m long sling like a crazy madman. And then my arm is a painful week.
If Jaume Darder throws "very short sling" 400m far throw, he is a real flash hand.

And do not say that my pirouette is wrong, lazy and powerless, because I do it exactly right. :)

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 4th, 2017 at 7:45am

timpa wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 4:13pm:
And do not say that my pirouette is wrong, lazy and powerless, because I do it exactly right.


We (I) don't wanted to say, your pirouette would be wrong or powerless, but (in relation to helikopter) with lower EFFECT.

The effect of pirouette style is lower because the frequence ("rps") and the extension are not as high as it is by performing the helicopter style (or side-arm).

Range of (light weight) bullets depends more on freuqence and lenght / width of extension, but to rotate the whole body as fast as the hand / arm can rotate the sling is not possible. And to drag the pivot point from point of start to the point of release as fast and as wide as "hand over shoulder" can do, isn't possible too.

But if wanted to throw heavy weighted bullets (more than 350 g) then for range your pirouette would be better and more effective. Therefore all hammer throwers perform the (both-handed) pirouette style (instead of helicopter / side-arm style).

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Sep 4th, 2017 at 7:42pm

Apex-apoc wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 7:45am:

timpa wrote on Aug 30th, 2017 at 4:13pm:
And do not say that my pirouette is wrong, lazy and powerless, because I do it exactly right.


We (I) don't wanted to say, your pirouette would be wrong or powerless, but (in relation to helikopter) with lower EFFECT.

The effect of pirouette style is lower because the frequence ("rps") and the extension are not as high as it is by performing the helicopter style (or side-arm).

).


I disagree, for so long, until someone shows me this in practice. :)

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Jaegoor on Sep 5th, 2017 at 3:55am
Es gibt viele Videos bei YouTube. Oder komm nach Mallorca oder Deutschland. Dort kannst du Deine Kunst vorstellen und direkt vergleichen. :P

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Sep 5th, 2017 at 12:40pm
Words and theories are fun, but too often people are so entrenched in their own views on what works best that without a legitimate, long term and wide spread competition its difficult to make head way on who's right.

We've had dozens of conversations on target slinging over the years. It doesnt resolve much. The only way to truly know what works best is high  level competition with tons of people particpating and then the best techniques will rise to the top over the years.

Long distance slinging is even more difficult. Its destined to fall into the same catagory as flight shooting in archery. The sheer distance involved will inevitably make it the least practiced of the sling related sports. So getting proof as opposed to theory is going to be that much harder.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Sep 5th, 2017 at 7:50pm

Jaegoor wrote on Sep 5th, 2017 at 3:55am:
. Oder komm nach Mallorca oder Deutschland. Dort kannst du Deine Kunst vorstellen und direkt vergleichen. :P


Yes, that is the solution! If I find time and money to go.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Curious Aardvark on Sep 11th, 2017 at 11:18am

Quote:
If you can throw a stone for 370 m, than you can throw a ball of tungsten (same mass) for 740 m ...

Nonsense.  Plus there are almost no recorded instances of anyone throwing a stone over 370m

Also non spinning balls not only don'y fly totally straight (evidence a baseball pitchers knuckle ball) but without topspin to give extra lift - they don't go as far as a ball with correct spin.

So one thing that is consistent in all this is simply that there are no videos of you slinging apox.
No indication of your slinging style.  No evidence that any of this is in any way true.
Just a bunch of completely unsubstantiated and largely unbelievable claims.

To also claim that you get zero spin is - again - nonsense. The sphere might not spin as much as with a regular sling, but there is a small amount of roll before it leaves the sling and consequently there IS rotation.
The fster it leaves the pouch, the more rotation it will have.

How do you measure distance and when are you going to video this miraculous throwing style ?

And to say that yurek was not an experienced slinger is hilarious.

He most certainly was both skilled and highly expereinced when he claimed his 500metre throw.

What you need to bear in mind is that the acknowleged top slingers in the world are looking look at your claims and say they are ridiculous. 

Now either you have come up with a completely unknown and super powerful throwing technique, or you are indeed the hulk, or at the very least Hathor Julius Bjornsen on pcp.

So far it is all talk - do you have any evidence of your claims at all ? 


Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 11th, 2017 at 11:33am

Curious Aardvark wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 11:18am:
No indication of your slinging style.  No evidence that any of this is in any way true.Just a bunch of completely unsubstantiated and largely unbelievable claims.


Like yours! No video or any proof for only one of your claims, objections or contradictions!

The claim about "370 m with stone = 740 m with tungsten" I have already long corrected in one of my following posts. But the online calculator "Balistikrechner Ettenheim" calculates for the mentioned bullets nevertheless an advantage of 72 %. That means the ball of tungsten (same mass) flies 1,72 times further than a ball of stone.

Ergo: 720 m with tungsten = 407 m with stone! PROOFED by online calculator! http://www.schuetzenverein-ettenheim.de/sportschiessen/ballistikrechner.php

And only by the way: If it is allowed here to tell only what is proofed by videos, than you can close your forum, because more than 90% of all its claims, comments or mentions are NOT proofed or filmed.

Have you seen Jagoors deer-shot on video?
Have you seen his mentioned relation beetween "cracker" and its "function" ???
Where is your video or proof for mentioned spinning effect?


Curious Aardvark wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 11:18am:
And to say that yurek was not an experienced slinger is hilarious.


May be, but his own statement. Please read or citate my (and Yureks) comments completed and correct!

Have you seen Yureks super-throw on video ... or any other proof? NO ! ! !



Curious Aardvark wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 11:18am:
So far it is all talk - do you have any evidence of your claims at all ?


No - have you some for your own claims?

