They say the higher the tension the faster the shuttle but the shuttle cannot fly that far. Just like using a wooden board to hit the shuttle. But high tension also offers more control too!
is it possible to look at it this way-- since in higher tensions, force is imparted over a shorter period of time, as shuttle stays on the stringbed for a less time before bounce off. Thus acceleration is greater than lower tensions?
just because i read ABOUT a paper doesnt mean i read the paper. What i read was from a tennis forum and someone cited the paper. And how am I backpedalling? I admitted that wristwork's second post made me rethink the physics of how the string tension could cause a difference in the amount of waste energy being created. Also, maybe you should read the study more carefully because they measured both the ball control AND the rebound velocity.
Re tension vs. power, wristworks gave an excellent explanation that should be stickied! To continue the thought experiment further, might I also add that there is an optimal narrow range of tension for each swing speed/power (technique included) to optimally impart power onto the bird. Kinda like a bell curve, I'd imagine. My reasoning is that, like wristworks discussed, the shaft and stringbed as a system has to be optimally loaded and flexed in order to rebound and impart the kinetic energy onto the bird. In other words, to have the most optimal length of time that the bird can stay on the stringbed so that there is an optimal contact time for transfer of kinetic energy. Think of it this way, the system rebound time has to be perfectly matched to the player's swing power/speed/technique in order to get the most optimal power transfer. If the rebound is too slow/late, then the swing has already finished and less than optimal power was transferred. If the rebound is too fast/early, then the swing has barely started and already the bird has left the stringbed, resulting in yet again less than optimal power transfer. So, looking at these two extremes, we can see that the most optimal case would be for the system to be optimally (not overly) loaded/flexed by the bird and then for the system to rebound and to finish releasing all its stored energy back onto the bird before the bird leaves the stringbed. So, for a pro with a super powerful swing, he'll need a stiff stringbed (ie. high tension) and a stiff shaft, otherwise he'll overwhelm the string/shaft beyond the optimal load/flex of the system. Finally, by going to a stiffer system, the pro can get more accuracy and most importantly, I think, a faster system reaction time since the bird leaves the stringbed much faster. This is of utmost significance in fast competitive doubles game, especially with the rally point system where every single shot counts. So, the sooner you get the bird to leave the stringbed, the sooner you get it back to the other side of the net, whether it be smash, clear, drives, drop, etc., and the better your advantage will be.
I'm no physicist, but not to be immodest, physics was my favourite course in high school and undergrad university. Was always in the top 2%ile.My thought experiment is intuitively sound, although I may not be the best at explaining the concepts to someone who may not have a good grasp of physics.
it seem everybody in this thread IS an expert. Problem is, in fear of me sounding abusive to some, some audience aren't experts. These people can't tell the difference between garbage nonsense goo from facts, in this case, basic physics. Some here claim to know about physics and even quoted so called 'scientific papers' with flair and sprout them like rap lyrics. To be a sticky, it should be have +90's% confidence to be factual or theory which have +90's% acceptance by the community peers.
Whatever quasi-phyisics you unleash on the subject hardly matters, you should just try and see what your own preferred tension is, what could be easier? All theories on "hang time" and "imparted kinetic energy" seem a little vague to me. Now, for the main question: "Why do people use a higher tension for more power?" I don't really think that's the case for all the 27+lbs stringjobs (or maybe just 30+, The line is vague and dependent on player level). Up to a certain tension power will indeed increase (so will the control and feedback you get), I'd say up to 27-28 for most decent players. After that it's more the question of "how high can you go without losing power?" with all the added advantages of a tighter stringbed, a slight loss in power might be acceptable, so the trade-off (power vs control/feedback) moves to higher regions for pro's than for us.
u r getting very warm In fact, the title itself of the thread is misleading which made most of the phyisics related explanation that came afterward 'off the mark'. It was wrongly assumed the title statement is a fact and then people go all out trying to explain it. More reason of it not being a sticky
Could someone explain why you lose power with higher tension in 1 sentence? Shouldn't the deformation of the strings be reduced the higher the tension, thus meaning less power being wasted, thus meaning more power being returned into the shuttle? Apperantly I'm missing something here
That's just hilarious! So, because of the original misdirected question of the OP, henceforth all posts and discussions in this thread is useless? Cooler, out of curiosity, did you read over wristworks and my discussion? I understand, there have been tons of threads on this before and you may be getting jaded from previous arguments...
It matters to people who understand and love physics and like to discuss about what happens when the racket hits the shuttle in their favourite hobby. Everyone has a knack/intuition for understanding something. For some may be cooking, or economics, or driving, or interpersonal behaviour. For me, it's music and physics. It's just too bad that I/we can't explain it better for some of you...
