|
Disclaimer: CurlingZone does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any Content posted on any Forums area and you acknowledge that any reliance upon such Content shall be at your sole risk. Any Content placed on any Forums area by users and anonymous posters are the views of the user posting the statement, and do not represent the views of CurlingZone or our partners, advertisers or sponsors. By posting anonymously, you are allowing your IP address to be displayed for identification purposes. CurlingZone reserves the right to remove any post at its discretion without warning or explanation.
| 03-26-14 10:45AM |
|
Unregistered
Guest
Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A |
quote:
Originally posted by RockDoc
No amount of "sticking" at 9 or 3 o'clock can cause left-right motion. Only differential friction at 12 or 6 o'clock can cause left-right motion of the stone. The force vectors from left-tight friction act forwards and backwards, not side to side.That aspect of the physics has been recognized for more than 60 years.
Yes and for many a year, humans thought the Earth was flat. Challenge conventions my friend! Especially with something that conventional physics has failed to explain to date! You (the physicist) say it can't happen, I (the layman) say that it can? Until we prove it, who's really right? Probably the physicist but we still don't know!
Report this post to a moderator | IP: 216.81.54.22
|
|
| 03-26-14 10:49AM |
|
duct_tape
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 1441 |
quote:
Originally posted by RockDoc
Here's another sweeping conundrum for which I don't have any scientific answer (although I think this one is scientifically testable):
Is it more effective to sweep with (a "performance-style" brush) the long axis of the broom perpendicular to the path of the stone (so as to get closer) or with the broom head parallel to the path of the stone (so as to sweep a larger area of ice in front of the stone)? Or does it matter at all which way you do it?
When I ask competitive curlers, most but not all say that sweeping with the broom head parallel to the path of the stone is better. I was taught to sweep as close to the stone as possible (orienting the brush perpendicular to the stone path)--in come cases by high-performance coaches.
For now, I'm sweeping close to the rock with silvered-mylar modified broom heads. Seems to carry a rock OK.
Discussion on!
Cheers.
That has been tested, they recently developed a broom with pressure sensors that also measures strokes per second.
Apparently the most effective sweeping (from a physical perspective) is actually at a 45 degree angle at about 3-4 reps per second.
__________________
"Ladies and gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and slide on the ice"
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-26-14 10:50AM |
|
duct_tape
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 1441 |
quote:
Originally posted by Flat Hat
I assume this is a principle of physics that has been proven over and over again?
The line 'bumblebees can't fly' comes to mind, since we can see them fly (and rocks curl) without the physics to back it up. Probably why nobody agrees, there are multiple studies trying to understand it, and why the current physics can't explain it.
Maybe the affect of rotation speed is not being properly accounted for?
You are aware the "bumblebees can't fly" thing is an urban legend, right? It's well known how they fly.
__________________
"Ladies and gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and slide on the ice"
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-26-14 10:56AM |
|
duct_tape
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 1441 |
quote:
Originally posted by Unregistered
Yes and for many a year, humans thought the Earth was flat. Challenge conventions my friend! Especially with something that conventional physics has failed to explain to date! You (the physicist) say it can't happen, I (the layman) say that it can? Until we prove it, who's really right? Probably the physicist but we still don't know!
The reason why we thought the earth was flat was because of a lack of evidence. We now have clear evidence that the earth is not flat.
When it comes to physics, we also have mountains of evidence to show how friction, vectors and the like works. These are not things that we have a lack of understanding about, it's basic physics.
The question of how the stone curls is not about trying to figure out physical forces, it's trying to figure out what are the dominant forces acting on the rock.
You're proposing something that's physically not possible. Physics simply doesn't work that way. The force you're proposing just doesn't exist.
So who's right? To be kind, it's not you.
__________________
"Ladies and gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and slide on the ice"
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-26-14 11:16AM |
|
ngm
Swing Artist
Registered: Feb 2011
Location:
Posts: 272 |
quote:
Originally posted by Unregistered
Yes and for many a year, humans thought the Earth was flat. Challenge conventions my friend! Especially with something that conventional physics has failed to explain to date! You (the physicist) say it can't happen, I (the layman) say that it can? Until we prove it, who's really right? Probably the physicist but we still don't know!
