wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Oct 30, 2010 8:08:29 GMT -8
Hi John, Not sure if you will answer or delete, hope you answer. Could you please help me and Douglas out, as we are still debating, and part of the debate has gone on to this. However I still not sure what D. is trying to prove here. However the debate has gone on to moving 80% as fast as one can, and we both seem to agree that the bar only accelerates for roughly the first 55% of the concentric, but then we start to disagree, could you put us both right please, if you have time ??? Accelerations and decelerations. Here is what I say, Wayne. I first accelerate the weight, {which is 80%, to make it easy we will call that 80 pounds, and my maximum strength is 100 pounds of force moving for the concentric of 1m.} Using a force greater than the weight, using roughly 100 pounds of force for 55% of the concentric. Then the weight starts to decelerate, so I say {forget these numbers they are only to show an example of what I mean} when I use 100 pounds of force the weight is moving at 4mph, then just after 55% of the concentric, say at 60% of the concentric, its decelerating, thus I use 95% force or 95 pounds, so the weight is now only moving at 3.5mph, then at 70% I am now only using 90% pounds force or 90 pounds, so the weight is now only moving at 3mph, and so on until we come to a complete stop {at any speed ???} for a milly second for the transition from positive to negative. Here is what D. says. He says that after 55% on an explosive rep/set, say 10 reps at .5/.5, as then the weight is decelerating, It will have to be using less force than the weight, so that means after 55% of the concentric, I will suddenly go from using 100 pounds force to just under 80 pounds of force. As for a weight to decelerate you have to use less force than the weight on the object if you know what I mean. Got the deceleration information by doing a search on; deceleration William J. Kraemer. books.google.co.uk/books?id=ylsfDoufD_4C&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=kreamer+decceleration&source=bl&ots=f49XIJweIT&sig=YiG_F7oygvWxHZ3n_dkQdoqluNk&hl=en&ei=t3bNTPLpO9S5jAeek5TXBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=falseWe are debating this on a set of repetitions, where you are going immediately from positive to negative and immediately from negative to positive many times, normal set/s. We are still debate which puts out the most force thus most tension on the muscles. 6 reps at .5/.5 = 6 second or 1 rep at 3/3 = 6 seconds. And 24 reps at .5/.5 = 24 seconds or 4 reps at 3/3 = 24 seconds, using roughly 80% or ones 1RM. I go quite strongly for the 6 faster reps, the 6 reps at .5/.5, NOT the 1 rep at 3/3. Wayne
|
|
|
Post by John A. Casler on Oct 31, 2010 12:14:24 GMT -8
Hi John, Not sure if you will answer or delete, hope you answer. Wayne, I have little time to assist you in your arguments, or even my own. I only answer this in case it might help someone understand the issues involved in examining this. Could you please help me and Douglas out, as we are still debating, and part of the debate has gone on to this. However I still not sure what D. is trying to prove here. However the debate has gone on to moving 80% as fast as one can, and we both seem to agree that the bar only accelerates for roughly the first 55% of the concentric, but then we start to disagree, could you put us both right please, if you have time ??? Accelerations and decelerations. Here is what I say, Wayne. I first accelerate the weight, {which is 80%, to make it easy we will call that 80 pounds, and my maximum strength is 100 pounds of force moving for the concentric of 1m.} Using a force greater than the weight, using roughly 100 pounds of force for 55% of the concentric. Then the weight starts to decelerate, so I say {forget these numbers they are only to show an example of what I mean} when I use 100 pounds of force the weight is moving at 4mph, then just after 55% of the concentric, say at 60% of the concentric, its decelerating, thus I use 95% force or 95 pounds, so the weight is now only moving at 3.5mph, then at 70% I am now only using 90% pounds force or 90 pounds, so the weight is now only moving at 3mph, and so on until we come to a complete stop {at any speed ???} for a milly second for the transition from positive to negative. Here is what D. says. He says that after 55% on an explosive rep/set, say 10 reps at .5/.5, as then the weight is decelerating, It will have to be using less force than the weight, so that means after 55% of the concentric, I will suddenly go from using 100 pounds force to just under 80 pounds of force. As for a weight to decelerate you have to use less force than the weight on the object if you know what I mean. The problem with Douglas' argument is he "assumes" you are using a load light enough to reach terminal velocity. Terminal velocity in strength training is the velocity needed to over accelerate the load. If a load that light is used then YES he is correct. But if the load and biomechanics of the lift are such that this never occurs, the load slows because the muscle/joint cannot create ENOUGH force to keep it moving. Under that scenario the muscle/joint NEVER deloads. The problem you and Douglas have is that you both don't seem to understand that Each and Every Rep will have Load Forces, and Muscle/Joint Forces that have to match up. In the early reps, you may have some parts of the Strength Curve that can cause forces well beyond what is needed. As fatigues are created these levels of Muscle/Joint Strength deteriorate. So arguing to an absolute is impossible. All you can do is examine the forces of an individual rep at a specific ROM. You CANNOT argue relative to a whole set of reps. You are wasting your time attempting to argue such scenarios. However the HIGHEST (peak) force will be created with higher Acclerations of the same load. This is not debatable.