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Jaegoor on Sep 11th, 2017 at 12:05pm
Apex du bist ein schwätzer.  Ich habe viele wie Dich kennen gelernt. Du kennst yurek  nicht. Auch andere großartigen slinger kennst du nicht. Und sie kennen dich nicht. Ich kann dir nur anbieten zu beweisen was du kannst. Nächstes Jahr in Haithabu. Da kannst du zeigen was du kannst. Ich zahle dir die Fahrt . Und das Wolfram Zahl ich auch. Lass sehen ob du nur schwätzen kannst. Oder komm zum internationalen Vergleich nach Palma. da gibt es eine menge kuzdistanz turnhallen slinger. Kein problem für dich.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 11th, 2017 at 12:14pm

Jaegoor wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 12:05pm:
Ich habe viele wie Dich kennen gelernt. Du kennst yurek  nicht.


Und du kennst mich nicht, also schwätzt du hier bezüglich dem, wen oder was du (wie mich) kennen gelernt hast in der Tat nur reichlich dummes Zeug.

Das merkt man schon daran, dass du ganz offenkundig glaubst, es sei derjenige "berühmt" (bekannt), der allein dir und noch fünf weiteren Hanseln bekannt ist. So eine dermaßen ausgeprägte Eingebildetheit / Vermessenheit ist mir in meinem ganzen Leben noch nicht untergekommen.

Defacto interessiert keine alte "Saubermacherin", wen du kennst oder nicht kennst, geschweige denn, wen du "großartig" oder "geschwätzig" findest - vor allem nicht, solange du selbst bloß schwätzt.

Also weiche hier mal nicht immer nur den eigentlichen Fragen aus, sondern lege das Video für dein mit der Schleuder erlegtes Reh und die beiden anderen Behauptungen vor, denn genau das war (wie vieles andere von dir) bislang bloß GESCHWÄTZT.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 11th, 2017 at 1:51pm

Jaegoor wrote on Aug 21st, 2017 at 7:09pm:
Thearos ich sah in Palma Jaume Darder mit einer sehr kurzen  Sling 400m weit werfen. Darüber war ich damals sehr erstaunt.  Jaume ist ein Meister , ähnliche wie Luis ...


Tja - nur blöd, dass wir das (und deinen eigenen Super-weit-wurf mit Glas-Blei-Kugel) nicht ebenfalls gesehen haben und / oder du das nicht gefilmt hast, denn so ganz blank wirkt das ja nun wie das blanke Geschwätz und vollends wie mal schnell aus dem Ärmel geschüttelt - nicht wahr? In fünf Jahren Mitgliedschaft hiesigen Forums das wahnsinns Ereignis nie erwähnt, es dann aber plötztlich "getan" aber (aus ganz unerfindlichen Gründen) "geheim gehalten" haben wollen.

Allein das ist schon mal seehhhhr merkwürdig, um nicht gleich zu sagen "sehr verdächtig geschwätzig"!

Bist du vielleicht (wie schon mir von dir unterstellt) so ein "Angeber", von welchen wir schon "sehr viele kennengelernt haben" ???

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Curious Aardvark on Sep 11th, 2017 at 3:21pm
there are plenty of videos of me slinging - just type curious aardvark and slinging into youtube :-)
I'm one of only two slingers in the uk who will turn up just about anywhere and anytime if someone wants a slinger.
I'm the principle slinger in the last textbook published about slings.
One thing you can guarentee is that if I claim I've done something - there is proof that it happened. And I don't lie - point of honour. Some of the stuff I've done in my life sounds implausible - but I find if you're the guy who will always turn up, you do get to do unusual things :-)

And I've met Jaegoor and slung with him many times.
Definitely one of the most accurate slingers on the planet and a man who puts in the practice damn near every single day.

Having seen him sling in person - and knowing him as well as I do, I'm inclined to believe most of his claims :-)   
The slinging world is small and most of us know each other and what we're capable of.
I haven't met jurek - but some of the guys have. He's not a man to make things up either.


So you're basing all your claims on the output of an online calculator ?
Not actual slinging or measurement ?

The thing about science and maths is that it often bears no resemblance to the real world.
It's only recently that scientists and mathmaticians have been able to prove that bees can fly.
Something bees have known for millions of years.

There was an archaealogical experiment done recently by a couple of physicists and The awesome slingshot channels Joerg sprave. No actual slingers.
And they mathematically 'proved' that the attacking slingers in the experiment had to be 110 metres away and had to sling at only  a narrow angle to hit the defenders. 

Any half competent slinger would have been able to prove them completely wrong in a couple of minutes.
I'm not the only one who volunteered to do the job :-)

So again - you have claimed massive world record sling throws - where is the actual physical proof ?
What is your mysterious slinging style ?
Why are you so reluctant to show us ?

And for the record I have also met Larry Bray and videoed him slinging - again on youtube. search for sling golf wyoming 2007.
I'm also the first and - so far - only englishman to ever win a balearic slinging trophy.
My slinging credentials are public knowlege and not under question.

Anyone claiming to have slung over 700 metres is going to have to prove something so massively further than the current world record.

The thing about slingers - as a group - is that we are pedantic sods to a man and woman.
You can tell us anything you like - but if you can't back it up, don't expect anyone to believe you.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 11th, 2017 at 3:44pm

Curious Aardvark wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 3:21pm:
there are plenty of videos of me slinging - just type curious aardvark and slinging into youtube


Great! But no one belongs to your claims from your previous post. To have made some videos about fishing or paragliding means and proofs not to have all knowledge and proofs in and for everything  ;)

You must not proof to have slung a little bit, but that what you have claimed against my claims!



Curious Aardvark wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 3:21pm:
So again - you have claimed massive world record sling throws - where is the actual physical proof ?


Okay - than again again: You have claimed massive claims against my claims - where is the physical proof for them?



Curious Aardvark wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 3:21pm:
You can tell us anything you like - but if you can't back it up, don't expect anyone to believe you.


Had never done this, and believe not only 5 percent of all what is mentioned or claimed here (at slinging.org).


Curious Aardvark wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 3:21pm:
Anyone claiming to have slung over 700 metres is going to have to prove something so massively further than the current world record.


Aha! So please PROOF this claim, because that already was a claim! (concrete: "Proof the claim that all claims have to be proofed!).

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Curious Aardvark on Sep 11th, 2017 at 4:08pm
Umm, none of that actually makes sense.
90% of videos of me on youtube are slinging related.
No videos of the other things :noidea:

YOU have claimed exceptionally long sling throws - against all previous existing knowlege, proof and slingers.