There has been no serious belief in a flat earth in western culture for about 2400 years.
And just because physicists have not been able to agree on a theory about curling and sweeping does not mean that physically implausible things invented by a (relative) layman are of any value.
For some far more serious examples, just because experts in MS do not fully understand how it works or how to treat it, does not mean that implausible treatments about blood flow to the brain are worthy of much consideration. Or just because experts in autism do no fully understand it does not mean that implausible explanations relating it to vaccinations are worthy of much consideration. And yet so much time and effort has to be wasted by actual experts debunking these things because "challenge conventions!".
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-26-14 11:42AM |
|
RockDoc
Swing Artist
Registered: Apr 2005
Location:
Posts: 399 |
quote:
Originally posted by Flat Hat
I assume this is a principle of physics that has been proven over and over again?
The line 'bumblebees can't fly' comes to mind, since we can see them fly (and rocks curl) without the physics to back it up. Probably why nobody agrees, there are multiple studies trying to understand it, and why the current physics can't explain it.
Maybe the affect of rotation speed is not being properly accounted for?
I don't know any way to make forward and backward vectors apply a left-right force. The rotational speed of curling stones has been analyzed ad nauseum by many different investigators, and they have all come to the same conclusion: a left-right force on the stone can only come from application of differential friction on the front and back edges of the running band. Only here does friction exert a force in the left-right direction.
It is easy to calculate the rotational speed of the stone, and the linear velocity of a running edge is a very small percentage of the forward velocity of the stone until it nearly comes to a stop. So the retreating edge of the stone is never stationary on the ice until near the very end of travel. That's when you may see the little off-center "spin" when a portion of the running band sticks to the ice.
The Nyberg model DOES account for major aspects of curl, including both the quantity of curl and the lack of a strong dependence of curl on rotational speed for stones thrown with normal rotations (2-5 to tee line). Furthermore, the model has been experimentally tested and the major aspects of the hypothesis can be verified with real stones and ice.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-26-14 07:06PM |
|
Flat Hat
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2014
Location:
Posts: 86 |
quote:
Originally posted by duct_tape
You are aware the "bumblebees can't fly" thing is an urban legend, right? It's well known how they fly.
Of course they know, but initially the models they had didn't account for it working in spite of the visual evidence to the contrary.
In the face of scientific certainty there is still room for doubt... right? Seems like the very foundation of science to question everything.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-26-14 07:17PM |
|
duct_tape
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 1441 |
quote:
Originally posted by Flat Hat
Of course they know, but initially the models they had didn't account for it working in spite of the visual evidence to the contrary.
In the face of scientific certainty there is still room for doubt... right? Seems like the very foundation of science to question everything.
Except you aren't questioning, you're making up new forces that don't exist (or at least have never before been seen anywhere, at any time in history) and passing them off as credible alternatives.
Good science works off an observation and then gathers evidence to produce a model to describe how something works. There simply is no evidence at all for your alternative despite the fact we should have seen it millions of times in other applications if it actually existed.
In short, the force you are proposing does not exist. That makes your alternative explanation not credible.
__________________
"Ladies and gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and slide on the ice"
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-26-14 07:25PM |
|
Flat Hat
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2014
Location:
Posts: 86 |
quote:
Originally posted by RockDoc
I don't know any way to make forward and backward vectors apply a left-right force. The rotational speed of curling stones has been analyzed ad nauseum by many different investigators, and they have all come to the same conclusion: a left-right force on the stone can only come from application of differential friction on the front and back edges of the running band. Only here does friction exert a force in the left-right direction.
It is easy to calculate the rotational speed of the stone, and the linear velocity of a running edge is a very small percentage of the forward velocity of the stone until it nearly comes to a stop. So the retreating edge of the stone is never stationary on the ice until near the very end of travel. That's when you may see the little off-center "spin" when a portion of the running band sticks to the ice.