|
|
wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Nov 1, 2010 15:05:52 GMT -8
Well this has made more than my day you replying. And my thank you, is that I dont do you know what any more. Also I have not written on Ellington board for many months, and dont think I will again, the only debate I am having is with D. however we are both leaning a very lot, and thats what its all about. Funny thing is I start to read about something and get side tracked and start reading/learning about another completely different thing, as when reading Steven Plisk, William Kreamer, Vladimir M. Zatsiorsky and too many too mention, ho yes and John Casler ROL, still follow your writings of other forums, but as you know and say you do not that much time these days. SORRY ITS A BIT LONG AGAIN. Hi John, Not sure if you will answer or delete, hope you answer. Wayne, I have little time to assist you in your arguments, or even my own. I only answer this in case it might help someone understand the issues involved in examining this. Yes, it will help me and D. and many over at BB.com, we have a good following on this debate, and from this debate only my rep from 1 to 76, and got praise and reps from N2 the other day. Could I post this over there, or would you like to join in if you have time. Yes see your point there, seems like lots did. However, we are now talking of a weight at 80% and to make it easier we are saying this is also 80 pounds. Yes understand that. I did explain to him that unless you know the forces in every instant of the ROM, that physics will not work, as if you remember Jeff worked out if you move such and such a weight such and such a distance and stop immediately that physics dictates that the weight will carry on moving for 3 inches, but then you came in and said the body is not a machine, and as of the biomechanical advantages and disadvantages the muscles will not be pushing with a constant force, thus the weight will not leave your hands. However what D. is saying on this occasion, is as I said before, that when using 80% after 55% of the concentric the weight starts to decelerate, and as far as I know thats true. But he is saying for that weight to decelerate, that then you must be using less force than the bar, less than 80 pounds of force. But I know all too well that when doing faster reps, your trying VERY hard on just about the full distance of the concentric, only at the last say 10% do you immediately slow down and then do the transition. So I say what I say above, here it is again. {HOPE I AM EXPLAINING OK ???} Here is what I say, Wayne. I first accelerate the weight, {which is 80%, to make it easy we will call that 80 pounds, and my maximum strength is 100 pounds of force moving for the concentric of 1m.} Using a force greater than the weight, using roughly 100 pounds of force for 55% of the concentric. Then the weight starts to decelerate, so I say {forget these numbers they are only to show an example of what I mean} when I use 100 pounds of force the weight is moving at 4mph, then just after 55% of the concentric, say at 60% of the concentric, its decelerating, thus I use 95% force or 95 pounds, so the weight is now only moving at 3.5mph, then at 70% I am now only using 90% pounds force or 90 pounds, so the weight is now only moving at 3mph, and so on until we come to a complete stop {at any speed ???} for a milly second for the transition from positive to negative. Here is what D. says. He says that after 55% on an explosive rep/set, say 10 reps at .5/.5, as then the weight is decelerating, It will have to be using less force than the weight, so that means after 55% of the concentric, I will suddenly go from using 100 pounds force to just under 80 pounds of force. As for a weight to decelerate you have to use less force than the weight on the object if you know what I mean. I sort of understand this, however we are trying to generalise the whole rep. D. saying the average force is the same, BUT as I said over the which rep of the fast reps are of the same average force ??? As rep 1 is different for the following reps. So rep 1 will have a different peak, total and average force than the following. Problem one, D. is not saying what concentric reps you he is talking about ??? Rep 1, This rep is the first rep, and will start from zero movement. Reps 2, 3, 4 and so on, These reps WILL have a different force output thus different average force. Before these reps are executed, they will be travelling down on the eccentric at .5 of a second per 1m, thus acceleration component means that the forces exerted on the load and the muscles far exceeds the nominal weight of the load. So its going to take far far far more force from the muscles to stop and reaccelerate a heavy weight that is going down that fast, then it is to accelerate a still weight. Problem 2, Let us turn force into tension, and lets say that when I do 1 rep starting at the concentric at .5/.5 that it put a 100 tension on the muscles, and each other rep because of the above acceleration components puts a 140 tension on the muscles. What you seem to be saying is 1 rep at .5/.5 puts a 100 tension on the muscles, but how much tension are you saying does 6 reps at .5/.5 put on the muscles ??? And how much tension does 1 rep at 3/3 put on the muscles, ??? THIS QUESTION NO ONE SEEMS TO WANT TO ANSWER ???