Well, Okay, I'm taking a stab at this whole physics discussion anyway. And I'm doing by stating that the "conservation of energy"-angle is pointless. We all now the concept, which is basically newtons third law applied to a collision. Now the easiest concept of a collision is an elastic collision, where we can state there is no energy lost and nothing is deformed (the deformation impulse is equal and opposite to the restition impulse, like the textbook says ) The perfect example of this being two billard balls, or a marble bouncing on cement. Notable traits of these types of collisions are the short contact time, and small deformations. However, a racket striking a shuttle is not a perfectly elastic collision, a lot of sound is produced and both objects deform a bit. So, physically speaking we first have to determine whether the coefficient of restitution (how inelastic is the collision, how much energy is lost?) actually changes when we alter the tension of the racket. And finally, when we note that the CoR is determined by the speeds of both objects before and after impact we have to factor in actual skill of the player (swingspeed). So, we have two variables to solve 1 one, making this whole thing pretty unsolvable, vague and open to interpretation. All this is basic bachelor Dynamics, but tricky to apply to such a multi-facet example. Especially if you want to get a realistic and helpfull answer Anyways, back to the real world. By your logic, you could just as easily state that because the string deformation is reduced at higher tensions there is less time to transfer the 'power' to the shuttle, thus losing power. It's just not that simple.
It would be a very looooong run-on sentence!! You should understand that string deformation IS necessary and required (and to some degree shaft flexion) to first store the kinetic energy from the bird upon landing on the stringbed, and then most importantly to rebound and release all that energy back onto the bird before it has a chance to leave the stringbed. Think about it this way. Compare that with using as strings very stiff steel wires that have very little elasticity. If you imagine a slow motion of the racket hitting the bird, you will see that there will be much less string deformation and the bird will bounce off the stringbed almost instantly. Very little stored energy and very little energy released back onto the bird, also partly because contact time was so much shorter. It doesn't matter if the swing is really fast or powerful, because the bird is no longer in physical contact with the strings.
r u sure u r a physicist type? interested in physics and understanding of physics are 2 very diffferent things. The physicists that i know are careful with observation detail and draw backable conclusion or theory. what i see here is 1) poor observation and assumption( see above underlined words from my post and your post; see what the thread title said) 2) where are ur mathematical derivation? if not, where are your real life examples? The presentations made here were almost analog to the presentation made in the 'Inconvenience Truth' movie where tibit of scientific data or observation is used to make one grandiose conclusion.
You don't know how close you are to understanding it. Forget about all the physics equations and Newton's laws and what not. Yes, I'm trying to say that there is a certain optimal range of string deformation that is required and necessary. For a pro with faster more powerful swing, he'll need to have tighter stringbed to still remain in that optimal range, as compared to a beginner who'll need lower tension for the stringbed to bend and rebound. This is all very similar to playing with stiff vs. flexy shafts. An optimal amount of shaft loading/bending and unloading/rebound is required and necessary. Given the same tension, a beginner would not be able to hit well with a stiff shaft, just as a pro would overwhelm a flexy shaft to the point of even breaking it. In other words, string tension has to be matched to the swing speed/power. As simple as that.
Hmmm....I don't know where to begin... Oftentimes, life and the world is not amenable to scientific analysis. For example, just because I can't put into equations what love is, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are no mathematical equations for a stringbed hitting a shuttle. The only way is to imagine a slow motion of it happening and imagine what would happen if certain variables are changed, eg. tension, swing speed. (It is called a thought experiment; no equations, no math, just intuition.) Well, that is, unless someone has already taken a high speed slow mo video of it already. Hmmm... let me take a look at the Arc Z video of their smash testing. PS, Since you personally know some physicists, can you try asking them about this conundrum that we have? I'd like to know what their intuition tells them.
I consider your post #54, #56 and #57 to be like flunk test scores. u said love can not be solved scientifically. Yes but no one is attempting to make conclusion about love using scientific reasoning. However, in this thread, many are using science and physics to showcase their points. To me, then u should back it up with the rigor of science that is required in any scientific claim. PS. since u posted your PS afterward. I say, why ask when u can't comprehend the answer? btw, may i ask how qualify of physicists should i consult with? number of papers published? number of science degrees? or amount of dollar reseach grant received? Number of seats sat in science organization?
You know what? Some people in this world are good at building up, then there are others who are only good at tearing down. If you can't or don't want to try the thought experiment, then I just don't think that this issue can be settled by mathematical dissertations and scientific analysis. Maybe, just maybe, if we have a high speed slow mo video of the critical time when the bird hits the stringbed until it leaves the stringbed.
Ummm... do you have this reversed? I'm not the one who is demanding that equations must be supplied, and Newton's laws must be posited, and scientific analysis must be observed... I believe that is you! So why would you think that I would ask for degrees, papers, grants, positions? I just want to know what they think of it intuitively... as a thought experiment! So, yes please, if you know them, please ask them about this issue. No grants, papers, positions required. I'd seriously really genuinely like to know what they think of it intuitively... And what makes you think that I won't be able to understand their thoughts? BTW, just out of curiosity, do you really understand what I'm saying about optimal stringbed deformation?