The Nyberg model DOES account for major aspects of curl, including both the quantity of curl and the lack of a strong dependence of curl on rotational speed for stones thrown with normal rotations (2-5 to tee line). Furthermore, the model has been experimentally tested and the major aspects of the hypothesis can be verified with real stones and ice.
I read the summary of the paper, and it says microscopic scratches created by the front edge 'steer' the rock in the direction of the turn via friction with the back edge of the rock.
Two concerns: 1) there are millions of microscopic scratches on the ice, all going in different directions. 2) Why isn't this enough to get the alberta team to pull their paper?
I didn't want to pay 42$ to read the full paper so if there are any top secret contents that address the concern I have with the theory, I will have to trust. Besides, since when did curlers let the truth get in the way of a good discussion?
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-26-14 07:30PM |
|
RockDoc
Swing Artist
Registered: Apr 2005
Location:
Posts: 399 |
quote:
Originally posted by Flat Hat
In the face of scientific certainty there is still room for doubt... right? Seems like the very foundation of science to question everything.
We stopped seriously questioning Newton's second law some time ago. A force has to be applied in the direction of acceleration. The level of doubt about this is akin to the doubt we have about a spherical earth.
A theory whose physical principles cannot predict the observed behavior is not a useful one. Theories that explain observed behavior MAY be correct. But we can confidently exclude theories that don't make the correct predictions. Exclude enough theories, and the remaining ones become more probable. That's how science works.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-26-14 07:40PM |
|
Flat Hat
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2014
Location:
Posts: 86 |
quote:
Originally posted by duct_tape
Except you aren't questioning, you're making up new forces that don't exist (or at least have never before been seen anywhere, at any time in history) and passing them off as credible alternatives.
Good science works off an observation and then gathers evidence to produce a model to describe how something works. There simply is no evidence at all for your alternative despite the fact we should have seen it millions of times in other applications if it actually existed.
In short, the force you are proposing does not exist. That makes your alternative explanation not credible.
This just in... friction.
Observation is what I base my understanding on. What I can see is that when the rock slows down enough to truly 'stick' the rock behaves like I describe. You could say I even observed in slow motion what I attempted to describe happened at normal speed.
Alternative theories are part of questing for the truth. In fact I presented my theory before I knew about the Nyberg or AB studies. Now that I have read the prevailing wisdom I have questions about it's validity, such as why wouldn't sweeping create scratches to 'steer' the rock in different directions? What about the other scratches on the ice? Why should pebble size or density matter to the amount of curl? why won't the scratches steer the rock on flat ice?
Anyway, I'm enjoying the discussion.
FWIW, Observation often results in theories which then need to be proved or disproved empirically. I can't afford to do the experiments necessary to prove or disprove my theories, however, that shouldn't stop anyone from coming up with theories to start with? 'I think' I have been pretty clear that the ideas I state are not facts. Others who weigh in such as yourself, have no such inhibition and only speak in 'facts'. So be it... way to shut down the spread of misinformation and a good discussion. I am chastened
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-26-14 08:01PM |
|
duct_tape
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 1441 |
quote:
Originally posted by Flat Hat
This just in... friction.
Friction is not a force in the sense we're talking about, we're referring to vectors.
quote:
Originally posted by Flat Hat
Observation is what I base my understanding on. What I can see is that when the rock slows down enough to truly 'stick' the rock behaves like I describe. You could say I even observed in slow motion what I attempted to describe happened at normal speed.
No, what you are observing is the rock curling.
Your hypothesis to explain curl is that the rock is "sticking". It's not an observation, it's an attempted explanation.... and one that doesn't line up with the laws of physics at that.
quote:
Originally posted by Flat Hat
Alternative theories are part of questing for the truth. In fact I presented my theory before I knew about the Nyberg or AB studies. Now that I have read the prevailing wisdom I have questions about it's validity, such as why wouldn't sweeping create scratches to 'steer' the rock in different directions? What about the other scratches on the ice? Why should pebble size or density matter to the amount of curl? why won't the scratches steer the rock on flat ice?