Problem 3, D. seems to think that the peak force and more overall power in the faster reps put no extra tension on the muscles, HOW he thinks this I will never know. Here is a little scenario I wrote to him.
AVERAGE FORCE PROBLEM 3.
Let us simplify this; we all know the main stimuli for hypertrophy is tension on the muscles.
Fast reps, Take a piece of string {our muscles} this piece of string can take a 100 pounds of force/tension on it for 3 seconds only, then it will break/snap, thus as in the faster reps if I use a higher force/tension for 80% of the rep, the piece of string {our muscles} WILL break/snap thus having MORE total force/tension per unit of time.
100ft/100ft/100ft/100ft/deceleration zero. {ft = force/tension}
Slow reps, Take the same piece of string {our muscles} this piece of string can take a 100 pounds of force/tension on it for 3 seconds only, then it will break/snap. BUT if you put ONLY 80 pounds of force tension on the string {our muscles} for well over an hour the piece of string {our muscles} will NOT break/snap thus having LESS total force/tension per unit of time.
80ft/80ft/80ft/80ft/80ft.
And with the above we have NOT added in the peak forces/tensions from the transition from negative to positive, which can be as high as 140%.
BUT as you will see above from my other posts, the first rep and the concluding reps will have a different force output thus tension on the muscles, thus which reps are of average force ???
Yes, thats what Roger Enoka said to me, when I asked him will physics always work on the human muscles. Or can you only work movements out with physics, as long as you know all the variables at each instant in time/distance.
Wayne,
Fortunately, physics does work on the human body, we just need to formulate the question precisely. The problem with the rationale provided by Jeff is that there are too many assumptions, such as the use of presumed average values. As indicated by John Casler, a 250 lb maximum does not mean that this force is applied throughout the lift. Indeed, this represents the force at the weakest point in the lift. Physics does apply, but solutions require real data that varies over time.
Cheers. Roger M. Enoka, Ph.D. Professor and Chair Department of Integrative Physiology University of Colorado Boulder, CO 80309-0354, USA Phone: 303-492-7232 Fax: 303-492-6778
Yes, get this, as explained in my string theory {ROL string theory physics, the jokes get worst}
Thank you John, hope you have time to reply. Great to see you still very busy, my Father that you may have seen on my YouTube channel is 77 and still Woking with me.
Nearly forgot, I have a bodycraft Jones smith machine coming tomorrow, it moves vertically and horizontally, any tips for lower body exercises if you have time. I was thinking of trying squats and front squats which I now have started again, but was also going to try squats with your feet well in from of your body if you know what I mean, to put extra stress on the quads, or maybe this will have to much stress on the knees.
Wayne
|
|
wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Nov 2, 2010 15:31:18 GMT -8
I was thinking when I went to bed last night, that do you maybe mean like the Jeff calculations, D's calculations maybe right, but they cannot work on the human body because of the biomechanical advantages and disadvantages throughout the ROM, thus maybe my way of thinking is right, in that there is deceleration roughly at 55% using 80% but your still pushing with more force than the load, just your force goes down quite slowly like in my example.
Me and my Father set up my bodycraft Jones smith machine earlier, took us just over an hour. However we did not have a big enough Alan key to take of the other 2-inch sleeve, as for my inch barbell plates to fir ROL. But I played around doing many exercises with just the bar to get used to it. Now I can do lots of exersices using the full "kinetic chain" like squats "biomechanically right and safe at the same time, and many more exercises. I will not make a habit of posting on your form John as because of, well you know. Ok to post this to D.