You refuse to offer any evidence that you can even sling.

Not sure what you're still arguing about ?

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by kicktheotter on Sep 11th, 2017 at 4:16pm
I'm half tempted at this point to set up a Go Fund me to send Apoc a camera.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 11th, 2017 at 4:17pm

Curious Aardvark wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 4:08pm:
YOU have claimed exceptionally long sling throws - against all previous existing knowlege, proof and slingers.


Oh - I see: On slinging.org the most of all people only tells that what all people know already - otherwise it have to be proofed. Mmh - that indeed makes a little bit more sense than no sense.

Okay - so when will you proof that any claim has to be proofed, and where is Jaegoors proof or video for the "by sling shot deer" or / and "long distance throw with glass coverded lead-balls"?

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by kicktheotter on Sep 11th, 2017 at 4:22pm
I went to the shops. Do you need proof? Not really.

I went to the moon using a fridge, a bar of soap and half an apple. Do you need proof? Yes because it's a claim that goes against all previous knowledge.

None of us have ever heard of anyone slinging 700+m which is why it would be nice to know how it's done. If I say I threw about 20m today people will say "Yeah you probably did. Believing that is easy and doesn't challenge anything I know about slinging."

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 11th, 2017 at 4:26pm

Kick wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 4:22pm:
I went to the shops. Do you need proof? Not really.


Me in no way (!), but you (... not really)!



Kick wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 4:22pm:
If I say I threw about 20m today people will say "Yeah you probably did. Believing that is easy and doesn't challenge anything I know about slinging."


Than please tell something like this only - day by day and year for year - but tell it not to me, because I want not to know what is known and told already!

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by kicktheotter on Sep 11th, 2017 at 4:32pm
Never mind.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 11th, 2017 at 4:40pm

Curious Aardvark wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 4:08pm:
Umm, none of that actually makes sense. 90% of videos of me on youtube are slinging related.


Come OOOON! Nobody was talking about the question if you are slinging or not, but talking about claims against my claims! Don't remember your own claims anymore ???

Make a video-proof for your spin-effect-claims and for that what is "possible & impossible" as you (and your slingning collegs) have claimed!

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Sep 11th, 2017 at 4:41pm
I think some of us arent even as skeptical about the theoretical possibility of it as much as whether its actually been done by any particular person.

I think when you make a claim like this you have to expect significant push back. If you want that claim to be believed on your word theres a way to go about it and a way not to do it. A flame war, eh...not so much.  :)

Maybe thats just me though. Ive debated Jaegoor many times in the past over target slinging ideas. While we still dont always see eye to eye, the way he backs everything up with videos and skill definitely makes me, personally,  more likely to be open to things he has said than if he had resorted to insults.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 11th, 2017 at 4:54pm

Morphy wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 4:41pm:
While we still dont always see eye to eye, the way he backs everything up with videos and skill definitely makes me, personally,  more likely to be open to things he has said than if he had resorted to insults.


Thats a failure. Because he was filming and talking a little bit, you believe in all and his deer-shot too without any proof?!

There is NO proofed need for tuning parmenions sling! Only at the first his posted "hits-image" shows to much hits on the left side, but than the hits-image from slinging with the same (!) NON-TUNED sling becomes more and more "nomally"!

That much more was the proof against Jaegoors "sling-tuning-bla-bla-bla" ! It is neither the "cracker" nor the "pouch-asymmetry" that controls the moment of release! Jaegoor simply doesen't know for what the cracker is made, and to suggest to build a sling more asymmetrical is simply totally non-sense - even than if he was proofing (by videos) to be able for tieing his shoes or baking a bread.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Mersa on Sep 11th, 2017 at 5:16pm
Otter send me the link I'll put in 20 bucks.
Ha ha .

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Sep 11th, 2017 at 5:31pm
Ah well, worth a shot. LOL...   ;D

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 11th, 2017 at 9:25pm

Curious Aardvark wrote on Sep 11th, 2017 at 3:21pm:
And I've met Jaegoor and slung with him many times. Definitely one of the most accurate slingers on the planet and a man who puts in the practice damn near every single day.


Okay - let's call that "claim A & claim B" and that what your eyes have seen is not that what my eyes have seen.

So in the way of your own argumentation I have this to believe first, when you have proofed claim A and claim B by videos or something compareable. How did you see Jeagoor to practice nearly every damnd single day ... and how long have you been watching it? 10 years or only three?

... or only a week at Malorca / Palma? And how or when will you proofing / filming it ... for showing me? And how do you know to have seen all slingers of that planet, where Jeagoor is the most accuracy of all?

You would live in a very small world if you would live only in that world that has been seen by your own eyes only! And to believe to be the lord of the world because the lord of the own house or village is nothing than a nice illusion.

I mean, of course it is very nice that you know Yurek and Lary very well, but believe me - my mother and my friends knows me too very well. Does this help theese "curious" discussion?

Because of you telling me what you have seen should I believe what you only telling me ... or what???

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Jaegoor on Sep 12th, 2017 at 2:28am
Lass es einfach gut sein Apex. Es ist völlig egal was du glaubst. Mich interessiert was du kannst. Und das musst du zeigen.
Ich erlernte mein Wissen von meinem Vater. Ich lernte aus der Geschichten.  Ich lerne seit vielen Jahren von Balearischen Meistern. All dieses Wissen vereinte ich mit eigener Erfahrung . Erfahrung sowohl in der Sling Fertigung und im praktischen Schuß.  Ergebnisse davon liegen vor. Das kannst du akzeptieren oder lässt es. Für mich hat das keinerlei Bedeutung . Ich wiederhole noch einmal. ZEIG WAS DU KANNST.

