johan wrote on Aug 11
th, 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 11
th, 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 11
th, 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 11
th, 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 11
th, 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 11
th, 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.
Pages: 
Absolute maximum slinging length (Read 34254 times)