A) Good question about sweeping, that would certainly be something to investigate
B) Another good question, however I would assume it won't take very long for frost to fill in scratches on the ice. moisture will start condensing on the top of the pebble almost instantly after the rock passes over it. Still, something to research for sure
C) Pebble size and density does matter to curl. More surface contact would theoretically create more scratches.
D) The scratches would steer the rock on flat ice.... in fact rocks curl an absurd amount on flat ice. To give you an idea, right after I did my rocks a year or two ago, I threw one on ice that was scraped as flat as hockey ice. It curled about 10 feet (Edge of 12 to opposite 8 foot). Pebbled the ice and it was going 4.5 feet.
quote:
Originally posted by Flat Hat
Anyway, I'm enjoying the discussion.
Me too!
quote:
Originally posted by Flat Hat
FWIW, Observation often results in theories which then need to be proved or disproved empirically. I can't afford to do the experiments necessary to prove or disprove my theories, however, that shouldn't stop anyone from coming up with theories to start with? 'I think' I have been pretty clear that the ideas I state are not facts. Others who weigh in such as yourself, have no such inhibition and only speak in 'facts'. So be it... way to shut down the spread of misinformation and a good discussion. I am chastened
Well, again, you're conflating your hypothesis with your observation. What you're saying you've observed is not what you've observed. What you're proposing is not physically possible.
__________________
"Ladies and gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and slide on the ice"
Last edited by duct_tape on 03-26-14 at 08:20PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-26-14 08:07PM |
|
RockDoc
Swing Artist
Registered: Apr 2005
Location:
Posts: 399 |
quote:
Originally posted by Flat Hat
Besides, since when did curlers let the truth get in the way of a good discussion?
Absolutely!  Same thing applies to cooks and even scientists.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-26-14 08:23PM |
|
RockDoc
Swing Artist
Registered: Apr 2005
Location:
Posts: 399 |
quote:
Originally posted by Flat Hat
why wouldn't sweeping create scratches to 'steer' the rock in different directions? What about the other scratches on the ice? Why should pebble size or density matter to the amount of curl? why won't the scratches steer the rock on flat ice?
These are very good questions, and the Nyberg paper doesn't experimentally address these, although it does provide a good frame work for further exploration. The first two are probably going to be more difficult to address. The third is partially addressed in their paper, as the theory predicts that more scratch/rock interaction, more sideward force applied (more curl). Scratch density will be a complex function of running band diameter and average pebble diameter. The last one was directly addressed in their work. Stones thrown with no rotation over flat ice that was pre-scrstched moved to the side. If they prescratched the ice in different directions a few feet apart, the stones moved one way then the other. If you mean non-pebbled ice by flat, I don't know if they tried it, but it's not terribly relevant to real curling. It's easy enough to try for yourself with emery paper and normal stones. They don't glide too well on nonpebbled ice, though. Too much friction.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-26-14 09:06PM |
|
Flat Hat
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2014
Location:
Posts: 86 |
quote:
Originally posted by RockDoc
These are very good questions, and the Nyberg paper doesn't experimentally address these, although it does provide a good frame work for further exploration. The first two are probably going to be more difficult to address. The third is partially addressed in their paper, as the theory predicts that more scratch/rock interaction, more sideward force applied (more curl). Scratch density will be a complex function of running band diameter and average pebble diameter. The last one was directly addressed in their work. Stones thrown with no rotation over flat ice that was pre-scrstched moved to the side. If they prescratched the ice in different directions a few feet apart, the stones moved one way then the other. If you mean non-pebbled ice by flat, I don't know if they tried it, but it's not terribly relevant to real curling. It's easy enough to try for yourself with emery paper and normal stones. They don't glide too well on nonpebbled ice, though. Too much friction.
Interesting.. pre-scratched how? If they used the same stone across the ice to create these scratches I would be curious if it would still follow. That said, no-handle stones always move at the mercy of the ice, sometimes they even pick up a turn and start curling. I am scratching my head that this is 'proof' that the microscopic scratches are doing the work. Yeah I did mean non-pebbled ice. I've tried to throw a rock on non-pebbled ice and it didn't go very far but I recall it not curling much at all. I brought it up because one key thing I would have eliminated was the pebble as a factor in causing curl. If everything was reproducible with or without pebble I would say that eliminates a lot of uncertainty.