Für jede Fertigkeit muss man trainieren . Egal ob im Sport oder in der Wissenschaft. Es gibt Menschen mit Talent . Sie trainieren vielleicht etwas weniger. Aber auch sie müssen trainieren.
Ich gebe seit vielen Jahren mein Wissen weiter. Als Trainer. Mein Wissen ist nachweislich auf andere übertragbar.  Ihre Erfolge liegen vor. Und das gilt nicht nur für das Slingen.
Mit deinem Gerede beleidigst du Menschen vor denen ich höchste Achtung habe. Respekt bekommt man nicht geschenkt. Man muss Respekt erarbeiten. Mein Respekt dir gegenüber ist daher nur gering.
Also nochmal... ZEIG WAS DU KANNST !!!
Oder such dir ein anderes Forum.  >:( >:(


Just let it be good Apex. It's completely no preference was you believe. I was interested in you. And that you have to show I learned my knowledge from my father. I learned from the stories. I have been learning from Balearic masters for many years. All this knowledge I integrated with my own experience. Experience in sling production and practical shot. Results are available. That you accept or leave it. For me this has no meaning. I repeat again. You could train. Whether in sport or in science. There are people with talent. You might train a little less. But also they must train. I have been giving my knowledge further for many years. As a coach. My knowledge is verifiable to others transferable. Their successes have been successful. And this is not just gilding for the sling. With your talk you offend people before here I have the highest respect. Respect is not given to you. You have to work out respect. My respect for you is therefore only slight.Or again ... SHOW WHAT YOU CAN! Or so you a different forum.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Sep 12th, 2017 at 3:45am
history repeats itself:http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1175645485/45

once it was Yurek now it is Apex apoc. For me and probably any new member Yurek's achievements was of no help to become better at range.
I still question them both and anyone who will claim velocities over 70m/s, at the same time i try to keep an open mind searching for something that may help me improve.

Any arguing prohibits us to learn more and it's too time consuming.


(If there was a moment in the history of the forum that Yureks claims were proved, then at that moment every detail should be written on a "sticky locked topic" for everyone to see.
Now it is just a myth.)




Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 12th, 2017 at 7:08am

johan wrote on Sep 12th, 2017 at 3:45am:
Lass es einfach gut sein Apex. Es ist völlig egal was du glaubst. Mich interessiert was du kannst. Und das musst du zeigen.


Lass es einfach gut sein Jaegoor. Mir ist völlig egal, was dich interssiert, und müssen tue ich hier gar nichts.

Wir können es aber ja folgendermaßen machen: Behalte diejenigen Behauptungen, die du nicht beweisen oder filmen kannst, einfach für dich. Ich wäre hier nämlich noch der letzte der dich an der Umsetzung deiner eigenen Bedingungen oder Regeln hindern würde. Denjenigen Bedingungen die du selbst stellst, darfst du selbstverständlich nachgehen, also ZEIGE, was es zu zeigen galt (quod erat demonstrandum).

Lass es also einfach, wenn du es gelassen, lässig oder nachlässig haben willst, und geh indes mit gutem Beispiel voran. Aber tu' mir bitte noch einen weiteren Gefallen: Erzähl hier nicht jedem, dass dein bescheidenes Können das Resultat jahrzehnte langen Trainings ist oder schon ein besonderes "Talent" / "besonderen Vater" voraussetzt, denn das kann nur jeden Neuling davor abschrecken, ein dermaßen erfolgsschwaches Training auch nur anzufangen.

Jemandem der wirklich Talent hat (und den Eifer wenigsten zweimal die Woche zu trainieren), bringe ich deinen "Schießbudenzauber" in weniger als drei Jahren bei. Allenfalls die erwähenstwerten Weitwürfe würden etwa die dreifache Trainingsdauer voraussetzen - halt je nach dem, wie weit diese Würfe reichen sollen.

Deine Videoauftritte in Verbindung mit dem großmauligen Hinweis, dass ihnen mehr als drei Jahrzehnte Übung und viel Kontakt zu irgendwelchen "Meistern"vorausgegangen sind, zeigen / suggerieren lediglich, dass du unterdessen nur recht viel irregführt worden sein kannst oder halt überhaupt kein Talent dafür hattest. Lass den "echten Magyar" dann lieber noch mal raus, denn das vermeintlich "tolle Ergebnis" wirft auf denselben gerade kein gutes Licht.

Nebenbeibemerkt wirkt der Begriff "Meister" von deiner Seite überhaupt etwas arg überstrapaziert.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 12th, 2017 at 8:28am

johan wrote on Sep 12th, 2017 at 3:45am:
once it was Yurek now it is Apex apoc. For me and probably any new member Yurek's achievements was of no help to become better at range.


It is neither my nor Yureks task to teach or to help you in anything. Better you would be asking which person was teached or helped by your own comments. Insofar you are right of course: History repeats and a lot of questions, complains and answers too.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Jaegoor on Sep 12th, 2017 at 8:32am
Warum um alles in Welt soll ich weiter mit jemanden reden der einen Vergleich scheut. Nochmal. Beweise das du mit meinem bescheidenem können mithalten kannst. Alles andere ist nur heiße Luft .
Was Beweise betrifft, so habe ich mehr geliefert als Du.


Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 12th, 2017 at 8:39am

Jaegoor wrote on Sep 12th, 2017 at 8:32am:
Warum um alles in Welt soll ich weiter mit jemanden reden der einen Vergleich scheut.


Keine Ahnung! Wieso tust du es denn?

Genau wie du bat ich dich eigentlich damit aufzuhören, da deine Beweise nur recht viel Zeitverschwendung während eines vermurksten Trainings beweisen (und von unbewiesenen Blattschüssen an Rehen fabulieren).

Willst du wegen des mutmaßlich mishandelten Rehes vielleicht auch noch eine Anzeige oder backen wir jetzt endlich mal erst ein paar kleinere Brötchen?

Davon, dass du mit der Schleuder nur auf Ziele in etwas mehr als Armreichweite triffst bin ich hingegen längstens und restlos überzeugt. Mir erschließt sich nur noch nicht, wesahlb jemand dafür eine Schleuder (miß~) braucht, denn mit bloßer Hand geht dasselbe schon deutlich einfacher, schneller und besser.


Jaegoor wrote on Sep 12th, 2017 at 8:32am:
Beweise das du mit meinem bescheidenem können mithalten kannst.