Wayne
|
|
|
Post by John A. Casler on Nov 16, 2010 10:47:07 GMT -8
I was thinking when I went to bed last night, that do you maybe mean like the Jeff calculations, D's calculations maybe right, but they cannot work on the human body because of the biomechanical advantages and disadvantages throughout the ROM, thus maybe my way of thinking is right, in that there is deceleration roughly at 55% using 80% but your still pushing with more force than the load, just your force goes down quite slowly like in my example. Wayne, Let me be blunt. You do not have the knowledge and education nessessary to answer your question, and neither do I. I doubt anyone can offer "specific" answers since there are too many variables. The biomechanical variances of external load versus muscular force are not easily tracked or understood. There ARE NO absolutes since each rep in a set will have its own set of force and capability relationships. So what might be true for a single rep IS NOT true for all reps and you attempting to argue with people based on hyptheitical single rep examples is futile. Even more futile is hypotheitical multiple rep scenarios with meaningless percentages of load or effort. And finally, the futility level rises even further when you factor in the differences in force interactions relative to eccentric and concentric forces and loads. Point being, you are performing a huge exercise in futility. Your argument cannot be waged due to its complexity, and You don't have the tools to begin waging it.
|
|
wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Nov 19, 2010 15:21:23 GMT -8
Hi John, Thank you as much for the reply as of the answer, and your time. The funny thing is Roger has not got back to me at all on this, and have been very kind in the past answering everything, unless hes away on vacation. I understand what your saying and that to track these forces is a very hard thing to do as of the many variables, but thought you would say who is more right, but if you have not the time for more thank you. As you can see below, I will also now as Per, who has done many studies/tests on the subject, or should I say on similar subjects. If you have time could you please read the below, as D. has drawn out two diagrams, but I am not sure if they are right, and have say why below, and you John know far more about this than me. You will find them on the link below, post 456; I have not had time to think about diagram 2 yet. You will also see my go at how I think the force/strength/tension curve would be, I am not saying I am right, just have an educated, or should I say an uneducated guess at it. Therefore, here is what I think it should look like. Rep 1 will start from zero, and the next reps will not, as they will then have to include the very peak forces of the transition from negative to positive, the MMMTs, which are as high as 140%
Time... force
Slow rep. .1 s .....110 .2 s......110 .3 s......110 .4 s.....110 .5 s....105 .6 s.....100 .7 s.....100 .8s.....100 .9 s.....100 1 s.....100 1.1 s.....100 1.2s.....100 1.3s.....100 1.4s.....100 1.5s.....100 1.6 s....100 1.7 s....100 1.8 s....100 1.9 s ....100 2 s.....100 2.1 s.....100 2.2s.....100 2.3s.....100 2.4s.....100 2.5s.....100 2.6 s....95 2.7 s....85 2.8 s....0 2.9 s ....0 3 s....0 (stopped)
2825 TOTAL FORCE/TENSION ON THE MUSCLES FOR 3 SECONDS.
Fast reps. Rep 1, .1 s....110 .2 s...120 .3 s 120 .4 s 110 .5 s 0 (stopped)
Rep 2, .1 s....168 .2 s...168 .3 s 120 .4 s 110 .5 s 0 (stopped)
Rep 3, .1 s....168 .2 s...168 .3 s 120 .4 s 110 .5 s 0 (stopped)
Rep 4, .1 s....168 .2 s...168 .3 s 120 .4 s110 .5 s 0 (stopped)
Rep 5, .1 s....168 .2 s...168 .3 s 120 .4 s 110 .5 s 0 (stopped)
Rep 6, .1 s....168 .2 s...168 .3 s 120 .4 s 110 .5 s 0 (stopped)
3290 TOTAL FORCE/TENSION ON THE MUSCLES FOR 3 SECONDS.
So thats 17% MORE FORCE/TENSION ON THE MUSCLES IN JUST 3 SECONDS. Add that up into a just 60 seconds of training, and you have the FAST REP PUTTING OUT/ON 340% more force/tension on the muscles.[/size] Hi D,
I do not think this discussion is at all childish ??? I am very much enjoing it. And why !!! would you think I do not understand what you say ??? As its "you" who have not answered 95% of my questions, but I have answered all yours.
First, lets go back to the deceleration issue, Roger has of yet not got back to me. I will also try his friend Per Aagaard Professor, PhD Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics University of Southern Denmark. Also please note John has wrote a little more on his forum.
As I said before D. as of yet you have not pointed me to any scenario or Web-Site that goes along with what you say on decelerations, OR countered what I say happens. ALSO if what you NOW claim is true, which is that after 55% of the concentric using 80% that I am NOW using less than 80% force/strength when I was using 100% or as much as I could, HOW are the average forces STILL the same when now you think, or seem to think that I am now using less that 80% on not a 100% force/strength. The force/strength I used according to you have changed but the average you say is still the same ???