Still playing regards,
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-26-14 09:17PM |
|
duct_tape
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 1441 |
quote:
Originally posted by Flat Hat
Interesting.. pre-scratched how? If they used the same stone across the ice to create these scratches I would be curious if it would still follow. That said, no-handle stones always move at the mercy of the ice, sometimes they even pick up a turn and start curling. I am scratching my head that this is 'proof' that the microscopic scratches are doing the work. Yeah I did mean non-pebbled ice. I've tried to throw a rock on non-pebbled ice and it didn't go very far but I recall it not curling much at all. I brought it up because one key thing I would have eliminated was the pebble as a factor in causing curl. If everything was reproducible with or without pebble I would say that eliminates a lot of uncertainty.
Still playing regards,
Well, if the rock didn't go very far, it's not going to curl much regardless.... doesn't matter if the ice is pebbled or not.
__________________
"Ladies and gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and slide on the ice"
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-26-14 10:15PM |
|
RockDoc
Swing Artist
Registered: Apr 2005
Location:
Posts: 399 |
quote:
Originally posted by Flat Hat
Interesting.. pre-scratched how?
They scratched the ice with emery paper in a particular direction. Rocks try to follow the scratches, which was their thesis. The effect is spooky on the video.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-27-14 01:46AM |
|
Flat Hat
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2014
Location:
Posts: 86 |
quote:
Originally posted by duct_tape
Well, if the rock didn't go very far, it's not going to curl much regardless.... doesn't matter if the ice is pebbled or not.
Yeah we had to throw takeout weights to get it to the other end, which is why I was surprised at a 12' curl.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-27-14 08:45AM |
|
duct_tape
Super Rockchucker
Registered: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 1441 |
quote:
Originally posted by Flat Hat
Yeah we had to throw takeout weights to get it to the other end, which is why I was surprised at a 12' curl.
How much do your rocks curl normally?
__________________
"Ladies and gentlemen, take my advice, pull down your pants and slide on the ice"
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-27-14 11:58AM |
|
Flat Hat
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Mar 2014
Location:
Posts: 86 |
quote:
Originally posted by duct_tape
How much do your rocks curl normally?
odd question. I guess the answer would be 'as much as necessary'? I've rarely seen an 8' curl and never a 12' curl on pebbled ice.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-27-14 12:32PM |
|
ChiefIceMinion
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Nov 2012
Location: In the crawlspace
Posts: 83 |
quote:
Originally posted by duct_tape
A) Good question about sweeping, that would certainly be something to investigate
B) Another good question, however I would assume it won't take very long for frost to fill in scratches on the ice. moisture will start condensing on the top of the pebble almost instantly after the rock passes over it. Still, something to research for sure
Regarding sweeping, the main question would be whether or not the broom heads are scratching the ice or smoothing the ice. I would tend to think the broom is smoothing, probably by wearing down and/or melting the pebble so that prior scratches are "erased". I don't know that the broom head material is hard enough to actually "scratch" the ice.
As for prior scratches, I think the Nyberg theory provides the answer...the "forward" edge of the groove is worn away as the rear edge of the running band hits it, travels along it and then breaks out of it. This breaking would wear out the edge that is supposed to catch the running band and guide it, and this wear prevents the groove(s) from having the same effect on the next rock that travels over it.
Chief Ice Minion
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-27-14 01:10PM |
|
Unregistered
Guest
Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A |
quote:
Originally posted by duct_tape
So who's right? To be kind, it's not you.
To be kind, you could have realized I was making a self-deprecating joke. Poking fun at myself for trying to out argue the physicist about physics. It was just a little sarcasm - a proven, observable force (which, not unlike the curling stone, did not produce the expected results...)!
