I touched on a previous post about physics in axe throwing and how empirical data is very different. The first issue I have with articles I've read leads to an interesting conclusion that that axe velocity doesn't have an impact and that the rate of speed and rate of spin are two different and independent forces. While it was possible to lob the axe quickly without spin, trying to spin the axe quickly without affecting velocity was a fruitless effort. There were assertions made as fixed constants for unknown or flexible variables including distance, axe orientation (90 degrees to the floor) and that every axe sticks in the board. The assertions aren't accurate representations since ideal landing is the top edge of the blade, while distance is relatively fixed between fourteen to sixteen feet, it doesn't account for taking a step, and we have all had our share of drops and know that sticking it in the board isn't a guarantee. As we become experienced we become able to manipulate our throw to accommodate a variety of variables for an ideal stick in the board, but physics suggests otherwise.
There are two camps of thoughts on how an axe rotates according to physicists. Camp A asserts that the largest mass being the axe head will predominantly influence the spin in an uneven arch that's off-axis, and the second the axe finds an equilibrium somewhere between mass, length, and energy with energy separately defined between velocity and rate of spin. The distance being minuscule the attrition of energy from other factors are entirely discounted. The biggest problem for both camps is incomplete data. There are a lot of assertions made that doesn't even take into account board density, newness, moisture level. There are numerous variables either wholly ignored or treated as constants that unilaterally apply to all throwers like arm length, height, force, axe weight, and axe length. Environmental conditions aren't even considered. The damning conclusion from both is that if the axe is held lower on the handle that the rate of spin increase. This doesn't align to empirical testing and leads question the validity of their initial calculations. There was one interesting observation that proved true, and that's thrower height. The observation of their data suggests that the taller the thrower, the slower the spin that necessitates greater distance. To test this I took the giant throwing and what do you know? I also interviewed coaches on the topic and field data suggests this observation be true.
After reading a lot of about axe throwing physics, comparing my own empirical testing, and my own math, I conclude that this is bananas, that at every iteration I find my solution incomplete because of the lack of data. It's not that science isn't a great approach, I simply don't have the appropriate equipment to measure things that I would need to measure nor a facility to have repeatable results. Can I speculate on the topic along with some science? Sure. But so far old fashioned tried and true, just throw it and get at it has proven to be the best teacher. With this final conclusion, I won't include any science in this writing as the data collection is incomplete and immature, but welcome any comments and happy to speculate on data to collect with those looking to try. For a primer on the topic to those curious but unfamiliar, read up on rotational motion of a rigid body, much of which is based on constant angular acceleration.
No comments:
Post a Comment