Hör erst mal damit auf so penetrant zu betteln, sonst wartest du auf den Vergleich des Unvergleichbaren noch bis zum Tage Sankt-Nimmerlein. Geduld ist genau das, was man bei mir zu allerst lernt, während das billige Überlegenheits~ und Wettkampfgebaren überhaupt gar nicht auf dem Propgramm steht.

Richtig blamieren kannst du dich mit Wonne auch noch im übernächsten oder darauf folgenden Herbst. ;D

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Sep 12th, 2017 at 9:11am

johan wrote on Sep 12th, 2017 at 3:45am:
history repeats itself:http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1175645485/45

once it was Yurek now it is Apex apoc. For me and probably any new member Yurek's achievements was of no help to become better at range.
I still question them both and anyone who will claim velocities over 70m/s, at the same time i try to keep an open mind searching for something that may help me improve.

Any arguing prohibits us to learn more and it's too time consuming.


(If there was a moment in the history of the forum that Yureks claims were proved, then at that moment every detail should be written on a "sticky locked topic" for everyone to see.
Now it is just a myth.)


Its quite a claim to make either way. Whether 500 or 700, without any proof there is not much difference. The only difference is the way in which it was presented I think. If all you have is your word, the way in which its presented and the relationship you have with the people youre talking too unfortunately makes a difference. No way around that.

Hopefully some day we can at least get a video showing initial release velocity. That would be a good start.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 12th, 2017 at 9:28am
@Morphy: Correct! Even all the text of Guinnes Book, Engvall, Bray, Youtube and Wikipedia is only a word to me, but these WORD has to me a totally different WORTH than to the most of all people.

Try to proof that the slings name indeed is "sling" and not "honda", "spoon" or "Maximilian the Great"! Right there you will fail immidiatley if not knowing what actually is a PROOF but only that the naming is a claim allready.

Whole the "encyklopedia (xy)" is noting else than a big collection of unproofed claims: Claims of the "SLANG". Do you know, from where these name was coming into the englisch mothers mothertongue?

Right the name of the "lie" is the most (important) part of this foreign name, where the "s" before comes from an old grammatically caused "con~", "co~", "es~" (ex) or "to ~ extension": What is to attribute "to the lie" (like "co-lie" or "ex-lie") and is related to the words "c-ling", "length" and "language" (lat.: lingua & dingua = engl.: tongue / thing / thought / to teach / teacher).

But anyway: Engvall and Bray was only told to me and talked about - but seen throwing them for more than 200 m I have them never. But I believe in it nevertheless.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Parmenion on Sep 12th, 2017 at 10:47am

Apex-apoc wrote on Sep 12th, 2017 at 8:28am:
It is neither my nor Yureks task to teach or to help you in anything. Better you would be asking which person was teached or helped by your own comments.


claiming your style is superior to timpa's or any pirouette style, is in fact trying to teach us something.(you backed it up with your achievements with a simple style)
a conversation is made(or should be made) in order to learn and both sides get better.
Instead it starts to show that the forum is used only for bragging and arguing.

i ask more questions than i answer because i know i'm average(or below average) at range and accuracy. the answers i receive could help others too. also people that are not members of the forum.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 12th, 2017 at 10:56am
Yes, yes - but neither Yurek nor Bray or Engvall performed the pirouette style, and I only have tried to tell you WHY.

Than you asked me for my "experience" and I told you. To believe it or not than is alone at you. But do not believe that I also would take some extra time and money for making videos, tutorials or "proofs" therefore.

Also I said, if my mention of "throwing for 700 m and a quarter of a million stones in more than 25 years" would be cooking you some "troubles", so take it better as never said. Try instead of this to understand the "explanation" only or why Engvall, Bray, Aarkvard and Jaegoor has performed no pirouettes.

Is it difficult to understand, that a higher amount of "rps" is very important for the range / initial velocity? Or do you really believe that timpa's whole body can rotate so fast as I can rotate the sling only???

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Sep 13th, 2017 at 11:52am

Apex-apoc wrote on Sep 12th, 2017 at 10:56am:
Yes, yes - but neither Yurek nor Bray or Engvall performed the pirouette style, and I only have tried to tell you WHY.


But how about Yurek, Bray and Engval would get pirouette style even further?
Have they ever even learned the pirouette?
(You see, I discovered that the pirouette is avoided, and should not even wish to learn.)

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 14th, 2017 at 3:22pm

timpa wrote on Sep 13th, 2017 at 11:52am:
(You see, I discovered that the pirouette is avoided, and should not even wish to learn.)


You "discovered" it, after I had it said aleady?


Apex-apoc wrote on Sep 4th, 2017 at 7:45am:
We (I) don't wanted to say, your pirouette would be wrong or powerless, but (in relation to helikopter) with lower EFFECT.


Have you learned the half side arm half helicopter style or have you avoided (but wished to learn)?

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Sep 14th, 2017 at 5:07pm
I have thrown a variety of styles. Whichever way you look, pirouette can best utilize the power of the whole body.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 14th, 2017 at 5:36pm

timpa wrote on Sep 14th, 2017 at 5:07pm:
I have thrown a variety of styles. Whichever way you look, pirouette can best utilize the power of the whole body.


Yes, correct - also this I said already: "Therefore something similar is performed by HAMMER THROWERS."

For range while throwing small weights (as Bray or Yurek have done) it is to slow nevertheless: "... not so effective" I said.


All this I said already:


Apex-apoc wrote on Aug 2nd, 2017 at 5:39pm:
The essence of my long german speech in english:

The pirouette style may be good for throwing "hammers" (around 16 lbs. or up to 2 lbs.), but not for slingig light weightet stones under 400 gramms. In order to throw smaller masses as far as possible (... aaand acurate the same time!), the reachable frequence of "pirouettes" is too low. These frequence and resulted speed of stone also is too low if the slings measure (length) is to high. I guess for man with height of 1,80 m, the lenght of his sling should not exceed 1,4 meters. Best length may be between 100 und 130 cm. The "target" while trowing big "hammers" isn't really to hit a "target" but only the highest distance in throwing a big massive hammer for "anywhere". So you can turn pirouettes where you must not see clearly any small targets. But while slinging whith a "sling" like david's you have to focus very clearly and to hit a very small target (the small point between goliath's eyes and helmet or an apple at the head of W. Tell's son, to say it precisely). By practising the pirouette you can increase the weight of "bullets" only - not the distance for throwing small stones or an "accuratness".And look: Olympic hammer throwers (and shot putters) needs to hit a wide place of sand or lawn only, so nothing exact!