Report this post to a moderator | IP: 216.81.54.22
|
|
| 03-27-14 01:32PM |
|
RockDoc
Swing Artist
Registered: Apr 2005
Location:
Posts: 399 |
quote:
Originally posted by ChiefIceMinion
Regarding sweeping, the main question would be whether or not the broom heads are scratching the ice or smoothing the ice. I would tend to think the broom is smoothing, probably by wearing down and/or melting the pebble so that prior scratches are "erased". I don't know that the broom head material is hard enough to actually "scratch" the ice.
That would be my take. The only rub is that you are sweeping ice that hasn't been scratched yet by the trailing edge of the stone. So sweeping must affect how those scratches are laid down. We do know from Scottish and Canadian studies thats sweeping warms the ice a few degrees--not enough to melt it, but enough to change the surface properties of the solid (e.g., slickness, hardness, etc.) Ice has a variable hardness depending on temperature (Moh's scale around 1.5-ish and around 60-ish on the Rockwell scale for skating ice) and nylon is in the same range. So I suppose it is possible for nylon broom heads to scratch the ice. The only way to know is to take freshly pebbled ice and then image it like Nyberg did after sweeping. Then you'll know. If scratching the ice in a controlled way is what makes rocks run straighter (by laying down lots of random-ish scratches that overpower the new non-random rock scratches) then we need to think carefully about how to properly design curling brooms, don't we?
quote:
As for prior scratches, I think the Nyberg theory provides the answer...the "forward" edge of the groove is worn away as the rear edge of the running band hits it, travels along it and then breaks out of it. This breaking would wear out the edge that is supposed to catch the running band and guide it, and this wear prevents the groove(s) from having the same effect on the next rock that travels over it.
This is exactly what Nyberg observed for emery-paper-scratched ice. Every time a rock passed over the scratched ice, the scratch-following effect became weaker. Although they did not experimentally verify this, they hypothesize that this is due to the wearing down of the scratches.
Cheers.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-27-14 04:46PM |
|
ChiefIceMinion
Harvey Hacksmasher
Registered: Nov 2012
Location: In the crawlspace
Posts: 83 |
quote:
Originally posted by RockDoc
That would be my take. The only rub is that you are sweeping ice that hasn't been scratched yet by the trailing edge of the stone. So sweeping must affect how those scratches are laid down.
For "fresh" ice, my understanding is that the pebble is still rough from whatever nipping, clipping or rock running was done prior to the start of the game, so the sweeping smoothing out the pebble would have the same friction-reducing effect by erasing the roughness of the pebble.
quote:
So I suppose it is possible for nylon broom heads to scratch the ice. The only way to know is to take freshly pebbled ice and then image it like Nyberg did after sweeping. Then you'll know.
I would think that if the broom heads were scratching the ice in a manner that would increase the curl of a stone, we'd have already seen "observational" evidence (someone's in game experience) of this occurring. However, based on the "accepted wisdom" that all sweeping straightens out a rock's path, either current broom heads smooth (but not scratch the ice OR that the scratches are significantly wider/deeper than the running surface texture, reducing running surface contact and thus curl.
Chief Ice Minion
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
|
| 03-27-14 06:35PM |
|
Unregistered
Guest
Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A |
One thing we have to watch is the "one solution fits all" aspect of this discussion.
There is probably more than one mechanism that accounts for the curl of a rock with each mechanism contributing differently in different circumstances.
The one that strikes me as an example of this is the "break point" in the curl. (Especially with newly textured rock)
Seems to be there is a chance another mechanism becomes more important when the rock slows down enough.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: 142.244.22.230
|
|
 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is . |
  |
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is OFF
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
CurlingZone > Chat Forums > General Curling Chat > Rock Talk > Fun with Physics
In the run up to Christmas Day, 1893, the Aberdeen Peoples's Journal offered a prize of one guinea for the best letter about curling! That's the invitation... (read more)
A quick break for the Memorial Day holiday and we're back with our guest and new USA Curling Womenâs National Team & Juniors Director Jessica Schultz.... (read more)
I am in week 3 of isolation/quarantine/home schooling and getting a little squirrel-y. Personal hygiene has become optional. The kids have watched the entire... (read more)
On today's World Curling Report...we recap Day 1 of the 2019 Canada Cup. (read more)