We're talking Physics

[White Warlock]

A recent post by TDA helped bring me back to my senses on much of these discussions (thanks TDA):

 

P.A.S. - http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=13623

 

A Principle of Training: Power in Hitting - http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=11247

 

Power is Nothing without Speed - http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=171901#171901

 

Skill vs Strength - http://www.karateforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=13678&highlight=

 

Force and power are not the same and it is this that had been nagging me. In these discussions, of accuracy, speed, and power, we are mixing 'physics theorems' with 'layman' definitions and oftentimes coming out with some rather ambiguous arguments.

 

In physics, the definition of power is clearly defined.

 

Power is the rate at which work is done:

• power = work / time

With work being a force acting upon an object to cause a displacement:

• work = force * displacement * cos (theta)

Which can also expressed as:

• work energy = mass * acceleration * length

I prefer the latter.

 

The work energy theorem, referred to herein as work, requires an understanding of the two types of forces: internal and external. I could go into that at another time, if so pursuaded.

 

Okay, now that i lost you... and me...

 

Speed is a change in distance with respect to time:

• average speed = distance traveled / time taken

or

• speed = distance / time

Accuracy, on the other hand, is a relative term. It is dependent on having same or similar points of reference. I.e., if i say i am accurate and you say you are not, and yet i am using an large object to hit a large object, at a distance of one foot, while you use a small object to hit a small object, at a distance of one thousand feet, our relationship is flawed. We aren't using the same basis for comparison. Accuracy seems to be where much of the confusion is, and it is understandable.

 

In many respects, we are working with different relative states. I am bigger than some of you, and smaller than others. I have more or less mass than some of you, and i can create higher or lower acceleration than some of you. Accuracy, in no uncertain terms, is going to be different, depending on the person who examines his physicalities without considering the physicalities of others. I.e., what works for me, may not necessarily work for you... because, i'm different.

 

Because of the short distances associated with these discussions, speed is dependent upon acceleration, and upon angular influences (linear vs circular, for our frame of reference). Oddly enough, so is power. Therefore, if we examine one's ability to accelerate, we actually directly influence both speed and power, at least in relation to our frame of reference. I.e., speed is dependent upon the 'average' speed one attains. Since all actions in a fight start at 0, we must then attain a certain speed by the time we impact (or commit to an action). This, obviously, requires a high degree of acceleration.

 

Acceleration can be enhanced by plyometric exercises. So, if you want to boost your 'average' speed and your power, practice plyometrics. If you wish to enhance your accuracy, and be able to apply this accuracy with any degree of effectiveness, aim for tiny targets using plyometrics.

 

Another thesis out of the way.

 

References:

 

Design Notes Log, by Robert Compton

 

Aikido and the Dynamic Sphere, by Westbrook / Ratti

 

St. Vincent College website

 

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/

 

and, of course, http://www.karateforums.com/

[TheDevilAside]

Sorry guys, I didn't mean for this to happen.

 

Okay, after reading your post 5 times through, I think I finally understand what you're saying. Power, which ultimately determines the force of impact, or how hard you hit, is dependant on acceleration, which is, by definition, a change in speed? And to increase our rate of acceleration (how much the speed increases/decreases in the relationship to the time it takes to do so) we should train in plyometrics?

 

...right?

[WhiteBelt]

Nicely written. However for the average person I still believe that strength training to be more effective. Only when said person has reached a certain level of strength will dynamic strength training and plyometrics help them reach their next level.

[Treebranch]

Displace, displace, displace. That's the key. Attack the balance and let gravity do the work.

[delta1]

Sorry guys, I didn't mean for this to happen.

 

LMAO

 

Whitey, heres the problem- applied physics is good to use to get a general understanding of what is going on. But in a conflict between two biological life forms, there are simply too many variables involved, many of which are difficult/impossible to quantify, or to repeat with any degree of consistency, to make an exact mathematical model.

 

Put another way, don't make this more complicated than it is! (And just you wait 'till Jerry Love sees this- th' doodoo is gonna hit the whirlies...!)

 

(And they say us American Kenpoists overcomplicate things!)

[Zorba]

you all sound like v8 drivers. MORE DISPLACEMENT.

 

what about we whack a nice turbs on it?

[Fenris-wolf]

I know this is silly... But I noticed you used speed in your equations. I thought perhaps while we were being particularly picky we should make the distinction between speed and velocity?

 

Speed being a scalar quantity: "a quantity which is fully described by a magnitude alone" whereas velocity is a vector quantity: "a quantity which is fully described by both a magnitude and a direction"

 

So baisically, speed is only equal to velocity when travelling in a straight line.

 

My point really being that most physical equations use velocity, not speed, and in terms of v=d/t for speed you'd need to be specific about the direction of the distance... OK, you get the idea. Maybe.

 

[TheDevilAside]

Speed is just a rate at which something travels. Velocity is speed and direction.

[WhiteBelt]

Exactly, her point was that most physics equations are based on velocity not speed.

[White Warlock]

first off,

 

/me smacks TBA

 

Okay, continuing...

 

Agreed, velocity would be more appropriate to use, but the thing is... many of the ongoing discussions here in this forum have had to do with speed, and not velocity.

 

Let me put it in the reader's digest version what it is i'm trying to relate:

 

Basically, the concept of power is being incorrectly used. The concept of speed, as discussed in these forums, should actually be referred to as velocity. Accuracy is always a percentage, but to determine accuracy, you need to rely on variables. Whether the object used is large or small, distance is long or short, target is large or small, angle, linear vs circular, etc.

Whitey, heres the problem- applied physics is good to use to get a general understanding of what is going on. But in a conflict between two biological life forms, there are simply too many variables involved, many of which are difficult/impossible to quantify, or to repeat with any degree of consistency, to make an exact mathematical model.

Well, that wasn't my line of discussion. I was basically saying that if we're going to discuss theorems, we should at least use the definitions correctly.

 

Part of the problem with a lot of these discussions is that we're all going on different 'layman viewpoints' as to what these various concepts refer to. Because we're all not talking from the same foundation, we are unable to discuss these issues with any degree of common ground. And, because of this, we're really not getting nearly as much out of the discussions.

 

Everyone has a different way of approaching things, but communication requires commonality of reference points. In order to be able to share thoughts and ideas, we need to really be talking about the same friggin' thing, lest we spend countless hours (or days) just trying to understand where the 'other' person is coming from. I've witnessed countless discussions here, and in other forums, where two people were in agreement to the principle, but had no idea that was the case, because they were discussing things from different 'assumptions' as to what each of the words they were using... actually meant.

 

A real short? Okay...

 

I could be talking about how a fruit requires peeling and you could argue otherwise. If you thought i was talking about an apple, when in fact i was talking about an orange, how the hell would we be able to make sense of any interchange of ideas and information?!? Until such time as we start out talking about the same 'foundation' to our arguments, it's all moot.

 

As for Treebranch, quit trying to tangentialize, you friggin' pirate-ninja!