Also (in german the same date / day): "But generally it is nothing to complain about performing the pirouette!"

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by jeffbonds on Sep 14th, 2017 at 11:34pm
i think the best length of sling for range depends on your body size, strength and throwing style like i throw with a sling that is 3.5 foot and that works for any throwing style and i can throw just about any distance id want to i throw farther with a 4 to 4.5 foot sling but it gets harder for me to hit smaller things

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Sep 15th, 2017 at 1:17pm

Apex-apoc wrote on Sep 14th, 2017 at 5:36pm:
For range while throwing small weights (as Bray or Yurek have done) it is to slow nevertheless: "... not so effective" I said.

I disagree. You can not change my mind.  :)

But it is true that the pirouette is inaccurate
(and at best against the army (not against one man),

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 15th, 2017 at 3:06pm

timpa wrote on Sep 15th, 2017 at 1:17pm:
I disagree. You can not change my mind.


Your agreement (or mind) doesn't matter here: That 3,5 rps are faster than 2,5 rps is POOFED, respectively EVIDENT, and that the amount of "rps" of your pirouettes are not even 2,5 rps, we have seen in your video with the "queaks on ice" (and others). Also is evident, that the range depends on muzzle speed and the muzzel speed depends of rps and length of sling.

But all these simple facts are independet of your agreement or disagreement  :). 

May be the human body (with outspread arms) can rotate even with 4 rps, but this would be much more difficult than to rotate only the sling over head or behind / besides the body (with the same rotation speed). 

A sling with lenght = 116 cm and a stone with about 110 g I can rotate 43 times in 10 seconds (= 4,3 rps - launch velocity = 31,34 m/s). Do you achieve the same "speed" with slings that are less or more long by performing pirouettes?

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Sep 15th, 2017 at 4:38pm

Apex-apoc wrote on Sep 15th, 2017 at 3:06pm:
That 3,5 rps are faster than 2,5 rps is POOFED, respectively EVIDENT and that the amount of "rps" of your pirouettes are not even 2,5 rps, we have seen in your video with the "queeks on ice".

The pirouette  consists of: Speed of rotation + hand speed. Do you take into account the hand speed (end of the pirouette)?

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 15th, 2017 at 5:45pm

timpa wrote on Sep 15th, 2017 at 4:38pm:
Do you take into account the hand speed (end of the pirouette)?


NO ... because the helicopter / sidearm consits of "launch velocity" (= speed of rotaion) + hand speed TOO. Do you take into account the "hand speed" (end of helicopter / side arm)?

I said, the LAUNCH VELOCITY (!) is 25 - 30 m/s - not the muzzle speed! Muzzle speed of Larrys record-throw was minimum 110 m/s ! His sling had the same length as yours on the frozen lake (1,3 m).

How do you explain this high speed ... ? ... and to whom or for what was I talking (the last 5 weeks) ???


Do you realy think only the pirouette owns a final "hand speed" x "acceleration factor"?


Why your ball was not flown for 437 m? Do you realy think, alone Larrys arm or waist had more power than your "best utilized whole body"?


And please note: 110 m/s can't be the simple sum of rotation speed and hand speed, because humans hand speed could be maximum the hand speed of "the wolds most best baseball pitcher" (45 m/s), and the rotation speed could be maximum 35 m/s (1,6 m sling-length and 3,5 rps provided ... what is as good as impossible!).

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Sep 15th, 2017 at 7:35pm
I understand, but, mathematically it has been proved that the Wright brothers' plane was impossible to fly.

When I was young, slinging was very popular. Although it was very hard throwers, no helicopter, no sidearm etc., did not succeed against in pirouette. Pirouette was overwhelming.
That is why I argue that for example, Yurek throws pirouette longer than helicopter.

But I always change my mind if someone proves otherwise. Not math, but in practice. :)

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 15th, 2017 at 8:10pm

timpa wrote on Sep 15th, 2017 at 7:35pm:
But I always change my mind if someone proves otherwise. Not math, but in practice.


Me too, because your "mind" is nothing else than theory! Forget your "hand speed" totally or SUBTRACT it from the rotation speed (because math is not sure / no prove).

Larry and Engvall (and others) have it proved in practice ... and YOU TOO. You proved, that the range of your pirouette is not so high as the throwing styles of Yurek, Engvall or Bray, ...!

And by the way: A non heard "queak on ice" also is no prove for passing the whole lake - right than, when math or "theories" can miss the reality of really flying aeroplanes. For sure you only know that there was no "squeak", but don't WHY there was no squeak. Your explanation or conclusion comes from nothing else than a theory. Maybe at some lokals of the lake the ice was very thin only (or the softer snow very thick ) - lokals in a distance of only 200 m. Neither the one nor the other would lead the sound of an "impact" untill the shore.

Who knows what else could be the cause for a missing squeak.

_______________________________________________________________

But right now I remember one of your videos, where you had worked with a sling and a "speedometer". Can you please poste here (once more) the link for that one?! Because I can't find it anymore. 

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Sep 16th, 2017 at 3:26pm
For this reason, I threw the lake again in the summer.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 16th, 2017 at 4:39pm

timpa wrote on Sep 16th, 2017 at 3:26pm:
For this reason, I threw the lake again in the summer.


Okay - that's a good idea and a very exciting message, and I wish you some successful throws for more than 350 m, of course. But don't forget nevertheless, that a ball of steel (22 mm / 45 g) that was thrown for 300 -350 m still not is the same success as Brays stone (34 mm / 52 g) that was thrown for 437 m (same length of sling).