To your diagram, very good, fantastic. however one question of first, your rep goes straight across parallel ??? Using a force/strength thus tension on the muscles of 160 pounds, that lasts 6 seconds, however my reps go up and down for the negatives, so should not your line be parallel at 160 pounds force/strength for 3 seconds, but then drop to a 120 pounds force/strength for the remanding 3 seconds the negative ??? Could we clear this up before we go on.
HOW can rep 1 have the same peak forces as the following ones, when the following reps will have the MMMTs or very more peak of a force.
forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?p=580244081&posted=1#post580244081
Wayne
|
|
|
Post by John A. Casler on Nov 19, 2010 15:35:32 GMT -8
Wayne,
You seem not to get the message.
You cannot create a meaningful analysis of the force/load interaction on a group of reps, and you also cannot do so on even as SINGLE rep, unless you know the biomechanical eficiencies of the joint ot joints being trained, the level of force the muscle can produce (force/length) and the exact level of intensity being produced against the load (capability versus actual perfromance)
Calculating those values is impossible, and that is the problem.
It is absolutley simple to compute power and work, but without the level of intensity you will NOT get an answer, and you cannot compute that without some highly detailed measurements if it can be computed (or even guessed at) at all.
Continuuing to re-word and re-work infinite examples and scenarios WILL NOT add any insight. You may get a PhD in "TRYING" but as Yoda said there is NO such thing as "TRYING", there is only DOING and NOT DOING.
You are NOT DOING.
|
|
wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Feb 6, 2011 8:40:09 GMT -8
William J Kreamer wrote, Typically we let the resistance set the speed as the heavier weights will require slower natural speed of decent so as not to allow gravity to take over, counting is artificial so as we learn more it depends on the exercise as fast speeds are not possible in lifts that you hang on to the bar and slow speeds are typical as the weight gets heavier but this should be done naturally not by counting. The exact time and velocity is also highly individual based on limb length, strength, technique, and as host of variables as that is why controlling the weight down is the key. I do not think we know the exact time for a decent eccentrically as it is a range and highly variable again related to control and the fact that no bouncing is allowed off the chest etc. So exact is not a number that is know from any research it is just what has been observed in monitored movement studies and we are working on the 4th edition of the book and will attempt to clarify this. Kind Regards, Dr Kraemer Kraemer, William <william.kraemer@uconn.edu> Hi William, We were just woundering the exact time of the concentric using 81% It was in your book, page 229. Designing resistance training programs. By Steven J. Fleck, William J. Kraemer. books.google.co.uk/books?id=ylsfDoufD_4C&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=kreamer+decceleration&source=bl&ots=f49XIJweIT&sig=YiG_F7oygvWxHZ3n_dkQdoqluNk&hl=en&ei=t3bNTPLpO9S5jAeek5TXBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Wayne NOT sure why he taks about the eccentric so much, as I asked about the concentric as thats what a RM is Wayne
|
|
wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Feb 6, 2011 12:49:47 GMT -8
John, I will sit back and just watch you write on Ellington’s and the other boards and not comment, and learn as much as I can, as “my” trade is mine, and “your” is yours. However, I do understand a very lot of what you say, just I cannot put it into words, but did I know more than half of what you say and write, no, but boy is it a huge buzz to hear what you write. Multiple rep cycles for multiple forces thus far far far more tensions to the muscle, within a different number of reps and sets. But some cannot see this.
Wayne hope Johns says, that’s more like it, wish you had done that years ago.
Wayne
|
|
wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Feb 6, 2011 13:00:01 GMT -8
The below is what I have been trying to tell them all along.
Johhn wrote; Average force and rep speed have absolutely no correlation values to compare. It is a red herring when used for that purpose. in a set of reps, whatever load used will determine the average force during each rep.
But what is missed is that stimulus IS NOT created via "average force". It is a product of any peak or HIGH force at ANY point in the rep.
Also while the "average forcers" seem to think it relevant, they forget that while they use a 4/4 (8 second rep) those who train with compensatory acceleration style 1/1 have performed 4 full reps. The load exposure (WORK) is 4:1. That is how the upper level BB's train.
Wayne
|
|
wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Feb 6, 2011 14:25:20 GMT -8
You know what, I thought it would be fair to use the same weight in the different reps, but you told me that would not be right, but I wanted it to be fair, but now I see it would actually be fair if we used the different weights, sorry, just could not see it.
