[Paddlewise] Does the paddle move? Re: Different paddles, different stro

There was a very strong statement that "in a correctly performed
forward stroke, the paddle does not move".
The statement was not that the paddle moves only a little, but
that it does NOT MOVE!

Did Congress repeal the laws of physics?
Would it matter if they did?

:-))

I have stipulated that I consider for this test any movement of less
than 0.01 inch to meet the term "not move".

Let's see the demonstration at 'racing speeds'.
At slow speeds the force needed to drive the boat get so small it
is likely to be very difficult to measure the movements.

If I were wealthy I would offer a large prize, the reason I said $100
is that I am quite ready to pay on proper scientific proof.
I can also bet that it will cost a LOT more than $100 to do
the test to good enough precision for the proof.

I expect that the proof is already out there. I have seen shows on TV 
about Olympic paddlers training and developing equipment that seem to
have very good testing and documentation.
Of course, I am betting that the proof is that the paddle really moves 
a measureable amount, but that the amount is SMALL.

I am now going to make a couple of wild guesses.

1. The ratio of boat movement to paddle movement is something
between 10:1 and 50:1. It might be less than 10:1 but I think 
racers are doing much better than that, as it is not all that
great of a lift to drag ratio. A ration of 50:1 would be quite 
good but even then, if you move the boat 5 feet, the paddle moves
1.2 inches. 

2. If you go out and start doing some real, controlled, scientific
testing with paddles in water (liquid water) you will find the forces 
they make in the absense of movement are only bouyant forces, and these
would be up or down depending on the composition of the paddle.


I have no argument with the idea that the paddle should SEEM to not
move during the forward stroke, only the idea that somehow the paddle
doesn't actually move at all.
i.e. a difference between a good teaching concept and a hard statement 
of scientific fact.



cramer_at_coe.uga.edu wrote:
> 
> Nick Schade wrote:
> >
> > >>There is a demonstration of
> > >>this -- using stationary buoys -- about halfway through the tape.
> > >>
> > >>You may deduct the cost of the video from my $100 reward.
> > >>
> >
> > Take your mind back to your physics class when you were in high school or
> > college and think about this.
> 
> Take your eyes to your TV and look at what they're doing. It certainly
> looks like the paddle is staying put--OK, maybe it moves a
> centimeter--and the boat is moving. But unless the bouy is also moving
> through the water, the paddle is pretty well fixed.

Is the bouy moving through the water? 
How much?
What constitutes, "pretty well fixed?"

How well can you see in the video? Can you see and measure a movement of
1"?
A movement of 0.01"? 2"?
Do you even have any way to tell? i.e. is there a calibrated scale in
frame?

Any time you make a scientific observation of a negative, "I did not
measure
any movement of the paddle", you must also give a detailed description of
the test method and how much (or little) movement you could see. 

I have looked at video tapes where the smallest thing visible was 50'
across.
In such a tape, the paddle, kayak and kayaker do not even exist.
Can I now claim with credibility that there is no such thing as a kayaker?

I would not make that claim.  :-))

When the statement of 'fact' is "the paddle does not move" then these
questions
become very important.
If the statement were something like, "the paddle moves only a very
little."
Then there would be no argument.

michael

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.gasp-seakayak.net/paddlewise/
***************************************************************************