A stone generates much more drag than a steel ball. So for a "prove" or comparison (competition) better do not throw so small ball bearings (of steel or lead) again - or darts - but stones (or balls of aluminium or glass).

Do you believe / trust in math and physics of "density & drag correlation" at least? Because if not, then better throw some hollow balls of wood with diameter 220 mm and a mass of 450 g. :o  (sorry - could simply not resist that silly joke! Your plan for the next summer I find exciting and useful for real, and I hope some people believe in Google Maps).

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by timpa on Sep 16th, 2017 at 5:35pm
I've already thrown. And even with smaller balls. :)

350m is too much for me.  :(
I am poor theory matters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIRf1i4taUI

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Apex-apoc on Sep 16th, 2017 at 5:59pm

timpa wrote on Sep 16th, 2017 at 5:35pm:
I've already thrown. And even with smaller balls.


Outch, my mistake! I read: "for this reason I will throw the lake again in the (next) summer".

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by jauke on Aug 5th, 2020 at 10:55am
-

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Aug 5th, 2020 at 3:44pm
I’ve always taken the aiming with the belly button to mean that the position of the torso should be consistent in regards to where it’s pointing as you throw. I do the same thing.

As for hip movement I will say I see a lot of people talk about it but it’s not immediately obvious to me just by watching how much extra power is actually being generated by the hips. Having full range of motion is important but I cannot say how much power the hips are generating vs just allowing a more fluid and long power stroke which will naturally generate more power.

As for the other stuff skepticism is key. Anytime I hear of someone attaining 400+ meters I need reasons to believe, not reasons to disbelieve. Using a short, fat corded Balearic sling for that distance is not helping me believe.

I’m not really familiar with this account so maybe Jaegoor could help us understand. 400 seems like an awfully long ways even with the best distance sling design.



Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Mersa on Aug 5th, 2020 at 8:11pm
My take on distance slinging is lots of people don’t actually measure the distance they throw, they use google maps or make judgments on distance, throw over trees and make calculations but very few actually go out to level ground and actually find the projectile and measure the distance. That makes me believe even less.
The numbers get thrown around up to 800m+.
These numbers aren’t outside of theoretical throws but practically seem to be outrageous.

My thoughts on distance.


0-100m: should be achievable by everyone on the forum with the ability to sling.
100-200m: around the maximum distances with shorter slings and average projectiles
200-300m: the point that sling, projectile and style make the difference. Also being an elite slinger might just get you there.
300+: long distance slings with aerodynamic projectiles and extremely good form.
Distances over 450m: why don’t you get the Guinness world records to come watch ?

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by jauke on Aug 6th, 2020 at 2:04am
-

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Sarosh on Aug 6th, 2020 at 3:52am

AncientCraftwork wrote on Aug 6th, 2020 at 2:04am:
That was from this post
http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1499008756/130#130
Where Jaegoor said Jaume Darder threw to 400 meters with a very short sling.

But then here we have another Balearic slinger saying that their maximum distance reached is around 183 meters using relatively small stones !
http://slinging.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1151518868/0#0
This sounds very reasonable.

Then we get to Jaegoors standardized sling thing arrangement
http://slinging.org/forum/yabbfiles/Attachments/Screenshot_20200718-080756.png
And here he also has a classification of throws to 400-500 meter with stones of 200-250 grams

This to me sounds unbelievable, even more with short traditional slings


Jaegoors claims are possible with (less than 200g) lead or with longer slings and lighter stones
we know that Luis can sling roughly ~52m/s ~200g stones which is 275m in vacuum. Luis seems huge, athletic and a powerful slinger if he cant get 400m with 200g stones then you need to be pretty special to do it.

the 2 first Guinness WR where  ~200g ,slings were 73-86 cm,
Morton was 6'4" 200pounds
Melvin Gaylor got 350m
Morton says his son at 12 threw 213m (700ft)

I thought wow these guys were on steroids :P but
testosterone levels have declined from the 70s maybe thats the reason?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilhowe/2017/10/02/youre-not-the-man-your-father-was/

Title: -
Post by jauke on Aug 6th, 2020 at 4:16am
-

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Sarosh on Aug 6th, 2020 at 5:11am
@ jauke

he hasn't provided the details for some reason. Ask him via PM as he has said in a previous post.
in both of his posts he doesn't mention the exact ammo used, lead or stone and mass nor does he mention length in cm. long/short is relative 75-85cm can be considered short if apex was talking about 1.4m
2 out of 4  classes shooting over 400m is overkill with stones but not so crazy with lead, the stone mass mentioned has to be the target shooting ammo.

I would question even the guinness records, did they measure bounce and roll or not? I think in golf they count it in. Correct me in this if you know better. Melvin Gaylor made the record in a golf course so I think it's highly probable they counted the roll in otherwise they would need to search for an impact point (maybe impossible on some soils) or a spotter near the impact point(suicidal spotter).
or maybe the soil was such that the stone planted itself and the measurement was perfect. no pictures no records other than a paper and word of mouth. guinness doesnt do it's job well. >:(

Title: -
Post by jauke on Aug 6th, 2020 at 6:20am
-

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Aug 6th, 2020 at 8:14am
Even lead with a short Balearic throwing out to 400 meters would be a hell of a throw.
While one of the most beautiful designs they are just so damn heavy. It’s hard to imagine that anyone can throw that far with one if someone like Luis can’t.

I believe CA has said he saw Larry Bray throw a golf ball past the 400 yard mark and it was still going strong outside of the driving range. It’s believable when you see the video. Those things are like laser beams. Feel free to correct me if I’m remembering that wrong here CA.  But yes, 400+ is possible, with the right slinger and set up.


Title: -
Post by jauke on Aug 6th, 2020 at 8:42am
.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Aug 6th, 2020 at 9:04am

AncientCraftwork wrote on Aug 6th, 2020 at 8:42am:
I don't doubt slings can throw that far, but I do highly doubt a short fat sling will.


Just to be clear I’m in complete agreement with you Jauke, my last post was in response to Sarosh’s questioning the Guinness record. At the very least we can confidently say it’s possible but I agree a short fat Balearic sling? No.