I am not Mr Strong, I just asked him to post that for me. I imagine you really know that, as the way my bad Grammar is, however his is not as bad, and the way I talk about very different things to him.
Wayne
|
|
wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Feb 9, 2011 6:22:01 GMT -8
Me and D. were talking of the study from the book I gave you above, that is why I mailed Dr Kreamer, now he talks about this new one. Sorry for maybe confusing matters.
Wayne
|
|
wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Feb 10, 2011 13:24:52 GMT -8
Here is the Elliott 81% RM, that D. is on about. I told D. many times that I do not see the point in this, as its just the first rep., and its only one dammed study were we do not know the speed of the rep. D. has got his pysics backwards, he also thinks a slow rep uses the same energy doing both fast and slow reps in the same time frame. He also does not even understand power {work energy} or force, or even that the peak and higher high forces are far far far higher in the faster repsJohn, I am just going to sit back and watch. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_TrainingWilliam J Kreamer wrote, Typically we let the resistance set the speed as the heavier weights will require slower natural speed of decent so as not to allow gravity to take over, counting is artificial so as we learn more it depends on the exercise as fast speeds are not possible in lifts that you hang on to the bar and slow speeds are typical as the weight gets heavier but this should be done naturally not by counting. The exact time and velocity is also highly individual based on limb length, strength, technique, and as host of variables as that is why controlling the weight down is the key. I do not think we know the exact time for a decent eccentrically as it is a range and highly variable again related to control and the fact that no bouncing is allowed off the chest etc. So exact is not a number that is know from any research it is just what has been observed in monitored movement studies and we are working on the 4th edition of the book and will attempt to clarify this. Kind Regards, Dr Kraemer Kraemer, William <william.kraemer@uconn.edu> Hi William, Could you please tell the exact time of the concentric on that bench press, where you used 81% and decceleration time was 52% As I often use a more explosive type of rep, say half a second to three quarters of a second concentric, but do not feel deceleration this early. As I try to push with 100% till just before the transition to the eccentric. Thank you for your time. Wayne It was in your book, page 229. Designing resistance training programs. By Steven J. Fleck, William J. Kraemer. books.google.co.uk/...epage&q&f=false books.google.co.uk/books?id=ylsfDoufD_4C&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=kreamer+decceleration&source=bl&ots=f49XIJweIT&sig=YiG_F7oygvWxHZ3n_dkQdoqluNk&hl=en&ei=t3bNTPLpO9S5jAeek5TXBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=falseNOT sure why he talks about the eccentric so much, as I asked about the concentric as thats what a RM is. Wayne
|
|
wayne
Junior Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by wayne on Feb 13, 2011 13:01:54 GMT -8
Hi John, I am not Mr Strong, but I think you know that, by my way of writing and bad Grammer. But as I said, I did ask him to post a few things for me, the below. fast rep, {split up into 5 segments} 100, 100, 100, 80, 20. {second fast rep 140, 100, 100, 60, zero} Slow rep, 80, 80, 80, 80, 80. The averages are/seem the same, but the peak forces are higher. 100 = 20, or 25% more than 80, and again, 100 = 20 or 25% more than 80, and again, 100 = 20 or 25% more than 80. Or second rep, 140 = 60 or 75% more than 100, then 100 = 20, or 25% more than 80, and again, 100 = 20 or 25% more than 80, thuis I can not see how the forces are the same. And impuse is higher. But tell me this all, why does not the slow rep flatten the clay out so much than, as you all claim the average forces are the same, if they were they would and should all even out in the long run, and when the fast reps are decelerating and not using much force, the slow rep are still using their medium force, thus they should catch up and flatten out the clay as much as the fast reps, but they do not do they Wayne
|
|
|
Post by John A. Casler on Feb 13, 2011 13:08:30 GMT -8
Hi John, But tell me this all, why does not the slow rep flatten the clay out so much than, as you all claim the average forces are the same, if they were they would and should all even out in the long run, and when the fast reps are decelerating and not using much force, the slow rep are still using their medium force, thus they should catch up and flatten out the clay as much as the fast reps, but they do not do they Wayne It is a flawed experiment without knowing what level of plasticity causes deformation. However if you try it and get your anticipated result, it is likely because of higher peak forces causing greater deformations. As well if you perfrom more reps, that too will increase eother the time or number of cycles integral to cause deformation.
|
|