The problem is not the ammo. Use lead if you want but a short fat Balearic can only be accelerated so fast. Can it be accelerated to a high enough speed to reach 400 meters? I’m very skeptical.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by IronGoober on Aug 6th, 2020 at 10:57am

Sarosh wrote on Aug 6th, 2020 at 3:52am:
we know that Luis can sling roughly ~52m/s ~200g


I just want to make sure we don't perpetuate misinformation. Luis sent a stone through a chronograph that registered 52 m/s. That we know, you can watch it.  The weight of the stone is not known. It was never stated from that particular throw what the weight was. From my own analysis of the video, it seems to be smaller than the other stones he was throwing for accuracy (and possibly a longer sling). But again, unverified. All we know is the speed was 52 m/s (116mph), not the weight of the projectile.

What we need is for Luis to chime in here.

Title: -
Post by jauke on Aug 6th, 2020 at 11:03am
-

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Sarosh on Aug 6th, 2020 at 11:51am
any of the long range claims I have to see to believe but then again I can't see a stone past 200m :P

seriously though why is every claim so vague?


Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by NooneOfConsequence on Aug 6th, 2020 at 1:43pm
This is precisely why we also need a theoretical framework. It isn’t going to be perfect, but it would help filter out the most outrageous claims. Right now it’s not clear what is outrageous or not. It’s all opinions and intuitions based on limited first-hand experience.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Aug 6th, 2020 at 4:47pm
I think we have a general sense of what is crazy, what you need to look at skeptically and of course what can be proven but it’s the why that bothers me.

Being able to do something doesn’t mean you can explain it well and vice versa. Hence the number of NFL coaches who were never star players.

There are people in every sport I keep up with that are very good at something but probably don’t have a good idea of exactly how to do what they do. And if they try and explain it’s likely they will have just as many pet theories that amount to nothing as anyone else. Not always, but it’s quite common. Shoot, you see that in everything, slinging is no different I guess. Which is why we need repeatable , real, testing.



Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by NooneOfConsequence on Aug 6th, 2020 at 5:59pm
@Morphy ...Also true. Repeatable testing would be a real boon to sling science.  Roboslinger isn’t dead yet. Just on pause during a particularly crazy phase of my life. I plan to do some small scale design iterations with a 3D printer before scaling up to something that can launch with real slings, but I’ve got baby #4 on the way, and I’m probably not going to start working on roboslinger for several more months. Others are welcome to jump in and help any time! 

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Mersa on Aug 6th, 2020 at 10:08pm
Even a basic trebuchet could help explore some of our theories.

I’m very interested in how the “lag angle” plays it’s role in generating power.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by IronGoober on Aug 6th, 2020 at 11:32pm

Sarosh wrote on Aug 6th, 2020 at 11:51am:
any of the long range claims I have to see to believe but then again I can't see a stone past 200m :P

seriously though why is every claim so vague?


I have thrown a ~80g stone 220m. Once. I haven't been able to repeat it, but I found the stone, where it landed in soft ground and used Google maps to get the distance (it landed right next to a big drainage pipe that was easy to find).  I used a ~30" sling.

I know this doesn't help the whole mantra of "video or it didn't happen", but since I'm not making a totally outrageous claim, I would like to be believed. I'm mostly mentioning it just to clarify that over 200m with a stone is certainly achievable.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Sarosh on Aug 7th, 2020 at 3:49am
@ IronGoober I've done ~250m twice in decline and once ~220m incline (same day) the stones used were very light, less than 50g. the way I spotted the landing was after reviewing the footage multiple times on a big screen several days after the event. it is possible that I threw further than that I just didn't see it in the field or in the screen.

your PR is very good 80g 220m probably better than mine but it still is 120g and 130m behind the old WR that makes me wonder how explosive those people were.

Larry Bray's Record
Dale wrote on May 30th, 2005 at 9:05pm:
(478 yards or 437.1 meters) with a rock weighing 1.8 ounces (52 grams).  The sling was elk-hide and dacron cord, 51 inches (129.5 cm)

  is more believable than Melvin Gaylor's Record who used a shorter sling 86cm and a 4x heavier stone 200g

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Aug 7th, 2020 at 9:05am

Mersa wrote on Aug 6th, 2020 at 10:08pm:
Even a basic trebuchet could help explore some of our theories.

I’m very interested in how the “lag angle” plays it’s role in generating power.


I believe lag angle creates an effectively shorter lever which, at the pull-through or pull ,which is just a term I’ve used for the point at which you first pull into the power stroke, that shorter lever allows you to pull harder initially into the throw which causes the sling to “hinge” outward (another pet name I have) faster.

The pull-through and the hinge are arguably the most important parts of a good sling throw when it comes to both power and accuracy imo. And certainly for target accuracy a proper lag angle and pull-through allow a better gear effect with you arm moving slower and more controlled which allows for a higher degree of pinpoint accuracy.

I’ve been planning on making a video on this subject for years but of course life comes first. A layman’s guide to understanding the sling if you will.

I would like to see this theory tested but I’m reasonably sure it’s along the right track. The pull and correct lag angle functions exactly in the same way that recurve tips on a bow force you to store more energy in a bows limbs due to an effectively shorter lever (limb) during the initial part of the draw.  A sling can’t store energy so that initial greater force instantly translates into a faster hinging outward motion rather than giving that energy back at the end of the power stroke like a recurve would.

This is why I said a month ago or so that there’s a lot of similarities between bow design and sling. Some disagreed with that but they will see the light eventually.  ;D

@NOOC- Congrats on baby number 4! I’m not trying to push you by the way. Hopefully it didn’t come off like that. As Mersa said really all we need is a simple trebuchet and I will add- a decent slow motion camera. Almost any of us could do it. I’ve also been a bit busy but I’m hoping next year things will be different.

Title: Re: Absolute maximum slinging length
Post by Morphy on Aug 7th, 2020 at 9:34am
My apologies if the previous post seems a bit...verbose.  ;D

Almost 30 years in and this weapon still fascinates me. I can’t help but share my theories.  :)

Slinging.org Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.